The U.S. government is about to spend a historic amount of public money on an unproven and lightly regulated school voucher-like program. The beneficiaries of similar programs at the state level have largely been wealthier families already enrolled in private school. But with upward of 80 percent of U.S. students attending public schools, the fact is that the federal program diverts money from public schools that desperately need funding. Because this new voucher program is not mandatory, each state has a decision to make: Accept or reject what might amount to a subsidy for the rich.
The new federal program, which was part of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, takes a different form than traditional school vouchers. It allows for individuals to donate to a scholarship granting organization (SGO), which is a nonprofit organization set up to dispense school vouchers, and receive up to a $1,700 tax credit. Although final guidelines have yet to be issued by the Trump Administration, SGOs will turn each donation, after taking up to a 10 percent administrative fee, into funds that eligible families can spend on education-related products and services of their choosing.
Vouchers have been called a “backpack full of cash” that families can spend on education-related needs, often defined very loosely. Under the recent legislation, the funding can be spent on a range of items—from tuition, to room and board, to computers and Internet access. The money received by families is considered a tax-free income. States must have opted into the program and designated an SGO for individuals to participate.
The Education Law Center cites estimates that the federal program will cost between $5 and $51 billion this coming year, depending on state participation. Professor Martin West of Harvard University has called the program a way to “turbocharge the movement to expand private school choice.”
Both parties have shown a willingness to entertain such an agenda. According to Ballotopedia, of the states that have opted into the program, twenty-three have Republican-controlled trifectas, three have Democratic-controlled trifectas, and five have divided governments. As yet, four states have officially declared they would not participate in the program: New Mexico, Hawaii, Oregon, and Minnesota.
Today, thirty states have their own voucher programs. Eighteen of those programs provide universal vouchers, including my home state of New Hampshire. The term “universal vouchers” means that there are no income restrictions on accessing public money that can be used for non-public school expenses.
Earlier versions of school voucher programs, including New Hampshire’s, were conceived as a way to help those living below the poverty line to access alternative educational opportunities. But successive expansions of these programs lifted income caps in many of the states so that even the wealthiest can access them.
In states with universal vouchers, such as New Hampshire and Arizona, there have been few guardrails set on what qualifies for an educational expense. There is also substantial resistance to placing more oversight on voucher-related spending.
Utah’s unregulated voucher program yielded 10,000 participants who received $8,000 each, per The Salt Lake Tribune. An audit of how the public funding was spent showed that the vast majority paid for tuition in the 2025–2026 academic year. But it also revealed cases of money being spent on bikes, a MacBook Pro, and a $2,000 bookcase. These extravagant spending incidents factored into an overhaul of the program that put more parameters around vouchers. Still, the total voucher spending in Utah increased to more than $100 million for the 2026–2027 academic year.
The cash influx brought on by these largely unregulated programs is significant. One study by EdChoice estimates that state voucher programs led to more than $10.6 billion dollars spent for private school choice programs.
ProPublica reported in July that private schools have seen rapid growth during the same period of time that voucher programs expanded. This gold rush moment has brought an unlikely cast of characters into the now-booming business of private education, including a former MMA fighter with no background in schooling.
If the intention of vouchers were to help students with the greatest need, then it would make sense to establish clear guidelines to provide students with the highest quality educational services. It would make sense to place students in the care of experienced professionals trained in child development who are prepared to take on the challenges of educating young people. Instead, large cash infusions into vouchers along with lax regulation invites profiteers into the realm of education.
While vouchers reward private schools, they also punish public schools. They take money that could otherwise be allocated to students in schools with the greatest need. In New Hampshire, the state voucher program cost nearly $52 million for the 2025-2026 school year. The expanded voucher program serves both a lower percentage of students who live in poverty and a lower percentage of students who qualify for special education.
A recent law further benefits voucher recipients by allowing them to both take public money through vouchers to attend private school while also picking and choosing any classes they would like to take from their local public school. This “double dip” restricts public schools from recouping any costs incurred from voucher recipients who opt to draw on the public schools resources. The extra burden both takes time and attention away from students who solely depend on public education and creates an additional burden for tax payers.
Sadly, school vouchers have a long history connected to privileging one group of students over another. They gained popularity following the Brown v. Board of Education U.S. Supreme Court decision as a way to dodge school integration, according to Georgetown professor Janel George.
Studies of voucher programs in more recent years have found evidence for social, racial, and economic stratification between participants in voucher programs in comparison to public school student populations. In Arizona, research cited in Education Week found that students who took a voucher tended to be “wealthier, whiter, and higher-achieving.”
Private schools that benefit from public money through vouchers have been cited for discriminatory admissions practices. In Tennessee, students with disabilities and LGBTQ+ students have been excluded from attending private schools eligible for vouchers.
The rapid and largely unregulated growth of school voucher programs has come at a time of widening inequalities in the United States. Advancing vouchers, a policy with a history tied to increasing segregation and social stratification while diverting tax payer dollars, is a sign of political negligence.
In states that have opted to accept the new federal voucher program, governors and state officials should insist on strong voucher regulations. Institutions that accept public money should be held to the standards demanded of public schools, including anti-discrimination laws that protect students from marginalized communities. In states where the fate of the federal voucher program still hangs in the balance, voters and citizens should reach out to elected leaders and outline the reasons—such as those included in this article—why vouchers must be rejected.