H.R. 4795House bill · 119th CongressPassed HouseEducation

Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026

Sponsored byVirginia FoxxR-NC-5Introduced Jul 29, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 1, 2026) Rule H. Res. 1499 passed House.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Aug 27, 2026

This bill prohibits institutions of higher education (IHEs) that participate in federal student aid programs from engaging in boycotts against Israel. Specifically, IHEs may not engage in a commercial action intended to limit commercial relations with Israel, or with an entity licensed by, regulated by, or organized under the laws of Israel, that is not based on a valid business reason.

Further, IHEs receiving, or applying to receive, Title VI funds (federal funding for foreign language and international education programs) must annually certify that (1) students and faculty are allowed to participate in academic programs located in Israel in the same manner and under the same terms and conditions as programs in other foreign countries, and (2) students and faculty at postsecondary institutions located in Israel may participate in such IHE’s academic programs in the same manner and under the same terms and conditions as students and faculty from other foreign countries.

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

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • decisive vote

    House · Sep 3, 2026

    Whether the bill passes the House. This is the vote most people mean.

    237169

    Passed

    Every vote →

Who lobbied on this

1 organization

These organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.

  • J Streetno position stated
    …- No Antisemitism in Education Act H.R.8476 - No Antisemitism in Education Act of 2026 H.R.6806 - Antisemitism Response and Prevention Act of 2025 H.R.4795 - Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2025 H.R.9203 - Student Protection and University Accountability Act H.R.5505 - Equal Campus… filing ↗

Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.

Discussion

13 comments

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

Sort
9
lauren_vDemoOK-2voted 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. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
3
JMTanakaDemoTX-1voted Nay5d ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it means starting over next Congress.
9
arthur.oduyaDemoTX-4voted Yea6d ago
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
8
marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Yea5d ago
Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
7
kwame.ibarraDemoLA-2voted Nay4d ago
5 sections is worth knowing before anyone argues about the title. Whatever this is, it isn't small.
5
SierraTrailDemoCA-12voted Yea4d ago
The sunset point is the strongest thing in this thread and nobody's answered it.
7
mfitzhughDemoGA-9voted Yea6d 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 committee report would settle it either way.
6
JMTanakaDemoTX-1voted Nay5d ago
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
4
front_range_dadDemoNC-13voted Nay3d ago
The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
4
hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Yea4d ago
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
4
SierraTrailDemoCA-12voted Yea4d ago
The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
4
r_castellanoDemoMN-6voted Nay6d ago
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
4
arthur.oduyaDemoTX-4voted Yea6d ago
The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
Your position on H.R. 4795100% Yea · 1 VoteWire user