CHARLIE Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 21, 2026
Bottom line
The bill restricts federal civics and history education funding to exclude specific ideological content and to ensure grant awards are not prioritized based on protected characteristics.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the CHARLIE Act, amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to prohibit the use of federal funds from the American History and Civics program for activities promoting 'discriminatory equity ideology' or 'gender ideology'. It also prevents the Secretary of Education from giving grant priority based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or immigration status for entities, individuals, or proposed activities.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is necessary to prevent federal funds from being used to promote what they consider 'radical indoctrination' in K-12 schooling. They contend it ensures that American history and civics education focuses on foundational principles without incorporating divisive or non-traditional viewpoints, and that grant awards are made on merit rather than identity-based preferences.
Opponents contend
Critics contend that this bill represents federal overreach into local curriculum decisions and could stifle important discussions on diversity, equity, and inclusion in education. They argue that prohibiting funding for certain ideologies and removing identity-based grant priorities could limit comprehensive historical understanding and disadvantage programs designed to support marginalized student populations.
The bill text is very short and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for evaluation.
Section 2(c)(1)
Prohibition on Funding for Discriminatory Equity and Gender Ideologies
This provision explicitly states that no funds made available for the American History and Civics program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 may be used for 'discriminatory equity ideology' or 'gender ideology'. The specific definitions of these terms are incorporated by reference to external Executive Orders.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial to ensure federal taxpayer dollars are not used to promote what they view as divisive or politically charged ideologies in classrooms, thereby refocusing civics education on traditional American principles and history.
Critics contend
Critics contend that this prohibition could lead to censorship of educational content, limit academic freedom, and prevent schools from addressing important contemporary social issues or diverse historical perspectives in a comprehensive manner.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between federal oversight of educational funding to align with specific ideological viewpoints and the principles of local control over curriculum and academic freedom in exploring a wide range of historical and social topics.
Section 2(c)(2)
Prohibition on Grant Priority Based on Protected Characteristics
This provision prohibits the Secretary of Education from giving priority to eligible entities when awarding grants under the American History and Civics program based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or immigration status. This applies to the identity or purpose of the entity, the identity of its personnel or those served, or the proposed activities.
The bill defines 'discriminatory equity ideology' by reference to section 2 of Executive Order 14190 (90 Fed. Reg. 8853) and 'gender ideology' by reference to section 2 of Executive Order 14168 (90 Fed. Reg. 8615).
Section 2(d)(1) and (2)
Why it matters:Incorporating definitions by reference is a common legislative practice to avoid repeating extensive text. However, in this context, it means the precise scope of the bill's prohibitions is not immediately apparent to a reader without consulting external documents, which could be seen as a way to avoid direct debate on the specific content of these ideologies within the bill.
Case for: Supporters argue that referencing existing Executive Orders streamlines the legislative process and ensures consistency with broader administrative policy regarding these terms, avoiding redundancy.
Case against: Critics contend that this method makes the bill's actual impact opaque to a casual reader, requiring significant external research to understand the full implications of the prohibitions, potentially obscuring the true extent of the restrictions.
Estimated impact: The impact is substantial, as these external definitions dictate the precise content and pedagogical approaches that would be prohibited from receiving federal funding, directly shaping what can and cannot be taught in federally funded civics and history programs.