GRACE Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 23, 2026
Bottom line
The bill mandates that educational entities receiving federal funds must grant religious exemptions to vaccination requirements without requiring proof of religious belief.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits the award of any federal education funds to educational institutions or agencies that impose vaccination requirements, unless those entities maintain a policy allowing individuals to claim a religious exemption. Crucially, the bill specifies that such institutions cannot require any documentation or other information to support the validity of an individual's assertion that receiving a vaccination would violate a sincerely held religious belief.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is essential for protecting religious freedom and parental rights, ensuring that individuals are not forced to compromise their sincerely held religious beliefs regarding vaccinations as a condition for education or employment. They contend it prevents government overreach into personal faith and upholds the principle that religious convictions should not be subject to secular verification.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill undermines public health efforts by potentially increasing the risk of vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks within schools and the broader community. They may contend that removing any verification process for religious exemptions could lead to a significant decline in vaccination rates, thereby jeopardizing community immunity and the safety of vulnerable individuals.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for a quick and informed evaluation.
Section 2(a)
Prohibition on Federal Education Funds for Institutions Without Religious Vaccination Exemptions
This provision stipulates that any educational institution or agency receiving federal education funds must allow individuals (or their parents/guardians, for children) to claim an exemption from vaccination requirements based on a sincerely held religious belief. A key aspect is that the institution is explicitly prohibited from demanding any documentation or additional information to verify the sincerity of this religious assertion. This applies to all educational entities from elementary schools to state educational agencies, covering conditions for enrollment, attendance, participation in activities, or employment.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for protecting fundamental religious liberties, ensuring that individuals are not forced to choose between their faith and access to education or employment. They emphasize that the government should not dictate religious practices or require individuals to prove the sincerity of their beliefs to secular authorities.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this provision could weaken public health protections by making it too easy to opt out of vaccinations, potentially leading to outbreaks of preventable diseases within school communities. They argue that public health mandates, including vaccinations, are a legitimate exercise of state power to protect the broader population, especially vulnerable individuals who cannot be vaccinated.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between individual religious freedom and collective public health. It prioritizes the individual's right to religious accommodation over the potential public health benefits of universal vaccination requirements, particularly by removing any verification process for religious claims.
Defines "educational institution or agency" by referencing section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
Section 2(b)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for brevity and consistency, avoiding re-listing definitions already established in federal law.
Case for: Referencing existing definitions streamlines legislation and ensures consistency with established legal frameworks for education.
Case against: It makes the bill less self-contained, requiring external research to fully grasp its applicability.
Estimated impact: This reference clarifies that the bill applies to virtually all publicly funded K-12 educational entities and state-level education departments.
States that "no documentation or other information is required to be submitted by the individual (or their parent or guardian) to support the validity of such assertion" of a sincerely held religious belief.
Section 2(a)(2)
Why it matters:This is a deliberate policy choice, not an attempt to hide, but its full implications might not be immediately apparent without careful consideration of existing religious exemption policies.
Case for: Proponents argue this protects religious freedom by preventing institutions from questioning or judging the sincerity of an individual's religious beliefs, which they contend is an inappropriate government intrusion into faith.
Case against: Opponents argue this provision makes it too easy for individuals to claim a religious exemption without genuine religious conviction, potentially allowing for non-religious objections to bypass public health measures, thereby undermining community immunity.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly increase the number of individuals claiming religious exemptions, as it removes any administrative hurdle or verification process.