H.R. 8476House bill · 119th CongressOn the calendarEducation

No Antisemitism in Education Act of 2026

Sponsored byRandy FineR-FL-6Introduced Apr 23, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 20, 2026) — , Calendar No. 660.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

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

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
“…Act H.R.5714 - October 7 Remembrance Education Act S.163 - Protecting Students on Campus Act of 2025 H.R.6186 - 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…” 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

Sort

TheLongViewDemoNY-6voted Yea19h 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? The committee report would settle it either way.

district_watcherDemoTX-27voted Yea2d ago

In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.

hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Yea1d ago

What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.

kwame.abadiDemoFL-13voted Yea2d 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. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.

quietriverbendDemoCA-21voted Nay10h ago

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

mfitzhughDemoGA-9voted Nay21h ago

I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. The committee report would settle it either way.

dustin_reyesDemoNJ-11voted Yea1d ago

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

m.kowalczykDemoLA-1voted Nay2d ago

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

publiclandsfanDemoNC-11voted Nay7h ago

Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

JMTanakaDemoTX-18h ago

Fair, though the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.

NorthWoodsNinaDemoNY-12voted Yea1d ago

My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

publiclandsfanDemoNC-11voted Nay1d ago

This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

MidwestMechanicDemoPA-17voted Yea2d ago

The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.

Your position on H.R. 8476No positions yet