S. 573 (119th)Bill Overview

A bill to designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as Denali.

Public Lands and Natural Resources|AlaskaParks, recreation areas, trails
Cosponsors
Support
Bipartisan
Introduced
Feb 13, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

This bill designates the mountain located at 63°04′12″ N, 151°00′18″ W in Alaska as "Denali" and specifies that any U.S. law, map, regulation, document, or record referring to that mountain shall be deemed to refer to Denali.

Why people may split

Progressives emphasize Indigenous recognition and symbolism

Watch point

Single-issue, symbolic bill typically attracts broad support; few policy objections expected.

This bill designates the mountain located at 63°04′12″ N, 151°00′18″ W in Alaska as "Denali" and specifies that any U.S. law, map, regulation, document, or record referring to that mountain shall be deemed to refer to Denali.

Passage80/100

Narrow, symbolic naming bills historically clear legislative hurdles; minimal fiscal or regulatory issues make enactment likely.

CredibilityPartial

How solid the drafting looks.

Contention30/100

Progressives emphasize Indigenous recognition and symbolism

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Local governments · Federal agenciesLikely burdened

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Local governmentsAffirms and standardizes the mountain's name in federal records for consistency with local usage.
  • Potential benefitRecognizes cultural and historical naming preferences, including Indigenous name usage.
  • Federal agenciesReduces legal or administrative ambiguity about which geographic feature federal references denote.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenRequires agencies to update maps, databases, and publications, creating administrative costs.
  • Potential burdenMay cause temporary confusion where older laws or documents use different historical names.
  • Potential burdenCould set a precedent encouraging further geographic renaming debates and related disputes.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize Indigenous recognition and symbolism
Progressive95%

Likely supportive as a recognition of Indigenous place names and Alaska Native cultural heritage.

Views the change as low-cost, symbolic redress of historical naming decisions.

Leans supportive
Centrist80%

Generally favorable as a low-cost, administrative, and locally supported change.

Wants clarity on implementation costs and interagency coordination.

Leans supportive
Conservative60%

Mixed but likely somewhat supportive if seen as respecting state/local preferences; some conservatives may object to perceived identity-politics motives or federal involvement in naming.

Split reaction
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood80/100

Narrow, symbolic naming bills historically clear legislative hurdles; minimal fiscal or regulatory issues make enactment likely.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Possible local or Indigenous stakeholder objections
  • Committee floor time and legislative calendar priorities
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Progressives emphasize Indigenous recognition and symbolism

Narrow, symbolic naming bills historically clear legislative hurdles; minimal fiscal or regulatory issues make enactment likely.

Unlocked analysis

Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for A bill to designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as Denal…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis