H.R. 4795House bill · 119th CongressIn the SenateEducation

Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026

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

Latest action (Sep 14, 2026) — Received in the Senate and Read twice and on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

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.
237 – 169
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

26 comments

Sort

OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Nay1mo ago

Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.

arthur.oduyaDemoTX-4voted Yea1mo 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.

notmyfirstrodeoDemoCO-1voted Nay1mo ago

What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. None of that is settled by the summary.

marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Yea1mo ago

Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.

birch_ledgerDemoLA-2voted Nay1mo ago

Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? None of that is settled by the summary.

birch_ledgerDemoLA-2voted Nay1mo 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. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.

kwame.ibarraDemoLA-2voted Nay1mo ago

5 sections is worth knowing before anyone argues about the title. Whatever this is, it isn't small.

SierraTrailDemoCA-12voted Yea1mo ago

The sunset point is the strongest thing in this thread and nobody's answered it.

mfitzhughDemoGA-9voted Yea1mo 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.

sunset_almanacDemoVA-10voted Nay1mo ago

I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

JMTanakaDemoTX-1voted Nay1mo 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.

petra.lindqvistDemoTX-19voted Nay1mo ago

What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work.

river_readerDemoIL-10voted Nay1mo ago

Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Yea1mo ago

The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

front_range_dadDemoNC-13voted Nay1mo 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.

hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Yea1mo 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.

SierraTrailDemoCA-12voted Yea1mo 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.

r_castellanoDemoMN-6voted Nay1mo 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.

arthur.oduyaDemoTX-4voted Yea1mo ago

The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.

tomas.delgadoDemoVA-4voted Yea1mo 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. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Yea1mo ago

Same conclusion, different route. I'm less worried about the reach and more about who ends up administering it.

TheLongViewDemoNY-6voted Yea1mo ago

The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

clay_commuterDemoCA-71mo ago

That's true of almost every bill though, isn't it? At some point the objection stops being about this one.

birch_ledgerDemoLA-2voted Nay1mo ago

The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

lauren_vDemoOK-2voted Nay1mo 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.

JMTanakaDemoTX-1voted Nay1mo ago

You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it means starting over next Congress.

Your position on H.R. 4795100% Yea · 1 VoteWire user