The bill, formally titled the Retiring the Egregious Confusion Over the Genuine Name of Israel’s Zone of Influence by Necessitating Government-use of Judea and Samaria Act, would prohibit federal materials and guidance that refer to the area Israel annexed as the West Bank. It would force a shift in official terminology across the federal government to Judea and Samaria, and it would require a series of conforming changes across multiple statutes to reflect that naming.
Key provisions include a sense of Congress directing agencies to adopt the Judea and Samaria terminology and to stop using the West Bank in official materials; a prohibition on funding any work product that uses West Bank terminology (with limited treaty-related exception); and a waiver mechanism through the Secretary of State. The bill also mandates conforming changes throughout a broad set of laws to replace all instances of “West Bank” with “Judea and Samaria,” creating a durable rebranding across U.S. law.
These elements operate together to standardize naming in federal diplomacy, aid, and related statutory texts, subject to treaty obligations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires federal agencies to use the term Judea and Samaria and prohibits them from producing materials that refer to the land as the West Bank. It also compels cross-cutting amendments to several major statutes to mirror the new nomenclature.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies that produce official materials (e.g., the State Department, USAID, defense and diplomacy-related offices) and the contractors that support them, plus any program supported by federal funds that creates public-facing materials.
Why It Matters
Establishes a uniform official naming convention across federal government materials, potentially shaping diplomatic language, policy communications, and legal texts in multiple areas.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill sets a hard requirement that the United States refer to the land annexed by Israel from Jordan during the 1967 Six‑Day War as Judea and Samaria, and it directs all federal materials to avoid the term West Bank. It starts with a sense-of-the-C Congress provision that instructs agencies to adopt this terminology and stop using West Bank in official communications.
In addition, the bill prohibits any funds from being used to prepare or publish materials that use the West Bank name, with a narrow exception for treaty obligations and related international agreements.
Beyond the prohibition, the bill creates a waiver mechanism. The Secretary of State may waive the prohibition if doing so serves U.S. interests and must provide Congress with a justification within 30 days of making the determination.
The most sweeping part is Section 4, which requires a broad set of conforming changes to U.S. law to replace every instance of West Bank with Judea and Samaria across a range of statutes and acts, including foreign assistance, human-rights and security frameworks, and trade-related legislation. Taken together, these provisions push a durable, government-wide rebranding of official terminology, reducing ambiguity in diplomatic communications but also raising questions about implementation and alignment with international practices.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill bans funds from being used to produce materials that call the land West Bank; Judea and Samaria must be used instead.
A Sense of Congress directs federal agencies to adopt Judea and Samaria and to stop using West Bank in official materials.
A waiver mechanism lets the Secretary of State, with 30-day congressional notification, override the prohibition when in U.S. interests.
Section 4 requires conforming changes across multiple statutes to replace every instance of West Bank with Judea and Samaria.
The change spans numerous laws, including the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Taylor Force Act, the 9/11 Commission Act, and others.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
Sets the official name of the act and provides the primary naming convention the bill seeks to enforce across subsequent sections. This establishes the legal identity of the policy goal and frames the scope of the required terminology changes.
Sense of Congress
Expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should refer to the land as Judea and Samaria and should stop using West Bank in official government materials. This section signals a policy preference and creates a backdrop for the following prohibitions and amendments.
Prohibition on Use of Materials that Use the Term 'West Bank'
Subsection (a) prohibits obligating or expending funds to produce or promulgate any material that refers to Judea and Samaria as the West Bank, with a narrow exception for treaty obligations. Subsection (b) preserves the treaty-related exception, and Subsection (c) authorizes a waiver by the Secretary of State if it serves U.S. interests, coupled with a 30‑day congressional notification requirement. This section creates the core enforcement mechanism and a controlled flexibility to accommodate foreign relations realities.
Conforming Changes to United States Law
Specifies that a broad set of statutes must be amended to replace ‘West Bank’ with ‘Judea and Samaria.’ The amendments span the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and related sections, the Taylor Force Act, the Multinational Force and Observers Participation Resolution, the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, the United States-Israel Free Trade Area Implementation Act of 1985, the 9/11 Commission Act, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of FY 2003, and the Nita M. Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace Act, among others. The intent is to create a durable, cross-cutting alignment across federal law.
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
- The U.S. Department of State and other federal agencies responsible for diplomacy and public communications gain a consistent naming standard that simplifies messaging and reduces ambiguity in official texts.
- Government contractors and vendors who produce official materials will face a unified terminology template, reducing translation and formatting discrepancies across materials.
- Israel’s government and allied policymakers who favor Judea and Samaria terminology may see improved alignment with U.S. messaging on this issue.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies and their communications pipelines will incur costs to audit, update, and reissue documents, guidance, and publications.
- Contractors and vendors responsible for producing official materials will incur transition costs and potential delays as systems and templates are updated.
- Legal and policy staff may need to manage interagency coordination and ensure continued compliance with treaty obligations where applicable.
- Small programs and local offices could face operational burdens during the transition as they retrofit documents and materials to the new nomenclature.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Should the United States impose a uniform internal naming convention across hundreds of laws and official materials, potentially signaling a stronger political stance, while risking friction with international partners and the practical challenges of large-scale, technical updates?
The bill's approach raises policy tensions around terminology versus international diplomacy. While the prohibition seeks to standardize government language, the practicalities of updating thousands of documents across agencies, databases, and public communications could be nontrivial.
The waiver mechanism provides an escape hatch, but it requires a justification to Congress, which could create timing and political considerations that affect implementation. The reliance on a broad set of conforming amendments also creates a wide-reaching legal footprint that may interact with existing international agreements and long-standing diplomatic language in ways that require careful coordination.
A key unresolved question is how the new nomenclature interacts with ongoing treaty obligations and customary international law, and whether some contexts—such as joint statements, multilateral negotiations, or partner communications—will compel deviations from the new standard. Agencies will need to build governance processes to track where West Bank references persist and how to manage those exceptions, especially where historical documents and older materials are involved.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.