President Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill Act is the most ambitious policy proposal of his second term so far. Although much of the discourse centers on tax rates and the bill’s economic impact, its education provisions deserve a closer look for their potential to reshape access and opportunity for millions of American students.
At the heart of the proposal is a nationwide tax credit designed to incentivize contributions to Scholarship Granting Organizations. These nonprofits distribute scholarships that enable low- and middle-income families to send their children to private and charter schools. The approach builds on Florida’s Tax Credit Scholarship Program, which funds more than 120,000 students annually through donor-backed tax credits. According to the Urban Institute, participants in Florida’s program are more likely to graduate and attend college than their public school peers from similar socioeconomic backgrounds.
Most public school students are locked into campuses based solely on their ZIP codes — a geographic lottery that often consigns them to underperforming schools. Trump’s bill seeks to disrupt that system without imposing federal mandates or siphoning funds from public education. Instead, it encourages private donations into a parallel funding mechanism to expand educational choice.
Under the proposed plan, individuals and corporations could receive federal tax credits for donations to organizations granting scholarships, subject to a $5 billion annual cap. These funds would finance scholarships for students pursuing alternatives to their assigned public schools. Because the scholarships are privately funded, they do not diminish existing public school budgets.
Another key element is the reform of 529 education savings accounts. Previously capped at $10,000 annually for K-12 tuition, these accounts would become dramatically more versatile. The bill expands eligibility to include tutoring, textbooks, test preparation, online learning, and homeschool materials.
A parent of a struggling seventh-grader, for example, could use 529 funds for personalized online math tutoring, without tax penalty or bureaucratic delay. The revised accounts transform a previously college-centric tool into a real-time support system for K-12 learners.
The effect is even more pronounced for the 7.3 million K-12 students receiving special education services. Many families currently pay $100 to $250 per therapy session out of pocket, often with limited insurance coverage. Under Trump’s bill, they could use 529 accounts to cover costs for speech therapy, occupational therapy, and adaptive learning software — eliminating the wait-lists and red tape that often impede access through public schools (and shortening those wait-lists for others, as well).
The proposal also redefines educational funding by aligning it with 21st-century labor demands. Vocational programs and technical certifications — such as welding, HVAC repair, licensed nursing assistance, and cybersecurity — would qualify as valid uses of 529 accounts. These fields require targeted investment, not four-year degrees, and often cost between $1,800 and $10,000. Given that more and more working adults are earning certificates, the bill acknowledges a workforce reality that federal education policy has long ignored.
Critics argue that school choice programs harm public education by diverting resources. But Trump’s proposal avoids that pitfall. It introduces new, privately sourced funds that exist outside the public education budget. States like Florida and North Carolina, which have long implemented similar programs, show that these models can succeed without defunding public schools.
In fact, choice-based systems often improve outcomes across the board. A 2019 study reported modest but meaningful academic gains in public schools competing with private scholarship programs, particularly in low-income areas.
Participation under Trump’s bill is completely voluntary. Families can stay in their public schools if they choose. The point is not compulsion but empowerment. One family might use a scholarship to attend a values-aligned or faith-based school. Another might redirect funds toward algebra tutoring or behavioral therapy. A third might pursue technical training that leads directly to employment.
The common denominator is flexibility. Families — not bureaucracies — will decide what works.
For decades, federal education policy has been top-down: Washington sets standards, and schools chase dollars. Trump’s bill reverses that flow. It puts tools directly in the hands of parents, allowing them to tailor their children’s education to real-world needs rather than administrative templates.
Of course, the proposal requires oversight. Scholarship organizations would have to be held accountable, and misuse of funds prevented. But the structure avoids new bureaucracies or federal mandates. Instead, it leverages private capital to expand opportunity and entrusts families with the freedom to choose.
Gregory Lyakhov is a high school student from Great Neck, N.Y.