Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
This bill directs the U.S. Government to use the historical names "Judea and Samaria" instead of "West Bank" in official materials. It prohibits federal funds from preparing or promulgating materials that use the term "West Bank," amends multiple federal statutes to replace that term, includes an exception for treaty obligations, and allows a Secretary of State waiver with congressional notice.
Progressives view renaming as undermining neutrality and Palestinian rights.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines its goal and implements concrete statutory text changes and a funding prohibition to achieve that goal.
This bill directs the U.S. Government to use the historical names "Judea and Samaria" instead of "West Bank" in official materials.
It prohibits federal funds from preparing or promulgating materials that use the term "West Bank," amends multiple federal statutes to replace that term, includes an exception for treaty obligations, and allows a Secretary of State waiver with congressional notice.
High political controversy over a symbolic naming change with limited policy benefit and low fiscal impact; unlikely without strong bipartisan or chamber-level majorities.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines its goal and implements concrete statutory text changes and a funding prohibition to achieve that goal. It supplies a limited waiver mechanism and explicit amendment instructions for many statutes.
Progressives view renaming as undermining neutrality and Palestinian rights.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives view renaming as undermining neutrality and Palestinian rights.
Likely to oppose the bill as a politically charged renaming that undermines U.S. diplomatic neutrality regarding Israeli-Palestinian status.
They will view it as signaling support for Israeli territorial claims and risking harm to Palestinians and peace negotiations.
Mixed and pragmatic.
Concerned about diplomatic and legal consequences of a mandated renaming, but recognizes political signaling reasons and domestic consistency arguments.
Would weigh amendments protecting treaty obligations and avoiding prejudgment of sovereignty.
Likely to strongly support the bill as correcting perceived bias and restoring historical terminology tied to Israel.
Views the change as symbolic affirmation of Israeli connections to the territory and appropriate federal nomenclature.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
High political controversy over a symbolic naming change with limited policy benefit and low fiscal impact; unlikely without strong bipartisan or chamber-level majorities.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives view renaming as undermining neutrality and Palestinian rights.
High political controversy over a symbolic naming change with limited policy benefit and low fiscal impact; unlikely without strong biparti…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines its goal and implements concrete statutory text changes and a funding prohibition to achieve that goal. It supplies a limited waiver mechanism and exp…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.