hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Requires Members of Congress to pass a civics exam.
Mr. Hunt (no party/state specified in bill text)
Introduced in the House, no vote yet.
This bill, introduced by Mr. Hunt, proposes that all members of Congress must pass an American civics examination. If passed, new members could not be seated without passing it, and current members could not be assigned to committees without passing an interim version of the test. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on February 9, 2026, and has not yet been voted on by either chamber.
Introduced Feb 9, 2026
This bill is currently in the 'Introduced' stage. It was referred to the House Administration Committee and the House Rules Committee. For it to move forward, one of these committees would need to consider it, possibly hold hearings, and then vote to send it to the full House for a vote. After passing the House, it would go through a similar process in the Senate before potentially reaching the President to become law.
If this bill becomes law, future Members of Congress would be required to pass an American civics exam to be officially seated and begin their term. Those who fail might face a vacancy in their elected position if they don't pass within two weeks. Additionally, even before a constitutional amendment makes this mandatory for seating, Members could be required to pass a similar civics test to receive committee assignments in either the House or Senate. The bill also specifies that the civics exam would be made publicly available online for any citizen to take for free, along with all questions and answers.
Supporters Say
Supporters argue this ensures elected officials have a fundamental understanding of U.S. history and government.
Critics Say
Critics might argue that it creates an unnecessary barrier to public service or is an inappropriate measure of leadership ability.
Those in favor would likely emphasize that such a test ensures a baseline level of civic literacy among lawmakers, which could lead to more informed legislative decisions. Opponents might contend that leadership qualities and policy expertise are more crucial than rote memorization, or that it could be used as a political tool to exclude certain candidates.