H.R. 2555House bill · 119th CongressOn the calendarEducation

Freedom of Association in Higher Education Act of 2026

Sponsored byErin HouchinR-IN-9Introduced Apr 1, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 27, 2026) , Calendar No. 682.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Apr 1, 2025

Freedom of Association in Higher Education Act of 2025

This bill establishes freedom of association protections for college students in single-sex social organizations.

Specifically, the bill gives students (or groups of students) enrolled at institutions of higher education (IHEs) the right to form or join social organizations, including single-sex social organizations.

Additionally, the bill prohibits IHEs that participate in federal student aid programs from

taking adverse actions against single-sex social organizations or students who are members or prospective members of such organizations based solely on the practice of limiting membership to only individuals of one sex;taking actions that require or coerce members or prospective members of such organizations to waive protections provided under the bill, including as a condition of enrolling in the IHE; orimposing a recruitment restriction on a single-sex social organization that is not imposed upon other student organizations, unless the organization and IHE have entered into a written agreement allowing the restriction.

Face Value

as reported to the House
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

13 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
9
SierraTrailDemoCA-12voted Yea6d ago
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
2
lauren_vDemoOK-2voted Nay6d ago
"The states are doing it" cuts the other way for me. If it works there, why federalise it?
8
front_range_dadDemoNC-13voted Yea4d ago
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
7
adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Yea3d ago
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
7
civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Nay5d ago
Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. None of that is settled by the summary.
6
deltalibrarianDemoDC-ALvoted Yea5d ago
I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do.
5
kwame.ibarraDemoLA-2voted Nay3d ago
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. The committee report would settle it either way.
5
hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Yea5d ago
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. None of that is settled by the summary.
4
AnnaLeeCDemoCA-38voted Yea4d ago
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. The committee report would settle it either way.
4
sam_whitfieldDemoMD-7voted Nay6d ago
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
3
tomas.delgadoDemoVA-4voted Yea4d ago
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
2
sam_whitfieldDemoMD-7voted Nay3d ago
Face Value of 100, which is about as narrow as bills get. Worth saying when the score is high, or it only ever reads as an accusation.
2
lauren_vDemoOK-2voted Nay6d ago
Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
Your position on H.R. 2555No positions yet