WASHINGTON – On July 4, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed into law his signature “One Big Beautiful Bill,” a sweeping legislative package that, among other provisions, created the first federally backed school choice program in U.S. history. The conservative group, American Federation for Children, quickly lauded the president, Speaker Mike Johnson, and the passage of the bill noting that “Soon, every state will have the opportunity to participate in this historic expansion of school choice, and AFC will work to ensure that governors listen to their constituents and bring educational freedom to as many families as possible.”
The bill has been widely hailed by conservative proponents as a landmark step in education reform, but the measure has drawn cautious—and in some cases, outright critical—reactions from across the political and religious spectrum, particularly among supporters of minority religious schools and public education advocates.
United States House of Representatives chamber at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. [public domain
At the heart of the new law is the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA), which offers federal tax credits to individuals and corporations that donate to nonprofit organizations providing scholarships for K–12 students. These scholarships can be used to cover tuition, fees, tutoring, transportation, and related costs at a range of educational institutions, including public, private, and religious schools. The bill removes any cap on overall federal spending for the program, opening the door to potentially billions in redirected tax dollars. “By making school choice and child care more accessible and affordable, hardworking families will have options to find the school that is the best fit for their children,” said Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).
Supporters, including conservative lawmakers and Catholic education leaders, have touted the legislation as a civil rights milestone. “School choice is the civil rights issue of the 21st century. Every child, regardless of race or wealth or ethnicity, deserves access to an excellent education. This tax credit provision will unleash billions of dollars every single year for scholarships for kids to attend the K-12 school of their choice,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on the Senate floor.
But despite celebratory rhetoric, the actual impact of the program remains murky, especially given a last-minute provision inserted by the Senate that allows states to opt in or out at their discretion. It is especially murky for minority faiths because that opt-in clause significantly tempers the bill’s national reach.
Governors now hold the authority to determine whether their states will participate and which organizations can administer scholarship programs. In practice, this means school choice under the ECCA will expand primarily in Republican-led states, while Democratic-leaning states with large urban and religiously diverse populations may decline to participate.
From a policy standpoint, school choice refers to allowing parents to select the educational environment they believe best suits their children, rather than defaulting to geographically assigned public schools. While options such as magnet schools, charter schools, private academies, and homeschooling fall under the umbrella, critics argue that school choice programs too often amount to a subsidy for private—and frequently Christian—education, at the expense of the public system and religious pluralism.
United States Capitol Building [public domain
Despite the inclusion of the provisions in the “Big Beautiful Bill,” advocates have continued to stress, in conservative and faith-based media outlets that more work must be done to secure the rights of parents and schools to choose the preferred location for educating their children.
One major concern among religious minorities is the absence of clear protections for religious freedom in the final version of the bill. Previous drafts included language guaranteeing that religious schools receiving scholarship funds could continue to operate according to their faith-based teachings. That language was stripped out before passage, raising the possibility that schools belonging to minority religions could be pressured to conform to mainstream expectations in order to receive funding, or risk exclusion altogether.
Among Catholic supporters who stand to gain because of the vastness of the Catholic parochial school system, some lamented that the bill is incomplete, noting that there is expanded school choice for mostly red states. They also noted that donation caps—reduced to $1,700 per donor—may further limit the law’s practical impact, particularly when large philanthropists were previously expected to provide substantial backing.
The bill also offers provisions for scholarships, allowing families to send their children to private schools. The scholarships are relatively independent of family income. Laura Meckler of the Washington Post told PBS, “There is no income limit. Anybody can make this contribution and anybody can get this tax credit. So it is unlimited.” Meckler then added, “now, there are some limits on who can get the scholarships, who can essentially get the help paying for a private school. But those are very high income limits. For instance, here in Washington, D.C., anyone earning up to, say, $450,000 a year would qualify. So it really does cover the vast majority of families.”
While some schools may see an influx of scholarship support, others are bracing for complex new regulatory and political hurdles. The U.S. Treasury will now need to craft rules for tax administration, eligibility, and oversight. Advocates on both sides of the debate are preparing to influence this rule-making process—and to lobby governors across the country to either embrace or reject the new program.
“There were some concerns—primarily, the removal of religious liberty protections,” said John DeJak of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to The Hill. “The freedom of the Church to run its institutions and teach according to the dictates of our consciences… is very much a concern.”
Other critics warn that the bill offers little to families in states unlikely to opt in. Some estimates have suggested that roughly 53% of Americans—especially those in blue states like California, New York, and Illinois—may not benefit from the law at all. That limitation disproportionately affects urban centers with larger populations of non-Christian religious schools, including Jewish day schools, Islamic academies, and Pagan or alternative spiritual education programs, many of which have raised past concerns about exclusion from public funding streams.
Moreover, the structure of the bill poses deeper systemic questions. While proponents emphasize that the tax credit program uses private donations rather than direct government funding, the end result is still a significant shift in how education is subsidized. The Joint Committee on Taxation projects the program could cost $3 to $4 billion annually, and if widely adopted, the cost could balloon far higher.
Critics argue this shift threatens the already underfunded public school system. “One thing we should certainly not be doing is creating a two-tier education system in America—private schools for the wealthy and well-connected, and severely underfunded public schools for low-income, disabled, and working-class kids,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
Others point to long-standing concerns about profiteering and lack of transparency in charter and voucher-funded systems. While scholarship nonprofits must be 501(c)(3) organizations, some have been accused of contracting with for-profit entities, charging inflated rents, or avoiding taxes on facilities used as schools.
Civil rights organizations have also raised alarms about the program’s potential to worsen inequities and revive discriminatory practices. Historically, school choice emerged in part as a response to Brown v. Board of Education (1954), with white lawmakers seeking ways to avoid school desegregation. That legacy remains a troubling undercurrent in current debates.
The religious freedom implications are especially relevant to schools outside the Catholic and evangelical mainstream, which have voiced their concern. Whether minority religious institutions, which may already be struggling for recognition and funding, may find themselves either shut out or subject to increased regulation is unclear. Without clear guarantees, religious schools that do not conform to dominant political or theological norms may be at risk of marginalization or forced compromise.
Ultimately, the “Big Beautiful Bill” may be less a national school choice breakthrough than a regional experiment with uneven effects. For religious minorities and public education supporters, it raises critical questions about equity, access, and the long-term consequences of shifting public investment into private education systems. While some hail it as a step forward, others warn that it could deepen the very divides it claims to bridge.
The Wild Hunt is not responsible for links to external content.
To join a conversation on this post:
Visit our The Wild Hunt subreddit! Point your favorite browser to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Wild_Hunt_News/, then click “JOIN”. Make sure to click the bell, too, to be notified of new articles posted to our subreddit.