HB 1792 New Hampshire House · 2026 Regular Session

relative to the prohibition on teaching discrimination.

HB 1792 prohibits New Hampshire public schools and staff from teaching critical race theory, LGBTQ+ ideologies, or specific identity-based pedagogies that the bill defines as promoting division or anti-constitutional views. It specifically bans practices like requiring students to identify "oppressors" based on race/gender, prioritizing identity over shared values, or affirming non-binary gender identities as normative. The bill creates a private right of action, allowing parents or students to sue schools for violations. It explicitly excludes factual, neutral instruction on history or events. The law aims to preserve "neutral or patriotic" education while restricting certain teaching methods deemed divisive.
Bill status passed both 4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Dec 2025
Committee Review
May 2026
House Passage
Feb 2026
Senate Passage
May 2026
Governor
Introduced Dec 17, 2025 Last action May 21, 2026
Maddy AI version diff · 1 comparison

What changed between versions

Introduced As Amended by the Senate · 7 edits
MODERATE
The Senate dramatically narrowed and restructured HB 1792, replacing a broad ban on specific pedagogies (critical race theory, LGBTQ+ ideology, culturally relevant pedagogy, Marxist analysis) with a narrower prohibition requiring that educators purposefully teach that one identity group is inherently superior or that discrimination should occur. The bill also eliminated the private right of action for parents and students to sue schools, shifting enforcement entirely to educator disciplinary proceedings through the state board of education.
SCOPE

The bill's scope was dramatically narrowed. The original prohibited a wide range of specific teaching approaches (critical race theory, LGBTQ+ ideology, culturally relevant pedagogy, dialectical analysis, intersectionality frameworks). The amended version only prohibits purposefully teaching that one identity group is inherently superior to another, that individuals are inherently racist/sexist/oppressive by virtue of their identity, or that people should be discriminated against based on protected characteristics.

The entire 'Statement of Findings' section (8 findings) was removed. These findings had provided ideological justification for the bill, naming specific scholars (Paulo Freire, Gloria Ladson-Billings, Kimberlé Crenshaw), frameworks (intersectionality, critical pedagogy, Marxist dialectics), and characterizing public education employment as a 'privilege' rather than a right.

An explicit carve-out was added stating that discussing the historical existence of the prohibited ideas as part of a larger course of academic instruction is not prohibited. This protects teachers who want to teach about these movements in a historical or academic context.

REQUIREMENT

A 'purposeful' mental state requirement was added. An educator's conduct only constitutes a violation if they acted purposefully (intentionally), meaning accidental or incidental references to these ideas would not trigger the prohibition.

ENFORCEMENT

The private right of action for parents and students to bring civil lawsuits against schools or school districts was completely removed. The ability to pursue remedies through the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights was also eliminated.

Enforcement was shifted from civil litigation to internal educator discipline. A purposeful violation is now treated as a violation of the educator code of conduct that justifies disciplinary sanction by the state board of education, rather than a basis for private lawsuits.

DEFINITION

The definition of 'educator' was narrowed to certified professional employees of school districts (administrators, specialists, and teachers) whose positions require state board certification under RSA 189:39. The original applied more broadly to any 'public employee acting in an official capacity.'

Floor votes · House Feb 19, 2026

How they voted

97101
Passed · 25 other
Total votes 223
Feb 19, 2026
D Democratic107
100 Nay 7
93% Nay
I Independent2
1 Yea 1
50% Yea
R Republican114
96 Yea 1 Nay 17
84% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea All Nay Mixed No data
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
20
Key actions
8
Committee
9
Amendments
3
May 21, 2026
Introduced
House Non-Concurs with Senate Amendment 2026-1779h (Rep. Balboni): MA VV 05/21/2026 HJ 14 P. 10
lower
May 21, 2026
Introduced
House Concurs with Senate Amendment 2026-1779s (Rep. Noble): MF RC 127-222 05/21/2026 HJ 14 P. 8
lower
May 14, 2026
Upper · Passed
Ought to Pass with Amendment # 2026-1779s, MA, VV; OT3rdg; 05/14/2026; SJ 12
upper
May 14, 2026
Introduced
Sen. Abbas Floor Amendment # 2026-1779s, RC 15Y-8N, AA; 05/14/2026; SJ 12
upper
May 14, 2026
Upper · Passed
Committee Amendment # 2026-1744s, AF, VV; 05/14/2026; SJ 12
upper
May 7, 2026
Upper · Passed
Committee Report: Ought to Pass with Amendment # 2026-1744s, 05/14/2026, Vote 3-2; SC 18
upper
Apr 29, 2026
Upper · Passed
Committee Report: Ought to Pass with Amendment # 2026-1744s, 05/07/2026, Vote 3-2; SC 17
upper
Feb 25, 2026
Introduced
Introduced 02/19/2026 and Referred to Education; SJ 5
upper
Feb 19, 2026
House · Passed
House Vote: pass (97-101-25)
house
Feb 19, 2026
Committee
Referral Waived by Committee Chair per House Rule 47(f) 02/19/2026 HJ 5 P. 112
lower
Feb 19, 2026
Committee
Referred to Finance 02/19/2026 HJ 5 P. 62
lower
Feb 19, 2026
Lower · Passed
Ought to Pass: MA RC 184-164 02/19/2026 HJ 5 P. 59
lower
Feb 10, 2026
Lower · Passed
Minority Committee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate
lower
Feb 10, 2026
Lower · Passed
Majority Committee Report: Ought to Pass 02/04/2026 (Vote 9-8; RC) HC 7 P. 30
lower
Dec 17, 2025
Introduced
Introduced 01/07/2026 and referred to Education Policy and Administration HJ 1 P. 36
lower
1 primary · 4 co-sponsors

Sponsors