AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, relative to education.
HB1822, enacted as Public Chapter No. 701 and titled the “Charlie Kirk American Heritage Act,” amends Tennessee education law to authorize instruction on the positive historical impact of religion on American history. The bill applies both to K-12 public schools, including public charter schools and local education agencies, and to faculty or instructors at public institutions of higher education when teaching American history. It lists a broad set of topics that may be covered, including the Pilgrims, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Great Awakenings, George Washington’s views on religion and morality, the influence of clergy and religious leaders on the founding era, the Ten Commandments, the Civil Rights Movement, and the national motto and pledge references to God.
The bill is framed as a clarification that teaching these topics is consistent with the First Amendment and not proselytization. It does not require schools or colleges to teach religion, but permits instruction on specified historical examples of religion’s influence on American history. The act takes effect July 1, 2026, and applies beginning with the 2026-2027 academic year.
Its impact on state law is to add new permissive curriculum language to Title 49 governing both K-12 public education and public higher education. The measure gives educators explicit statutory authority to include religious history themes in American history instruction, potentially affecting curriculum development, lesson planning, and instructional materials across public schools and colleges. It also creates a state policy statement endorsing the view that such instruction is historically grounded and constitutionally permissible.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s progression appears favorable but not unanimous. The bill advanced through the House Education Instruction Subcommittee by a 5-1 vote and the House Education Committee by a 14-4 vote, indicating meaningful support with some opposition. The absence of committee transcripts limits insight into floor debate, but the strong committee majorities suggest the bill was broadly accepted by supporters as an educational and historical measure.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s emphasis on religion in public education and its constitutional framing. Supporters appear to view it as restoring or highlighting historically accurate content about religion’s role in American history, while critics likely worry about church-state separation, selective historical emphasis, or the potential for religious advocacy in public classrooms. The bill’s detailed list of approved topics and its explicit First Amendment findings suggest lawmakers anticipated constitutional scrutiny and debate over whether the measure crosses from history instruction into religious endorsement.
The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 49 by adding new provisions to both the K-12 education code and the higher education code. It authorizes local education agencies, public charter schools, public school teachers, and public college faculty to include instruction on the positive historical impact of religion on American history. The law does not mandate such instruction, but it expressly permits it and identifies a nonexclusive list of historical topics that may be taught. It takes effect July 1, 2026, and applies beginning with the 2026-2027 academic year.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable treatment in committee, with clear majority support at both stages of House consideration. The 5-1 and 14-4 votes suggest the measure was not unanimous and drew some opposition, but it advanced comfortably. The text itself presents the bill as constitutionally permissible and historically grounded, indicating a supportive legislative intent toward incorporating religion-related content into American history instruction.
The likely controversy centers on the role of religion in public education and whether the bill respects or blurs the line between historical instruction and religious endorsement. Supporters emphasize that the bill is limited to teaching the historical influence of religion and is not proselytizing. Opponents are likely to question the selective framing of American history, the inclusion of explicitly religious themes in public classrooms, and the bill’s compatibility with church-state separation principles. The bill’s detailed findings and list of examples suggest lawmakers were responding to anticipated constitutional and ideological objections.