Named for slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the controversial education bill bans teaching critical race theory and LGBTQ+ ideology in New Hampshire public schools — and lets parents sue districts for up to $10,000. Here’s everything Granite Staters need to know.
By Granite State Report
Key Facts at a Glance
- Bill: House Bill 1792, the “Countering Hate And Revolutionary Leftist Indoctrination in Education Act” (CHARLIE Act)
- House Vote: Passed 184-164 on February 19, 2026 (nearly party-line; four Republicans joined all Democrats in opposition)
- Sponsors: Rep. Mike Belcher (R-Carroll 4), Rep. Kristin Noble (R-Hillsborough 2), House Majority Leader Jason Osborne (R-Rockingham 2), Rep. Corcoran (R-Hillsborough 28), Rep. Sabourin dit Choiniere (R-Rockingham 30)
- Status: Heading to NH Senate after House Finance Committee Chairman Ken Weyler waived review
- Effective Date (if enacted): September 1, 2026
- Applies to: Public K-12 schools only — not colleges, private schools, or homeschools
New Hampshire’s latest — and arguably most ambitious — attempt to regulate how public school teachers address race, gender, and ideology in the classroom cleared a major legislative hurdle on Thursday, February 19, when the House passed House Bill 1792 on a mostly party-line vote of 184 to 164.
The bill, formally known as the Countering Hate And Revolutionary Leftist Indoctrination in Education Act, carries the acronym “CHARLIE” as a tribute to Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist and Turning Point USA founder who was assassinated in September 2025 while speaking at Utah Valley University. Kirk was a prominent national voice against what he characterized as political indoctrination in America’s schools.
The legislation now heads to the New Hampshire Senate after the chairman of the House Finance Committee, Rep. Ken Weyler, a Kingston Republican, waived his committee’s option to review the bill — a procedural move that accelerates its path through the legislature. If signed into law, the CHARLIE Act would take effect on September 1, 2026, fundamentally reshaping what New Hampshire public school teachers can and cannot present to their students.
What Does the CHARLIE Act Actually Prohibit?
House Bill 1792 takes a broad approach to classroom regulation, targeting what the legislation calls “critical theories or related practices that promote division, dialectical world-views, critical consciousness or anti-constitutional indoctrination.” The bill would prohibit any public school, school district, or public employee acting in an official capacity from engaging in what it terms “the pedagogy, praxis, or inculcation” of a series of specified worldviews.
Specifically, the CHARLIE Act would bar teachers from framing historical events primarily as class-based, racial, or identity-based conflicts meant to foster division rather than resolution. The bill also prohibits teaching that the U.S. Constitution and American societal structures are inherently illegitimate or designed to perpetuate oppression, and it forbids instruction aimed at building what it calls “critical consciousness” by training students to identify oppressors. Educators would be barred from prioritizing identity-based division over individual merit or shared American values.
The legislation also specifically targets what it calls the “inculcation of LGBTQ+ ideology.” Under the bill, school personnel would be prohibited from requiring students to affirm gender fluidity, nonbinary identities, or LGBTQ+ sexuality as ethical or normative.
Instruction on critical race theory and intersectionality would still be permitted — but only if presented, as the bill states, “as Marxian theories contrary to American tradition, law, and ethics.” The bill’s preamble declares that education should cultivate “a neutral or patriotic disposition, including respect for the U.S. Constitution, American history, civic responsibilities, and national symbols, without compelling total ideological allegiance.”
The legislation does include carve-outs. Teaching about historical events and historical figures is not prohibited under the bill, nor are student debates or critical thinking exercises — so long as there is no mandatory adoption of what the bill defines as prohibited worldviews. The bill also explicitly exempts public colleges and universities, private schools, and homeschool programs, including those participating in Education Freedom Account programs.
The Enforcement Mechanism: Lawsuits and License Revocations
What distinguishes the CHARLIE Act from many other states’ classroom-regulation bills is its enforcement structure. The legislation creates a private right of action that would allow individuals to file civil lawsuits against school districts and individual schools for alleged violations. Successful plaintiffs could recover damages of up to $10,000.
Beyond civil litigation, the bill states that any court finding of a school employee’s violation would automatically trigger professional conduct proceedings under the educator code of conduct. Teachers found to have violated the law could face the potential revocation of their teaching credentials by the State Board of Education — a career-ending consequence that critics say would have a chilling effect on instruction well beyond what the bill explicitly prohibits.
The bill includes a severability clause, meaning that if any individual provision is struck down by a court, the remaining sections of the law would remain in effect.
How This Differs From New Hampshire’s 2021 “Divisive Concepts” Law
The CHARLIE Act does not exist in a vacuum. New Hampshire has been grappling with the boundaries of classroom instruction on race and gender since 2021, when the Republican-controlled legislature passed the “Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education” as part of the state budget bill, HB 2, signed by then-Governor Chris Sununu.
That 2021 law took a relatively specific approach, prohibiting teachers from advocating that individuals of one race, gender, or other protected category were inherently superior to those of another, or that any person was inherently racist or oppressive based on their identity. It also banned instruction suggesting that people cannot treat others without regard to protected characteristics.
In May 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Barbadoro struck down the 2021 law as unconstitutionally vague, ruling that teachers were placed in the untenable position of wagering their careers on guesswork about what the law actually prohibited. The judge specifically pointed to then-Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut’s op-eds as evidence of arbitrary enforcement, finding that officials had relied on personal opinions rather than clear statutory guidelines. The state’s Attorney General’s Office appealed the ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, which heard oral arguments in April 2025 but has not yet issued its decision.
The 2026 CHARLIE Act takes a markedly different approach. Where the 2021 law prohibited the endorsement of four specific “concepts” around identity markers, the new bill’s prohibitions target more abstract ideological frameworks — terms like “dialectical world-views,” “critical consciousness,” and “anti-constitutional indoctrination.” Critics argue this shift to broader language makes the new bill even more constitutionally vulnerable than its predecessor.
Timeline: NH Classroom Regulation Efforts
June 2021“Divisive concepts” law signed by Governor Sununu as part of state budget bill HB 2
Dec. 2021ACLU-NH, NEA-NH, and AFT-NH file federal lawsuits challenging the law
May 2024U.S. District Judge Barbadoro strikes down the 2021 law as unconstitutionally vague
July 2024NH Attorney General’s Office files appeal with the First Circuit Court of Appeals
April 2025First Circuit hears oral arguments; ruling still pending
Sept. 2025Charlie Kirk assassinated at Utah Valley University event
Dec. 2025HB 1792 (CHARLIE Act) introduced by Rep. Belcher and cosponsors
Feb. 2, 2026House Education Policy and Administration Committee holds public hearing
Feb. 19, 2026House passes HB 1792 on a 184-164 vote; bill heads to Senate
The Floor Debate: Republicans Say Schools Are Indoctrinating Students
The House floor debate on February 19 laid bare the deep partisan fault lines surrounding education policy in New Hampshire. House Majority Leader Jason Osborne, an Auburn Republican and one of the bill’s cosponsors, framed the legislation as a necessary corrective, arguing that ideological instruction has infiltrated the state’s classrooms.
Osborne told lawmakers that the bill targets instruction specifically — not discussion, not the mere mention of a topic, but direct ideological teaching. He emphasized that the CHARLIE Act does not ban any books from library shelves and does not prevent teachers from covering difficult chapters of American history, including slavery and the civil rights movement.
Rep. Katy Peternel, a Wolfeboro Republican, argued that ideological division in schools is already a reality. She attributed the divide to media influence and what she described as leftist indoctrination already occurring in the public school system.
Democrats and Critics Push Back Hard
Democrats were unified in their opposition, and they did not lack for arguments. Rep. Loren Selig, a Durham Democrat and former teacher, rejected the premise that New Hampshire teachers are indoctrinating students. Selig argued the bill would generate expensive litigation without improving educational outcomes, warning that it would create fear and confusion among educators rather than accountability.
During the February 2 committee hearing, the ACLU of New Hampshire described HB 1792 as a “classroom censorship bill” and argued it is unconstitutionally vague — the same legal deficiency that doomed the 2021 law. Rachel Potter, a policy associate with the ACLU-NH, warned that the bill’s broad terminology would leave teachers unable to determine what instruction is lawful.
Perhaps most strikingly, even the New Hampshire Department of Justice expressed reservations. Senior Assistant Attorney General Sean Locke testified during the committee hearing that the bill could jeopardize schools’ ability to address hostile environments for students. Locke cited existing state anti-discrimination statutes — RSA 354-A:27 and 28, and RSA 193:38 — which require schools to foster inclusive educational environments and prohibit discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, and gender. He warned that HB 1792 could undermine schools’ obligations under those laws.
The NEA-NH, the state’s largest teachers’ union, was equally forceful in its opposition, calling the bill a threat to educator careers and arguing that its vague and ill-defined language would be impossible to follow while carrying severe punishments for violations.
A Republican Breaks Ranks
One of the most memorable moments of the floor debate came from within the Republican caucus. Rep. Matt Coker of Meredith, one of four Republicans who voted against the bill, offered a pointed critique of his own party’s approach.
What disturbs me most about this bill isn’t the bill itself, it’s the pattern. One side gains power, it immediately looks for ways to silence the other side, to restrict ideas, and to control what can be discussed. To punish what makes it uncomfortable. We criticized the left when they were doing this, and now we’re trying to do this.— Rep. Matt Coker (R-Meredith)
Coker argued that the CHARLIE Act amounted to replacing what he called “left woke” ideology with “right woke” ideology. He said the party that has long championed free speech should not be legislating restrictions on classroom discussion.
What Happens Next: The Senate and the Governor
With the House Finance Committee review waived, HB 1792 proceeds directly to the New Hampshire Senate for consideration. Republicans currently hold a majority in the upper chamber, meaning the bill could have a plausible path to passage — though the narrower margins in the Senate and the vocal concerns raised during House debate could make its journey less straightforward than in the House.
If the Senate passes the bill, it would land on Governor Kelly Ayotte’s desk. Ayotte, who took office in January 2025 after campaigning on a platform of parental rights in education and universal school choice, has not publicly commented on HB 1792 specifically. However, her track record suggests the bill may receive a complex reception. Ayotte signed a Parental Bill of Rights and expanded Education Freedom Accounts during her first year in office, signaling alignment with the parental-empowerment wing of the Republican education platform. At the same time, Ayotte has shown a willingness to exercise the veto pen on education bills she considers overly broad or impractical. In 2025, she vetoed a bill that would have enabled partisan school board elections, calling it unnecessary, and she vetoed a separate school library book bill in part over concerns about “extensive civil action over materials in our schools” based on “subjective standards.”
The CHARLIE Act’s private right of action — allowing lawsuits of up to $10,000 against individual schools — could trigger the same litigation concerns Ayotte has flagged in previous vetoes. Observers on both sides of the debate will be watching closely to see whether the Governor views this bill as a measured response to ideological instruction or an overly broad invitation to costly courtroom battles.
The Legal Landscape: Could the CHARLIE Act Survive Court Challenge?
Any discussion of HB 1792’s prospects must reckon with the legal precedent established by the 2021 divisive concepts law. Judge Barbadoro’s ruling that the earlier law was void for vagueness set a clear marker for what federal courts may tolerate when states attempt to regulate classroom speech.
The CHARLIE Act’s sponsors appear to have tried to address the 2021 law’s shortcomings by shifting from prohibitions on specific “concepts” to prohibitions on “pedagogy, praxis, or inculcation” of broader ideological frameworks. But legal experts and opponents argue this change may have made things worse, not better. Terms like “dialectical world-views,” “critical consciousness,” and “anti-constitutional indoctrination” are arguably more abstract and harder to define than the relatively concrete prohibitions in the 2021 law.
The ACLU of New Hampshire has already signaled that it views the CHARLIE Act as constitutionally infirm. Given the organization’s track record — it successfully challenged the 2021 law — and the fact that the First Circuit has not yet ruled on the appeal of Judge Barbadoro’s decision, the legal terrain for the new bill is treacherous. If the CHARLIE Act becomes law, a legal challenge appears all but certain, and taxpayers would be on the hook for the state’s defense costs.
What This Means for New Hampshire Teachers
For the roughly 17,000 teachers and educators working in New Hampshire’s public schools, the CHARLIE Act raises immediate practical questions — even before it becomes law. The bill’s combination of vague prohibitions, career-threatening enforcement mechanisms, and a private right of action that empowers any individual to file a lawsuit would create strong incentives for teachers to avoid anything that could remotely be construed as touching on the bill’s prohibited areas.
Social studies and English teachers would likely be most affected. Discussions of systemic racism in American history, the civil rights movement, LGBTQ+ historical figures, and sociological frameworks for understanding inequality all fall into gray areas under the bill’s language. While the legislation nominally permits teaching about historical events, the prohibition on framing those events through the lens of class or racial conflict — the very frameworks historians routinely use — could force educators into a sanitized version of the past.
The chilling effect experienced under the 2021 law would likely intensify. Teachers’ unions have reported that even when the 2021 law was in effect, educators avoided assigning novels like “To Kill a Mockingbird” for fear of triggering complaints. Under the CHARLIE Act, with its broader language and more severe consequences, the range of self-censorship could expand considerably.
What This Means for New Hampshire Parents
For parents, the CHARLIE Act is a double-edged development. Supporters of the bill see it as a tool for holding schools accountable and ensuring children receive what the bill calls a “neutral or patriotic” education focused on foundational academic skills. The private right of action gives parents a direct mechanism to challenge instruction they believe crosses the line into indoctrination.
However, parents who value diverse and comprehensive education may find the bill constraining. The legislation’s restriction on how teachers can present topics like gender identity and racial history could limit the depth and nuance of instruction available to students. Parents in communities where school districts are already navigating how to teach complex social topics may find their local schools even more reluctant to engage with these subjects.
There is also the fiscal dimension. If the bill triggers a wave of lawsuits — as both opponents and some legal observers expect — the resulting legal costs could fall on school districts and, ultimately, local property taxpayers. New Hampshire already relies heavily on local property taxes to fund education, and the added burden of defending litigation could strain district budgets.
The Broader National Context
New Hampshire’s CHARLIE Act arrives in the midst of a nationwide push by Republican state legislatures to regulate what teachers can say about race, gender, and ideology. Since 2021, more than 40 states have introduced or passed some form of classroom instruction restriction. But the results in court have been mixed at best. In addition to the New Hampshire federal court ruling, similar laws have faced challenges in Oklahoma, Florida, and other states.
The naming of the bill after Charlie Kirk adds a charged emotional dimension to the policy debate. Kirk’s assassination at a university speaking event in September 2025 shocked the nation and amplified conservative concerns about political violence and the suppression of right-leaning voices in educational settings. For supporters, naming the bill after Kirk gives it a martyr’s cause; for opponents, it injects partisan symbolism into a policy discussion that should center on sound educational practice.
The bill’s passage also comes at a moment when New Hampshire’s education system is undergoing significant structural changes. Governor Ayotte’s expansion of Education Freedom Accounts to universal eligibility, the passage of mandatory open enrollment policies, and the ongoing debate over adequate school funding all form the backdrop against which the CHARLIE Act will be considered in the Senate.
Track This Bill
HB 1792 is now before the New Hampshire Senate. Contact your state senator to share your views. Find your legislator at gc.nh.gov. Follow Granite State Report for continued coverage of this bill’s progress and the broader education policy debate in New Hampshire.
The Bottom Line
House Bill 1792 represents the most sweeping attempt in New Hampshire history to regulate the ideological content of public school instruction. Its passage by the House is significant, but the bill faces an uncertain path through the Senate and a potentially skeptical governor who has already vetoed education legislation she deemed too broad. And even if the CHARLIE Act becomes law, the state’s own legal history suggests a federal court challenge will follow close behind.
What is not in dispute is the magnitude of the stakes. For teachers, the bill threatens professional consequences — including the loss of their licenses — for crossing lines that critics say are impossible to clearly identify. For parents, it promises a new tool for accountability but also the potential for expensive litigation funded by local taxpayers. For students, the question is whether the CHARLIE Act will protect them from ideological indoctrination, as its supporters claim, or deprive them of the kind of rigorous, comprehensive education they need to navigate a complex world.
The New Hampshire Senate will have the next word. Granite Staters on all sides of this debate would be wise to make their voices heard before it does.
Sources
- New Hampshire Bulletin — “House passes bill banning ‘leftist indoctrination’ and LGBTQ+ teaching in public schools,” Ethan DeWitt, Feb. 19, 2026
- NH Journal — “House Passes CHARLIE Act Banning CRT, Gender Ideology Instruction in Schools,” Damien Fisher, Feb. 19, 2026
- Nashua Ink Link — “‘CHARLIE Act’ bill would prohibit ‘certain pedagogies’ and counter ‘leftist indoctrination in education,'” Feb. 2026
- LegiScan — NH HB1792, 2026 Regular Session, bill text and tracking
- Citizens Count — HB 1792 (2026) bill summary
- FastDemocracy — HB 1792 bill tracking, public testimony records
- NEA-NH — Legislative Update, Feb. 7, 2026
- NH Department of Education — Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education guidance
- NHPR — “NH officials mull next steps after federal court says new teaching restrictions are unconstitutional,” May 29, 2024
- New Hampshire Bulletin — “State appealing federal court decision against ‘banned concepts’ law,” July 25, 2024
- Governor.nh.gov — Governor Ayotte bill signing and veto records, 2025
