H.R. 8476 explained · 119th Congress · Pending in Congress
No Antisemitism in Education Act of 2026
Cosponsors: 16 (0 D, 16 R) · per Congress.gov, 2026-10-14
Introduced: 2026-04-23
Latest action (2026-08-20): Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 660.
What H.R. 8476 does, in plain terms
No Antisemitism in Education Act of 2026 This bill requires local educational agencies (LEAs) and institutions of higher education (IHEs), as a condition of receiving federal funds, to treat discrimination that is motivated by antisemitism as vigorously as the LEA or IHE treats all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs or activities.) The bill requires federal agencies, LEAs, and IHEs to consider the definition of antisemitism contained in a December 11, 2019, executive order when reviewing or investigating whether a discriminatory act or omission was motivated by discriminatory antisemitic intent. The executive order incorporates the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA's) working definition of antisemitism. According to the IHRA's working definition, antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.
Official summary by the Congressional Research Service, via Congress.gov.
Constitution Index
“VFA Constitution grade”
Not graded yet
H.R. 8476 has not been graded yet. New measures with an official summary are graded daily under the published rubric.
The Framers
“Founders’ Verdict”
Confidence 0.75
Archived SI output (machine-generated)No editorial review recorded. This historical SI verdict was machine-generated by software and predates the review desk; check it against the official bill text.
Synthesis
The bill is constitutional only if it is narrowly tailored to prohibit discriminatory conduct that rises to the level of harassment or intimidation, with a precise definition of antisemitism that does not chill protected speech under the First Amendment, and respects the Tenth Amendment by not overreaching into state-controlled education. It must be modified to avoid vagueness and overbreadth.
The Congress may exercise its spending power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 to attach conditions to federal education funds, provided such conditions are unambiguous and related to the federal interest. However, this bill must be carefully tailored to avoid infringing upon the First Amendment's protection of free speech and the principle of federalism embodied in the Tenth Amendment. The definition of antisemitism must be precise and not punish protected speech. The bill should be modified to ensure it targets only discriminatory conduct that rises to the level of harassment or intimidat…
This bill exceeds the limited powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Education is a matter reserved to the states and the people under the Tenth Amendment, and Congress has no enumerated authority to prescribe curriculum or regulate the expression of ideas in schools. Furthermore, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law abridging the freedom of speech; a federal prohibition on 'antisemitism' would inevitably chill protected discourse on matters of religion, ethnicity, and public policy. Even if the bill were framed as a condition on federal spending,…
The proposed legislation must be examined with great caution. The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, enumerates the powers of Congress, and while the spending clause and the necessary and proper clause may allow Congress to attach conditions to federal education funds, such conditions must not infringe upon the First Amendment's protection of free speech and free exercise of religion. The definition of 'antisemitism' in the bill must be precise and narrowly tailored to avoid chilling protected speech or religious expression, as the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law abr…
The Constitution vests in Congress the power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare, and by the necessary and proper clause, to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution that power. Under the doctrine of implied powers affirmed in McCulloch v. Maryland, Congress may employ means not explicitly enumerated to effectuate its legitimate ends. The proposed legislation, by attaching conditions to federal education funds, seeks to prohibit antisemitic discrimination—a purpose that falls within the general welfare. However, the First Amendment d…
Report an error in this Founders' Verdict
What should pass
“VFA SI Solution”
No solution yet
A sourced SI draft appears here once it passes automated checks (Constitution citation, source verification, independent SI critic). How publication works.
Related on VFA
For journalists and bloggers
“Embed this grade”
Free to use with the link back. The badge and card update when the grade changes. Embed terms →
