AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, relative to education.
SB1828, titled the “Charlie Kirk American Heritage Act,” amends Tennessee education law to expressly permit instruction on the positive historical role of religion in American history. The bill applies both to K-12 public schools and to public institutions of higher education, allowing teachers and faculty, when teaching American history, to cover a long list of topics such as the Pilgrims, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Great Awakenings, George Washington’s religious references, the constitutional convention, the origins of church-state separation, the Ten Commandments, the Civil Rights Movement, Billy Graham, and the motto “In God We Trust.”
The measure is framed as a clarification that such instruction is consistent with the First Amendment and is not proselytization. It does not appear to require schools or colleges to teach these topics, but it authorizes them to do so as part of American history instruction. The act takes effect July 1, 2026, and applies beginning with the 2026-2027 academic year.
The bill adds new provisions to Title 49 of the Tennessee Code Annotated governing public education and higher education. Its practical effect is to expand the range of religious-history content that public schools, public charter schools, local education agencies, and public colleges and universities may include in American history courses, while also signaling legislative approval of such instruction under the state’s interpretation of the First Amendment. It does not create a mandate to teach religion, but it may influence curriculum choices, instructional materials, and classroom discussions in Tennessee public education.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable support from legislative majorities, passing the Senate Education Committee 8-1 and later advancing on floor votes by substantial margins. The final passage vote also indicates overall approval in the General Assembly, suggesting that supporters viewed the measure as a permissible and desirable addition to history instruction. At the same time, the recorded votes show that a meaningful minority opposed or sought to amend the bill, indicating some concern about its scope or implications.
The main point of contention is whether the bill crosses from teaching history into endorsing religion, despite its language stating that the instruction is not proselytization and is consistent with the First Amendment. Critics are likely to be concerned about public schools and public colleges emphasizing Judeo-Christian themes, the bill’s selective framing of American history, and the potential for religiously oriented curriculum in state institutions. Supporters, by contrast, appear to argue that the bill simply allows accurate discussion of religion’s historical influence and protects teachers’ ability to address that subject without constitutional concern.