---

PODCAST: “Freedom to Learn” | Rabbi A.D. Motzen on the Coalition Efforts Behind the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit

---

Rabbi A.D. Motzen joined Freedom to Learn to explain how the new federal scholarship tax credit empowers parents and students across the nation and provide behind-the-scenes insight into the journey it took to become law.

This provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for individual taxpayers who donate up to $1,700 annually to scholarship granting organizations, which give money to students to cover tuition and other K-12 education expenses. Rabbi Motzen is National Director of Government Affairs at Agudath Israel of America, an national grassroots organization founded in 1922 that serves and supports the Orthodox Jewish community in the United States. Rabbi Motzen and his colleagues have been steadfast and highly effective advocates for expanding school choice at the state and now national levels. Stick around to find out his response to a pervasive school choice myth!

Check out a slightly edited transcript of our conversation below, or listen to the full episode on Apple, Spotify, or YouTube.

I’m curious about what you’re calling the recently passed federal scholarship tax credit.

Rabbi A.D. Motzen: So as far as what I call it, I begged that they create a better name when the House and Senate took away the ECCA, which was hard enough as it is. Yeah, it’s the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit. That’s the only way to describe it,

I’m okay with that. I just want to make sure we’re all calling it the same thing so everybody knows what we’re talking about! You were on Capitol Hill, putting in a lot of work making sure people knew what this was and knew why it was needed. So I’m sure you do have that elevator pitch honed. How do you describe this succinctly?

A.D. Motzen: When you say I was on the Hill, our Agudath Israel team, both in Washington, as well the state offices around the country, worked with their members of Congress on the ground as well.

I think there’s a lot of misinformation out there, like from the New York Times saying it’s a national voucher. So I think the best way to explain it is what it does. If you’re a parent who is struggling to pay tuition to have your child go to the private school of your choice, this is going to help. If you are a parent considering sending your child to private school, but you’re just not sure you have enough monthly income to pay tuition bills, this will help you. If you are a parent who sends their child to public school, but your child needs extra services, special needs services, tutoring, transportation to get there… Well, this bill, this new law can help and potentially in all 50 states. That’s what it does.

In a press release after President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4th. you said, “By signing this historic tax credit into law, President Trump brought the country one step closer to his stated goal of universal school choice. The new federal scholarship tax credit will allow taxpayers in all 50 states to generate K-12 scholarships that empower parents and students.”

Your elevator pitch focused on those parents and students, which is what we do in the school choice movement. That’s what we’re about. Mechanically, how does the tax credit allow taxpayers to generate the scholarships?

A.D. Motzen: A lot of people start with the mechanics and they start talking about tax credits. What we have found talking to people, the minute you say the word tax, their brain shuts off. So everything that you said afterwards did not register. So while some people start describing it as a tax credit and explaining how tax credit works, I explain what it’s supposed to do and then go backwards and say, ‘how does the money get generated?’

Unlike the New York Times claimed, it’s actually not a voucher. It’s not a check to a parent or to a school. The money is generated in these nonprofit scholarship organizations, which is not a new concept. Over 20 states already have such scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs). Agudath Israel of America happens to be not just an advocate, but we actually operate an SGO in Missouri. The day we’re recording, the governor of Missouri signed a bill that expanded scholarships in that state. So we’re very familiar with the entity of a scholarship organization.

For the mechanics though, for the average person at home who’s not running a scholarship organization, every single tax paying American can now donate $1,700 per taxpayer to a pot of money that will help the parents I mentioned earlier. That’s how it operates. $1,700 from every taxpayer, and that generates hundreds of millions, maybe billions of dollars, hopefully, for children to use in one of the eligible expenses.

Everyone asks, ‘I already can give a donation to a nonprofit today. So what’s the difference?’ The difference is a credit is a lot more valuable than a deduction. Without getting into tax law, if I make a donation for some people, they’re not just reducing the amount of money that the government says I earned that year that I’m taxed on. So If I give $1,000 to an organization right now, depending on who you are, you may not get anything back. And at most you might get a few hundred dollars back. If you make a donation and get a tax credit, I make a thousand dollar donation, I get $1,000 back. It doesn’t cost me anything.

So the simple choice donors have: You want to support kids in your community. You want to give $1,000 and not cost you anything. You can give it to Uncle Sam, or you can give it to kids in your neighborhood. You choose. Uncle Sam, kids in your neighborhood, that’s the choice. If you like that choice, give $1,700 to scholarship organizations and benefit parents.

You can give more than $1,700, but you can get the federal tax credit for that $1,700 contribution to the scholarship.

A.D. Motzen: Yes, right. And to clarify: the scholarship amounts, that all will be pooled together. So the scholarship organization can give scholarships of $5,000 or $10,000 if they have enough donors. The more donors, the larger the scholarships or the more kids that scholarship organization can serve.

As you mentioned, this is not a new idea. This is something that’s in place at the state level in close to 20 states. Scholarship granting organizations exist, sometimes on a very large scale when you’re talking about Step Up for Students in Florida, which has been running the scholarship programs there for a long time, and sometimes on a smaller scale. In the state where I live, Virginia, the scholarship granting organizations are very small and very focused.

And this idea of doing it at the federal level is not a new idea. It was called Education Freedom Scholarships during President Trump’s first administration. We’ve mentioned the Educational Choice for Children Act, ECCA, which is a more recent iteration. And then it has morphed into what passed in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. And your organization has been advocating for this concept for a long, long time. Can you tell us a little bit about why?

A.D. Motzen: So just to point out how long, I pulled up the congressional records for the House Ways and Means Committee from 1972. That is before I was born. The late president of Agudath Israel of America was also the president of a national coalition representing all the non-public schools in the country–Catholic, Christian, Jewish–and he was testifying for a tuition tax credit, which is different than this; but it was similar concept using the federal tax code to help parents…He talked about the concept of freedom–freedom of education, freedom of choice to practice religion, to simply having parents choose the education of their choice. But he said, ‘it’s not a choice if we force them because of the pocketbook coercion and send them to public schools because they can’t afford another choice.’ So the choice is only hypothetical unless we give them the ability to afford that choice. What he said then still rings true 50 years later. If we mean what we say when we talk about choice, we have to give people the ability to afford that. Many states do that. For the first time, the federal government is now giving parents more choice.

I just want to acknowledge what you said, that it wasn’t just you on Capitol Hill, it was a broader team from Agudath Israel and business leaders from around the country. I had the honor of attending an event when many people were in town, and you all made it a priority when these business leaders came into town to spread out across Capitol Hill and make sure that offices knew that this federal scholarship tax credit was something that you wanted to see happen. How did that come about?

A.D. Motzen: So we’ve been working with a coalition of many members, you were part of that, for many years working on this. And as it got closer to reconciliation, we realized that we needed to communicate to the members of Congress that their constituents found this to be the most important issue. And I think nothing hit that, nothing made that message get across as powerfully as business leaders who just that very day, a few blocks away at the White House, were being affected because their businesses that they’re involved in would be affected by tariffs. Or, others that were in the healthcare business, and maybe the Medicaid discussion on Capitol Hill would affect their businesses. And yet they walked into office after office with Senators and House members. And the only thing they talked about was about helping children; not their own children, because, thank God, most of these people can afford that choice, but people who can’t afford that choice. And that resonated so much that months later we were walking the halls, members of Congress, Speaker of the House, senators, still talked about that group of people who together with what was being done with coalition partners, with other faith leaders, it made such an impression that they came on that day for one reason. And I think that’s part of that strong coalition was why we actually got something in this bill.

Agudath Israel is not alone among faith-based organizations in prioritizing the passage of this federal scholarship tax credit. You mentioned the broader coalition that you’re part of. Could you share a little bit about that coalition and what you’ve heard from the perspective of other faith-based organizations?

A.D. Motzen: It’s not a Jewish or Catholic issue. One person who works for the Catholic Conference, one of the senators asked, ‘every time I see you, you’re with the yarmulkes, right? The guys with the yarmulkes.’ It made an impression that we were together and unified and we walked into offices together with John Schilling, your guest from last time with American Federation for Children, representing a broad number of people.

We came together with the CAPE board, the Council for American Private Education–Agudath Israel is a long time board member–and we came together. So here you are Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim school leaders unified saying, ‘this is our priority. It doesn’t mean we don’t have other issues, but we’re coming to you together. And while we may come to the table for different reasons or have different angles; but on this, I think we were pretty lockstep together.’

This is what we wanted and we tried to get the best bill possible that would protect the integrity and freedom of our private school and the freedom of the parents who want to choose such an education for their child if it’s right for them.

There’s a lot of talk from opponents of school choice that this is going to lead to the regulation of private schools. My guess is that CAPE would not be for this if there was a big concern about a regulatory regime about to descend upon private schools.

A.D. Motzen: That’s 100% true. The original bill had more explicit provisions that clarified that this bill does not give anybody any more power than they had yesterday to regulate private schools in many ways. And while that in the end was–we’ll talk, I’m sure about the parliamentarian and her opinion–was removed as extraneous to reconciliation. But I think that what we found very important is the legislative intent and the congressional intent that was there. Even if at one point it was almost taken out, but put right back, because I think Congress, especially Republicans in Congress, understands that this is about parents and not about regulating schools. And that’s what we found across the country, where there are many school choice programs. And by and large, they protect the integrity of religious schools because this is not about schools. It’s about parents receiving the funds to choose if it works for them. That’s what’s important. But we will make sure and we will stay vigilant both in the rules process as well as if they’re ready for litigation if necessary to protect our schools. And I can definitely say that on behalf of the entire CAPE coalition that is something that we have not backed down on at all.

A topic for another day and another podcast episode: ever since there was an Elementary and Secondary Education Act, private school students, private schools have had some kind of formal relationship with federal law, with federal education policy. Again, there are organizations like CAPE, organizations like yours, and the Catholic bishops that keep an eye on things because this is something that has to be carefully managed so you don’t just turn private schools into public schools. Otherwise, what is the choice that you’re offering a family? And when you’re talking about ensuring that religious freedom and faith-based schools are protected, as is their right, things have to be handled and monitored carefully.

Before we get to the Senate parliamentarian, a senator from Hawaii proposed an amendment to remove the provision during the Senate debate. And the Senate had an overnight vote-a-rama. Did you keep an eye on what happened there?

A.D. Motzen: I was up. Several of us were texting and commenting the next morning. I did fall asleep with my laptop, I will admit, but I was up. And I did hear Ted Cruz get up and give a resounding response that school choice is the civil rights issue of the 21st century, something he has said many times. He talked about every child, regardless of race, income deserves to have an ability to have an excellent education or access to that. And this bill will unleash billions of dollars. At the end, it was a tight vote. And I think all that did was prove why this needed to go to reconciliation and couldn’t be passed as a standalone bill because still half the Senate would refuse to allow parents the ability to improve their child’s education the way they see fit.

And now we have names, now we have a vote to show why it was so important that it needed to be in this bill.

We ended up with a provision in the Senate bill that some people would not call ideal. And that’s where the Senate parliamentarian comes in. Talk a little bit about what happened with the parliamentarian.

A.D. Motzen:. I think she is the sixth since the 1930s. There have been six parliamentarians, I believe; you may have to fact check me. It’s almost like you may actually have served longer than being in the U.S. Supreme Court. So it’s the umpire. And on a day to day basis, it’s really not controversial. The Senate has rules, she’s supposed to make sure they follow them.

When it comes to reconciliation, because she’s the judge calling balls and strikes, she’s the one who determines the size of her strike zone. And what can I say? This wasn’t just on school choice. There were policies that the Republicans, a lot of smart lawyers, chairmen of committees, lots of staff reviewed. Everybody thought it was an order and then got thrown out or had to be revised. So we weren’t unique. We were just last. If you follow the timeline, almost the last piece of legislation she reviewed on Thursday was this Educational Choice for Children Act provision. And she said it was out of order.

And so she doesn’t go in with a red pen and strike it out and that’s the end of it. She makes this recommendation that the Senate committees then have to scramble to find something that might be okay when it comes to the Byrd rule and what she’s trying to enforce.

A.D. Motzen: Yeah. So this archaic Byrd rule named after Senator Byrd has some principles, but defining it is in her purview to decide how she sees it. In some cases, they throw it out if she says it’s out of order and they just move on. In this case, the risk really was that it was a Friday morning. They were planning to vote on the bill, ideally Friday, even Saturday. And all of a sudden this thing’s thrown out. There’s not enough time to revise it. They have a lot of other needs they have to figure out. Medicaid and SALT, those were the topics everyone was talking about in the news, not this one little piece of it. We were scrambling, all the advocates, the senators who were our champions, to make sure that the Senate just doesn’t move on and say, ‘okay, sorry, we ran out of time. We’ve got to move, got to vote. So better luck next time.’

And I think that’s where we saw Senator Cruz as our champion say, ‘I’m going to argue with her. I’m not taking just no for an answer. I want to know why.’ And Senate leadership gave him the room to do that. And what ended up happening was many meetings between that Friday and Monday morning, when you saw a new amendment suddenly appear at the last moment. Senator Cruz was going back and forth with his staff, with Senator Thune’s staff leadership saying, ‘okay, I get it. You don’t like it. What don’t you like? What will make you happy and fit the rules? And that’s what we’re to do now because we want to, because you’re demanding it. Otherwise you’re throwing the whole thing out.’

So we got what we got at the end of that process. The impression that I’m getting from advocates is that people are grateful to Senator Cruz for both of those battles–for working it out with the parliamentarian and with working with leadership to ensure he had the time to do that, and for fighting off that middle of the night amendment. And he was not alone in advocating for this provision by any stretch of the imagination, but definitely there at the end. But again, I’m not hearing that people are totally content with the current version of it. What do you think needs to happen legislatively and with regulations to make the most of what did pass?

A.D. Motzen: The first thing is it starts in 2027, so for everybody worried about what’s going to happen tomorrow, it’s not starting yet. You can’t donate a dollar until January 2027, but a lot of work has to be done until then. And the first thing is rules, regulations. That’s what Treasury does. And they might not do it right away, but we’re working on that and having a team of experts to make sure that they interpret the law, which is very often vague on a number of issues, as it is intended to work. And since it was amended at the last minute, a lot of things were stripped out. We could see congressional intent, but the language that was there before may not be there now because of a reconciliation issue. Whatever clarifications we need to make with Treasury to make it workable, we have a team of experts with a lot of experience around the country to say, ‘Hey, this is what’s needed to make it work. How do we fit that with what the rules and what they say?’ And then there’s going to be an aspect of this, what’s being called the opt in, where a governor needs to submit a list of approved SGOs (scholarship organizations) by the beginning of the year. So scholarship organizations need guidance of what that means and how do I apply and who’s making that decision. Is it the governor, is it somebody else, and what kind of leeway do they have?

So there’s a lot of work to be done, a lot of discussions. I would say that there’s still time for Congress to come back and clarify things. They can change things in another bill. Another thing is that, on the state level, we are going to continue educating not just governors, but everybody in the state.

This is not about a New York Times false headline that this is a national voucher scam or an actual voucher program. It is about helping all parents who are eligible. Income eligibility is very high in many places. That doesn’t mean the scholarship organization will give it to them at that level, but it means that most of this country can benefit.

I think governors, or whoever is in charge of that state’s decision making, will say, ‘It’s not state money that I’m losing or using. If I don’t opt in, the money is going to be used outside of the state. State money will flow out.’ So we’re hoping that everybody understands and we educate everybody how important this is, how much it’s going to help everybody. Then between now and 2027, all 50 states and families in all those 50 states will benefit.

There is that potential because we talked about the $1,700 tax credit for the individual who gives to the scholarship granting organization; but overall, the aggregate, the volume cap isn’t limited. If there are millions of people out there who want to contribute, then that provides that opportunity to more students across the country.

A.D. Motzen: Absolutely. It’s permanent, which is something the Senate did, which is so, so important. We don’t have to come back to Congress in two years unless we’re trying to make it better, which we will. It is unlimited in the sense that as many $1,700 donations as you can get from as many taxpayers, you have more money to help children. And I think once we educate everybody, they will all be motivated. It doesn’t cost them. It’s Uncle Sam or your local child who needs help.

I’m sure you’ve heard a lot of school choice myths and a lot of opponents say their piece about these proposals. I’m wondering if you had the opportunity to speak directly to AFT President Randi Weingarten, or NEA President Becky Pringle, or whoever your favorite school choice opponent is, what would you say to them about this proposal?

A.D. Motzen: Stop lying. It’s not a binary choice between private school parents and public school parents as if there’s a different creature. Parents want what’s best for their child. I’ve been in the room with a parent who has a child in a private school, a public school, and a charter school. I think this bill surely makes it that clear that this is about helping parents.

I’m not trying to convince the unions. They are representing the adults. That’s their job. That’s what they get paid to do. But I think everybody else who cares about children primarily and represents children should be focused on what the bill actually does. Let’s read it. Let’s not rely on a quote from Randi Weingarten. Let’s actually read it and find out that this helps everybody. That’s what I would do. Talk beyond them, ignore them, and actually tell the truth.

All right, but they’re knocking on doors on Capitol Hill, holding press conferences, sending out press releases, and they’re very active on social media with their school choice myths. What’s the one that you heard the most over the last few months or what’s the one that bothers you the most that you’d want to tackle today?

A.D. Motzen: Well, right now they’re claiming this new law will help billionaires. Well, as we said before, if I’m a billionaire, and I have $1,700 and I made a donation to a scholarship organization, I actually have the same amount of money as I would have had yesterday because I either gave it to Uncle Sam or a scholarship organization. So that didn’t benefit the billionaire.

Who benefited from all the billionaires and all the millionaires and all the people–working class people–who gave $1,700 and pulled it together to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars for scholarships? I can tell you benefited. Parents, primarily the ones who struggle the most. So that is again, lying. And I think it annoys me because it’s just blatantly and patently false.

They kind of throw the whole billionaire/ millionaire/wealthy people thing at the wall as much as possible to see what will stick.

A.D. Motzen: I can speak for our schools. I went to private school on scholarship. My kids have gone to school on scholarship. And I can tell you that in the school I send my kids to, I think the free and reduced lunch rate might be about 50%, maybe more. There are schools in our network closer to 80, 90%. That’s why parents need these scholarships.

How can people learn more about the federal scholarship tax credit? How can they keep up with what’s going to be emerging through the regulatory process?

A.D. Motzen: Faith-based groups or others will be sending out information. For our organization, go to agudah.org/schoolchoice. There’s a lot of information and webinars, which keep getting updated. American Federation for Children has a great page where it has just a focus on the national school choice effort and they have the bill text. It’s important to read it because, as I said, a lot of people aren’t doing that. Other partners will have it on theirs as well.

---

---