SB227, the PEACE Act of 2025, adds a prohibition to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to prevent using funds for curriculum, teaching, or counseling that promotes or compels divisive concepts as identified by the Department of Education’s proposed priorities for American History and Civics Education. The prohibition anchors on a specific DOE rule reference (86 Fed.
Reg. 20348, April 19, 2021) and ties to the funding streams under the subpart of the ESEA that supports American History and Civics Education. The bill then provides a definition framework for what counts as a divisive concept, including notions tied to race and racial identity.
The overarching aim is to shield federally funded civics education from content that could frame race in a way the bill defines as divisive. This is a policy gatekeeping measure focused on funding compliance rather than curriculum design per se.
It creates a clear, enforceable constraint for recipients of those funds and signals a federal boundary for educational content in this area.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds a prohibition in Section 2231 of the ESEA that none of the funds made available for this subpart may be used to fund curriculum, teaching, or counseling that promotes or compels a divisive concept under the DOE’s proposed priorities for American History and Civics Education.
Who It Affects
Recipients of funds under the ESEA subpart for American History and Civics Education—primarily state educational agencies and local education agencies—must ensure funded activities do not promote divisive concepts.
Why It Matters
Sets a federal funding guardrail around civics and history education, signaling a standard for permissible content and potentially shaping how schools approach race-related topics in federally funded programs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The PEACE Act of 2025 tightens the use of federal funds for American History and Civics Education by prohibiting curriculum, teaching, or counseling that promotes or compels a divisive concept. The prohibition is implemented by amending Section 2231 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, adding a new subsection that restricts funds from supporting content aligned with the DOE’s proposed priorities for American History and Civics Education.
The bill couples this restriction with explicit definitions of what counts as a divisive concept, including race stereotyping and race scapegoating, among others, and ties the prohibition to the priorities published in the 2021 DOE rule. The intended effect is to create a clear, enforceable boundary for federally funded civics education, ensuring that funds are used for curricula and counseling that do not promote the enumerated divisive concepts.
The bill does not include explicit exemptions or penalties within the text, instead signaling a funding-control approach to enforcement.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new prohibition to Section 2231 of the ESEA restricting use of funds for divisive-concept content.
It relies on a defined list of divisive concepts that includes race stereotyping and race scapegoating.
The prohibition references the DOE’s 2021 proposed priorities for American History and Civics Education (86 Fed. Reg. 20348).
The measure applies to funds made available to carry out the subpart of the ESEA related to American History and Civics Education.
No explicit penalties or exemptions are defined in the bill text.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This Act may be cited as the ‘Protect Equality And Civics Education Act of 2025’ or the ‘PEACE Act of 2025.’ The section provides the official short title for reference and downstream citation.
Prohibition On Use Of Funds
Section 2 amends Section 2231 of the ESEA by adding a new subsection (c) entitled PROHIBITION. Subsection (1) establishes that none of the funds available to carry out this subpart may be used to fund curriculum, teaching, or counseling that promotes or compels a divisive concept under the DOE’s proposed priorities for American History and Civics Education. Subsection (2) provides definitions for terms used in the prohibition, including ‘promotes or compels a divisive concept,’ ‘race scapegoating,’ and ‘race stereotyping.’ These definitions are drawn from the priorities noticed in the 2021 DOE rule (86 Fed. Reg. 20348). This section creates a binding spending constraint tied to federal funding allocations and the DOE’s prior rulemaking framework, establishing a concrete compliance boundary for recipients.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State Educational Agencies (SEAs) administering federal American History and Civics Education funds benefit from a clear compliance framework that aligns with national policy priorities and reduces programmatic risk.
- Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) and school districts receiving the targeted funds gain a defined standard to guide curriculum selection and professional development, lowering ambiguity about what is permissible under federal funding.
- Curriculum developers and publishers that offer materials aligned with non-divisive frameworks benefit from a predictable market environment where compliance is straightforward and well-defined.
- Compliance officers and curriculum coordinators gain a clear, auditable standard to monitor funded activities and ensure timely reporting to federal funders.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local education agencies may incur costs to review and revise curricula and professional development programs to ensure alignment with the definition of ‘divisive concepts’ and the DOE priorities.
- State education agencies may face administrative costs associated with monitoring, auditing, and reporting on compliance with the new prohibition.
- Educational content publishers may incur costs to adjust or discontinue products that would be disallowed under the new prohibition.
- School leaders and administrators may incur procurement and implementation costs to align funded activities with the statute’s restrictions.
- Some institutions could experience reduced access to certain federally funded curricula or programs if current materials are deemed to promote divisive concepts.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between preventing the teaching of content the bill defines as divisive and preserving academic freedom to address race, history, and civics in a rigorous, contextualized way. The enumerated concepts create a broad boundary that could constrain legitimate teaching about race and U.S. history, while the funding restriction seeks to enforce a normative standard across diverse classrooms.
The PEACE Act sits at the intersection of funding controls and educational content. While it creates a clear prohibition on using funds for curricula that promote divisive concepts, it relies on a specific set of definitions drawn from a DOE rule that is itself several years old.
This raises questions about how the definition will be interpreted in practice, particularly as curricula evolve and new educational materials are developed. The text does not provide exemptions for academic inquiry, historical debate, or age-appropriate discussions of race and civics within the funded programs, which could lead to a chilling effect if educators err on the side of caution.
Implementation will hinge on agency interpretations of the defined terms and the rigor of funder oversight, including audits and reporting requirements that may follow from the amended statute.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.