The Persian Gulf Act prohibits the use of federal funds to rename the Persian Gulf. It also bars any federal law, map, regulation, document, or other United States record from referring to the Gulf by a different name unless Congress explicitly authorizes it.
The bill is a straightforward naming-preservation measure intended to ensure consistency in official references across government. The proposal underscores Congress’s authority over nomenclature used in federal materials and funding decisions, signaling a deliberate stance on how the Gulf is named in U.S. policy and records.
At a Glance
What It Does
Notwithstanding any other law, the bill blocks federal funding from being used to rename the Persian Gulf and prohibits references in federal records to a different name without express Congressional authorization.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies that produce official maps and documents, and organizations that rely on U.S. government nomenclature, including publishers of federal materials and diplomatic references.
Why It Matters
By centralizing naming decisions in Congress, the bill reduces the risk of ad hoc renaming but also curtails flexibility to reflect evolving geopolitical or cultural understandings in federal materials.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The act is compact but explicit. Section 1 designates the act as the Persian Gulf Act, establishing its short title.
Section 2 creates a hard prohibition: no federal funds may be used to rename the Persian Gulf, and no law, map, regulation, document, or other United States record may refer to the Gulf by a different name unless Congress authorizes such a change. The text emphasizes that this prohibition applies over other laws, implying a broad reach across federal activity and records.
In practice, if a federal agency intends to rename the Gulf or publish materials that use an alternate name, they would need explicit authorization from Congress. The bill does not specify penalties or dates of effect, leaving enforcement details to future congressional action or administrative interpretation.
Absent such changes, the current name would continue to be used in federal documents and funding decisions. The measure clearly positions naming authority within Congress and reduces the likelihood of unilateral renaming within federal channels.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill prohibits federal funds from being used to rename the Persian Gulf.
No federal law, map, regulation, or other U.S. record may use a different name without Congress authorization.
The prohibition is stated to override other provisions of law.
It is titled the Persian Gulf Act.
The text provided does not specify penalties, enforcement mechanisms, or an effective date.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section provides the act's citation as the Persian Gulf Act. It formalizes the bill’s identity but does not by itself alter naming rules beyond enabling the rest of the statute to be cited.
Prohibition on Use of Federal Funds to Rename
This section bars any use of federal funds to rename the Persian Gulf and prohibits the United States from referring to the Gulf by an alternate name in any law, map, regulation, document, or record without express authorization of Congress. The language—‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law’—emphasizes supremacy over conflicting statutes and seeks to unify naming across federal materials.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State and other federal agencies that issue official maps and records benefit from a single, stable nomenclature across all materials, reducing inconsistency and interagency friction.
- National Archives, libraries, and other record-keeping bodies benefit from reduced variation in terminology across federal documents.
- GIS/mapping vendors and educational publishers benefit from clear, binding naming standards that limit divergent references in federal outputs.
- Foreign governments and international organizations that reference U.S. official materials gain predictability when U.S. references use a consistent name.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies would incur compliance considerations if they need explicit authorization to adopt any renaming proposals.
- Publishers of maps, textbooks, and digital datasets may need to adjust materials to align with the prohibition and seek congressional approval for any changes.
- Researchers and institutions that advocate renaming proposals may face procedural barriers when engaging with federal materials and metadata.
- Private sector partners producing materials derived from federal naming standards may face update costs to maintain consistency with the statute.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing the need for stable, consistent federal nomenclature with the flexibility required to reflect changing geopolitical realities and cultural contexts.
The bill creates a straightforward rule around naming that prioritizes consistency in federal materials, but it also raises practical questions. A central issue is scope: does the prohibition apply only to federally funded activities and records, or could it extend to private sector materials that closely follow federal naming conventions?
The absence of enforcement mechanisms or penalties means implementation would likely depend on subsequent legislation or administrative guidance. There are potential tensions with evolving cultural or geopolitical understandings that might warrant renaming, which this bill would inhibit without explicit Congressional action.
Another open question is how “authorization of Congress” would be interpreted for different kinds of references (e.g., diplomatic communications versus internal agency documents) and whether transitional provisions would ever be needed to update legacy materials.
Core Tension: The bill trades naming stability for flexibility. It aims to prevent unilateral renaming by the executive branch, but by doing so it constrains timely responses to new geopolitical or cultural developments that could lead to a rename proposal.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.