Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
H.R. 3326, the "Persian Gulf Act," would prohibit the use of federal funds to rename the Persian Gulf. It also forbids any U.S. law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other United States record from referring to the Persian Gulf by a different name without express authorization of Congress.
Progressives emphasize cultural-historical preservation and anti-erasure.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill delivers a clear and narrowly worded substantive prohibition and declaratory rule but provides limited legislative craftsmanship in terms of implementation, exceptions, enforcement, fiscal acknowledgment, and integration with existing naming authorities.
H.R. 3326, the "Persian Gulf Act," would prohibit the use of federal funds to rename the Persian Gulf.
It also forbids any U.S. law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other United States record from referring to the Persian Gulf by a different name without express authorization of Congress.
The bill was introduced May 13, 2025, and referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Low fiscal impact and narrow scope help prospects, but foreign-policy sensitivities and lack of compromise features reduce likelihood without sponsor bargaining.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill delivers a clear and narrowly worded substantive prohibition and declaratory rule but provides limited legislative craftsmanship in terms of implementation, exceptions, enforcement, fiscal acknowledgment, and integration with existing naming authorities.
Progressives emphasize cultural-historical preservation and anti-erasure.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize cultural-historical preservation and anti-erasure.
Likely to view the bill as a defense of an established geographic name and cultural-historical recognition for Iranians.
Supportive insofar as it prevents erasure of a historical name, but wary that this is a symbolic use of congressional time.
Some concern that the measure could distract from substantive foreign policy priorities or provoke regional sensitivities.
Tends to treat the bill as a low-cost, symbolic statute that preserves an established name but creates some procedural and diplomatic questions.
Supportive of protecting consistency in federal documents, yet cautious about Congress intervening in symbolic naming and about unintended foreign-policy consequences.
Would look for narrow drafting and clear exemptions for diplomatic practice.
Likely to support the bill’s aim to prevent bureaucratic or executive-branch name changes and to conserve established nomenclature.
Views prohibiting federal funds for renaming as limiting federal overreach on symbolic issues.
At the same time, may caution that the law could interfere with diplomatic discretion and risk alienating key Gulf allies, so might prefer narrow exemptions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Low fiscal impact and narrow scope help prospects, but foreign-policy sensitivities and lack of compromise features reduce likelihood without sponsor bargaining.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize cultural-historical preservation and anti-erasure.
Low fiscal impact and narrow scope help prospects, but foreign-policy sensitivities and lack of compromise features reduce likelihood witho…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill delivers a clear and narrowly worded substantive prohibition and declaratory rule but provides limited legislative craftsmanship in terms of implementation, exception…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.