H.R.3765 - Focusing Academies on Leadership and Cultivating Officers for National Security Act; FALCONS Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.3765, also known as the FALCONS Act, aims to prohibit federal service academies from providing training or education based on critical race theory (CRT), diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on June 5, 2025, and referred to the Committees on Armed Services and Transportation and Infrastructure. The bill seeks to prevent federal funds from being used to establish curricula or provide training based on CRT or DEI at military academies.
Expected Effects
If enacted, the FALCONS Act would significantly alter the educational content at US service academies. It would remove CRT and DEI-based training. This could lead to changes in how future military officers are educated on topics related to race, diversity, and inclusion.
Potential Benefits
- Potentially ensures a focus on core military skills and leadership qualities.
- May reduce perceived ideological bias in military training.
- Could foster a sense of unity and shared values among cadets, focusing on common national identity.
- Might alleviate concerns about divisive concepts within the military.
- Could lead to a more standardized curriculum across service academies.
Potential Disadvantages
- May limit exposure to diverse perspectives and critical analysis of social issues.
- Could hinder the development of cultural competency and understanding of diverse populations within the military and globally.
- Might lead to a less inclusive environment for minority cadets and service members.
- Could be perceived as a rejection of efforts to address systemic inequalities.
- May negatively impact the ability of military leaders to effectively manage diverse teams and navigate complex international relations.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutionality is subject to debate. Proponents might argue it aligns with the government's power to control military education. Opponents could argue it infringes upon academic freedom or promotes discrimination, potentially conflicting with equal protection principles. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech could be invoked by those who believe the bill unduly restricts academic discourse.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).