According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 2391 is not expected to have any fiscal implications for the state of Texas. The bill imposes a procedural requirement for school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, and public institutions of higher education to consider whether student code of conduct violations were motivated by antisemitism, using a statutory definition for guidance. However, this requirement does not necessitate new funding, staff, or infrastructure from state agencies or institutions.

Likewise, the bill is projected to have no fiscal impact on local government units, including school districts or higher education institutions. The involved agencies, such as the Texas Education Agency and various public university systems, did not identify any cost drivers associated with implementation. The requirement to consider an existing statutory definition does not mandate any specific training, reporting, or new administrative processes that would incur measurable expense.

In essence, HB 2391 is designed to guide disciplinary decision-making without requiring the creation of new programs or significant administrative changes. As such, it is seen as a cost-neutral measure from both the state and local government perspectives.

HB 2391 provides a statutory framework for identifying and addressing antisemitism in Texas public schools and institutions of higher education by directing them to reference the IHRA definition of antisemitism, as adopted in Section 448.001 of the Government Code. The bill responds to growing concerns about antisemitic harassment and aims to ensure consistent, informed decision-making in disciplinary proceedings when bias-based motivation is suspected. It applies beginning in the 2025–2026 academic year and requires no new state funding or infrastructure, as confirmed by the Legislative Budget Board.

The bill shares the same policy foundation as SB 326, which received a YES recommendation. HB 2391 differs in that it instructs institutions to “consider” rather than “use” the IHRA definition when evaluating student conduct. While this gives administrators some discretion, it still advances the core goal of equipping schools with a common standard for assessing antisemitic intent. It also maintains fidelity to constitutional protections by applying only when there has already been a code of conduct violation, avoiding any chilling effect on protected expression.

Though the bill is worthy of support in its current form, it could be improved through an amendment adopting the stronger language used in SB 326, replacing “shall consider” with “shall use.” This change would promote greater uniformity in application and reinforce legislative intent to ensure Jewish students are protected from targeted harassment statewide. Nevertheless, even without such an amendment, HB 2391 represents a meaningful and measured policy step, and as such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES.

• Individual Liberty: The bill does not infringe on lawful free expression, nor does it create new prohibitions against speech or belief. It only applies when student behavior already violates a code of conduct and adds an analytical step to determine whether antisemitic motivation is present. By ensuring that acts of antisemitism are correctly identified and addressed within existing rules, the bill arguably supports the liberty of students to learn in an environment free from targeted harassment or bias-motivated conduct, without chilling broader protected expression. The inclusion of the IHRA definition—while potentially contentious in expressive contexts—is limited in this bill to disciplinary proceedings based on existing, actionable misconduct.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill encourages students to understand that bias-based motives, such as antisemitism, carry weight in disciplinary contexts. Students are held accountable not only for their conduct but also for the intent or motivation behind it, which is consistent with broader principles of responsibility in both educational and legal settings. By formally acknowledging motive, the law ensures a more holistic view of student actions and reinforces the principle that discriminatory intent has consequences.
• Free Enterprise: The bill applies only to educational institutions. However, promoting consistent standards for combating antisemitism in schools it contributes indirectly to a more respectful educational environment—an essential foundation for a productive and cooperative civil society and future workforce. An education system that protects minority rights and maintains safe spaces for students fosters the skills and norms needed for robust, liberty-oriented enterprise in the long term.
• Private Property Rights: Not directly affected by the bill, as it does not involve the regulation of land, assets, or personal property. However, where antisemitism manifests as vandalism or targeted damage to student or institutional property, the bill provides a clearer lens through which intent can be assessed and addressed appropriately. This helps uphold respect for both personal dignity and property in educational settings.
• Limited Government: The bill does not create new state agencies, criminal laws, or enforcement mechanisms. It simply requires that educational institutions use an already-defined term when making determinations under their own codes of conduct. In that sense, it reflects a minimalist intervention by the state—one that clarifies standards without growing bureaucratic reach. The measure respects the principle that government should act narrowly, only where necessary, and in alignment with previously established legislative purposes.

• SB 326 (Same As)