Summary#
The Don’t Block LGBTQ Act of 2026 is a proposed bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934. Its stated goal is to stop schools and public libraries that receive discounted internet services through the universal service program from blocking access to LGBTQ-related resources. It is not law; it has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
- An elementary school, secondary school, or public library could not receive discounted services under the relevant universal service provision if it blocks internet access to those resources—whether the blocking is under an internet safety policy or otherwise.
- The bill defines the resources as information related to homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender identity or status, gender nonconformity, gender expansiveness, gender identity, sexual orientation, or related topics.
- The definition excludes certain visual depictions referenced in the existing Communications Act. The bill does not create a separate program, grant an individual right to internet access, or set out a review or appeal process.
What it means for you#
- Schools and public libraries: To receive the covered discounted services, they could not block access to the resources defined in the bill. The bill does not require them to apply for the discounts or establish a procedure for checking compliance.
- Students, library users, and the public: The bill does not directly change what you may access outside those schools and libraries, or create a way to challenge a particular block.
- Current law: The materials do not include the current text of the Communications Act. I cannot verify how this proposal would interact with all existing rules. The bill says its new restriction applies notwithstanding another part of that Act, but the supplied materials do not explain that part.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill does not state a dollar amount, appropriate money, or set a fee or fine.
- Schools or libraries that block covered resources could lose access to the relevant discounted services. The bill gives no estimate of the value of those discounts or any costs of changing filtering practices.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not explain how to decide whether a school or library is blocking access, or what happens if a block is accidental or limited to particular content.
- It does not set out enforcement, notice, review, appeal, or reporting rules.
- The definition includes “related topics” without defining that phrase. The bill also excludes visual depictions described in existing provisions, but those provisions were not supplied, so their scope cannot be verified.
- The bill does not state when it would take effect. No publicly available information.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to prevent schools and public libraries from using federally discounted internet service while blocking access to information about LGBTQ identities and topics.
- A possible argument for the bill is that a clear condition on discounts could reduce the risk that filtering policies block this information.
- The bill’s definition covers several related subjects, which could help make clear that the restriction is not limited to one identity or term.
Case against#
- One concern is that “related topics” is broad and undefined, leaving schools and libraries uncertain about which blocks could put their discounts at risk.
- The bill does not explain how its restriction fits with existing internet-safety rules or how the excluded visual depictions are treated.
- A possible trade-off is that a school or library could face the loss of discounted services without a process in the bill for notice or review of a disputed block.