The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about but that often don't get the right news coverage.
A viral TikTok with 23+ million views, depicting what Americans do and don’t know, showcased a woman who could successfully recite the Pledge of Allegiance but didn’t know the solid form of water was ice.
What the bill does
The Promoting American Patriotism In Our Schools Act would require all public schools nationally to display the American flag and start the day with the Pledge of Allegiance.
However, any individual student could still opt out from the pledge for religious or personal reasons. That provision complies with 1943’s Supreme Court decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, which ruled 6-3 that Jehovah's Witnesses children could not be forced to salute the flag in school if it violated their religious beliefs.
The bill was introduced in February by Rep. Dale Strong (R-AL5).
Context
The Pledge of Allegiance states: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
The wording was crafted in 1892 by author Francis Bellamy, who popularized it upon inclusion in the children’s magazine The Youth's Companion. Today, it’s most frequently uttered by schoolchildren in classrooms at the start of the day, though it’s sometimes also recited before sports games or at political campaign events.
Over the years, Congress has enacted legislation about the Pledge at least three times:
- Congress changed the original salute featuring an outstretched right arm to a person’s right hand over their heart in 1942, to avoid mirroring the Nazi salute.
- Congress officially adopted the pledge in 1945.
- Congress added the phrase “under God” in the year 1954, during the Cold War, to differentiate the U.S. from the supposedly “godless” Communists.
What supporters say
Supporters argue that the current bill would increase patriotic sentiment and love of country.
“Unfortunately, many children in today’s society do not know the Pledge of Allegiance. The values and symbols that make America great are being overlooked and ignored. It’s time we change that,” Rep. Strong told Alabama’s Yellowhammer News. “[The bill] ensures that every child grows up understanding and appreciating our great nation, its symbols, and its history.”
What opponents say
Opponents may counter that the bill’s aim already effectively occurs, since almost every public school already starts the day with the Pledge. A full 45 states have laws requiring schools to recite the Pledge, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The only five states that don’t: Arizona, Hawaii, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Vermont. (Although since 2012, Nebraska has required it through a State School Board policy, even if not by an actual law.)
Other similar proposals
Democrats opposed or expressed concerns about some other recent “mandatory pledge” proposals, though for reasons that don’t precisely line up with the current congressional bill.
In 2023, Democrats expressed concerns about a Republican proposal for House Judiciary Committee meetings to begin with the pledge. But their concerns were largely over what they contended was Republican hypocrisy, with many GOP members saying the pledge yet voting to challenge the Biden-Trump 2020 presidential election results.
Also in 2023, Democrats voted against an Arizona Republican state bill to require the pledge in public schools. But their concerns were largely over the opt-out policy, which was more restrictive than this congressional version, only allowing opt-outs if a student was at least 18 or with parental permission for a minor.
That bill passed the state House by 31-29 but never received a state Senate vote.
A similar bill from 2021
While The Fulcrum was unable to find a version of this exact federal bill previously introduced, 2021’s Love America Act was at least similar.
It would have required public school students nationwide to read four different “foundational” American documents at four different grade levels:
- The Pledge of Allegiance in first grade
- The Constitution’s preamble in fourth grade
- The Declaration of Independence’s preamble in eighth grade
- The Bill of Rights in sophomore year of high school
The Republican-led bill never received a vote in the then-Democratic Congress.
Odds of passage
The current congressional bill has attracted 13 Republican cosponsors.
It awaits a potential vote in the House Education and Workforce Committee, controlled by Republicans.
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his report, Congress Bill Spotlight, on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
SUGGESTIONS:
Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: National Garden of American Heroes, As Trump Proposed
Congress Bill Spotlight: Preventing Presidential Inaugurations on MLK Day, Like Trump’s
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.