Congress blocks federal spending on contested history executive order
H.R. 10624 — To prohibit the use of Federal funds to carry out Executive Order 14253. · Filed by Jonathan Jackson (D-IL) · 5 cosponsors · Introduced Sep 28, 2026 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill prohibits the federal government from spending any money to implement Executive Order 14253, which the order itself describes as 'restoring truth and sanity in American history.' The bill does not repeal the order or prevent the President from issuing it; it simply cuts off federal funding for whatever programs or actions the order directs.
Why we flagged it
The bill's sole mechanism is a spending prohibition—it does not alter law, repeal the executive order, or establish new policy. It is a congressional assertion of fiscal control over executive action, a standard appropriations-power tool.
What the text implies
- The bill's effect is entirely contingent on the content of Executive Order 14253, which is not reproduced in the bill text. Citizens and legislators voting on this bill cannot fully evaluate its impact without reading the order itself.
- If the order directs spending on education, curriculum development, or federal agency operations, the defunding would halt those programs. If the order is purely symbolic or advisory, the bill may have no practical effect.
- The bill does not prevent the President from issuing or maintaining the order; it only prevents federal agencies from spending appropriated funds to execute it. The order could remain in force as a directive to agencies, creating legal ambiguity about compliance obligations.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill protects citizens from federal spending on a contested executive action, preserving congressional control of the purse and preventing unilateral executive curriculum/narrative control. However, the bill's actual effect depends entirely on what Executive Order 14253 actually directs—the text provided does not specify the order's operative provisions, making it impossible to assess whether blocking its funding is a net public benefit or a cost.
Named in the bill
Executive Order 14253, House Committee on Natural Resources, House Committee on House Administration, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Stansbury, Mr. Mfume, Ms. Tlaib, Ms. Norton, Mr. Tonko
Where it stands
5 cosponsors: 5 Democrats.
- Sep 28, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Sep 28, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on House Administration and House Committee on Natural Resources · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for…”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (1,046 characters) on Sep 30, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
As of — page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Congress blocks federal spending on contested history executive order” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr10624 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.