PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 660.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Aug 20, 2026
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.
People & committees
Rep. Fine, Randy [R-FL-6] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 660.
Committee on the Judiciary discharged.
Committee on the Judiciary discharged.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Workforce. H. Rept. 119-759, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Workforce. H. Rept. 119-759, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 20 - 12.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 6, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.8476 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.8476 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.8476 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.8476 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.