The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecordsLedger AI

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
H.R. 9839·119th Congress·Introduced Jul 22, 2026

STRONG Kids Act

IntroducedSports and RecreationSubstantive
View bill text
Sponsor
Rep. Carey, Mike [R-OH-15]
Committees
Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
Last action
Jul 22, 2026

Bottom line

The STRONG Kids Act creates a federal grant program to fund local youth sports initiatives, focusing on increasing participation, improving program quality, and enhancing safety, particularly for underserved youth.

What it actually does

This bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a competitive grant program. These grants will be awarded to national or regional non-profit or government organizations that run youth sports programs. These organizations will then issue subgrants to local non-profit or government entities to improve the health and positive youth development impacts of physical activity and youth sports, increase access to such programs, promote safety, and prevent abuse for individuals under 18 years of age.

Proponents argue

Supporters would argue that the bill addresses critical issues in youth development by promoting physical activity, healthy lifestyles, and character building through sports. They would emphasize the importance of increasing access for underserved populations, ensuring safety through abuse prevention measures, and providing structured programs that foster positive social and mental health outcomes for children and adolescents. The two-tiered grant structure ensures funds reach local, experienced entities.

Opponents contend

Critics might argue that this program represents an overreach of federal involvement into local community activities, which could be better managed at the state or local level. Concerns could be raised about the administrative overhead of a two-tiered grant system, potential for bureaucratic inefficiencies, and whether federal funding is the most effective way to address local youth sports challenges, rather than relying on private initiatives or existing community resources.

The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its provisions within a reasonable timeframe.

Section 2(a)

Establishment of Grant Program for Youth Sports

prominently featuredstraightforward

This section directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with the Director of the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, to create a competitive grant program. These grants will be awarded to national or regional non-profit or government organizations that run youth sports programs. The purpose of these grants is to fund subgrants that improve the health and positive development impacts of youth physical activity and sports, and to increase access to such programs for individuals under 18.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupNational/Regional Non-profits & Government OrganizationsImpactReceive federal funding to administer subgrant programs.MechanismCompetitive grant application process.ScalePotentially millions of dollars per organization.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue this centralized approach allows for broader reach and strategic allocation of funds to experienced organizations capable of managing a subgranting process, ensuring federal resources are efficiently distributed to local levels.

Critics contend

Critics might contend that adding an intermediary layer (national/regional organizations) could introduce unnecessary administrative costs and delays, potentially diverting funds from direct services to youth.

Tradeoffs

Balances the desire for broad federal impact with the need for local program delivery, potentially at the cost of direct funding efficiency.

Section 2(b), (c), (d)

Subgrants to Local Entities and Eligible Activities

prominently featuredmoderately complex

The bill mandates that organizations receiving federal grants must then issue competitive subgrants to local non-profit or government organizations with experience in youth sports. These subgrants can be used for a wide range of activities, including lowering participation barriers for disabled, economically, or geographically limited youth, coach training (including concussion and abuse prevention), promoting positive lifestyle behaviors, venue modifications for ADA compliance, fee reductions/scholarships, increasing organizational capacity, and implementing SafeSport protocols.

Section 2(j)

Dedicated Funding from Internal Revenue Code Section 4401

buried in fine printmoderately complex

This section authorizes appropriations for the grant program. For fiscal year 2027, the amount is 50% of the funds received by the Secretary of the Treasury under Section 4401 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 4401) for calendar year 2025. For fiscal years 2028 through 2037, the amount will be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Section 4401 relates to taxes on wagers.

FOUND

The bill authorizes appropriations for the grant program, specifying that for fiscal year 2027, the amount will be 50% of the funds received by the Secretary of the Treasury under Section 4401 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 4401) with respect to the 2025 calendar year. This section of the Internal Revenue Code imposes an excise tax on wagers.

Section 2(j)(1)(A)

Why it matters:Referencing existing tax code sections is standard legislative practice for brevity and to integrate new programs into existing financial structures. However, it can obscure the specific source of funds for those unfamiliar with tax law.

Case for: Proponents would argue that using a portion of existing tax revenue, particularly from activities like wagers, is a pragmatic way to fund youth development programs, potentially aligning with a 'sin tax' philosophy where revenue from certain activities is used for public good. It provides a dedicated, potentially stable funding stream.

Case against: Critics might argue that linking a youth sports program to gambling taxes could be seen as an indirect endorsement or normalization of such activities. Furthermore, the revenue from wagers can be volatile, potentially leading to unpredictable funding levels for the program.

Estimated impact: Provides a dedicated, inflation-adjusted funding stream for the STRONG Kids Act for 11 fiscal years (FY2027-FY2037), with the initial amount tied to 50% of 2025 wager tax receipts. The exact dollar amount is not specified in the bill.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Buried treasure
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
Ask Ledger AI about this