To Create The Recognizing Judea And Samaria Act; And To Prohibit State Agencies From Using The Term "west Bank" In Official Government Materials.
HB1929 creates the “Recognizing Judea and Samaria Act” and directs Arkansas state agencies to stop using the term “West Bank” in official government materials when referring to the territory controlled by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War. The bill states legislative intent to use the historical names “Judea and Samaria,” with “Judea” described as the area south of Jerusalem and “Samaria” as the area north of Jerusalem.
The bill defines “official government material” broadly to include guidance, rules, materials, briefings, press releases, and other communications prepared by a state agency. It prohibits state agencies from using state funds to produce official materials that refer to the territory as the “West Bank.” The measure also allows an agency’s executive head to waive the prohibition if doing so is in the state’s interest, but requires a written explanation to be sent to the General Assembly or Legislative Council within 30 days.
Its legal effect is limited to state-government speech and procurement of official communications; it does not change federal law, private speech, or the underlying status of the territory. The bill amends Arkansas Code Title 25, Chapter 1 by adding a new subchapter governing terminology used by state agencies in official materials, and it creates a compliance rule for state departments, boards, commissions, offices, and institutions.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history appears supportive overall, with the bill advancing on third reading in both chambers by clear margins. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to identify detailed arguments, but the strong vote totals suggest the measure had meaningful legislative support. At the same time, the subject matter is politically sensitive because it addresses terminology tied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and foreign policy symbolism.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s directive to replace the widely used term “West Bank” with “Judea and Samaria,” which may be viewed by critics as adopting a partisan or ideologically loaded framing of the territory. Supporters would likely view it as a recognition of historical or biblical nomenclature and a statement of solidarity with Israel. The waiver provision may have been included to give agencies flexibility where necessary, but the core dispute is over whether state government should regulate terminology in this area at all.
HB1929 amends Arkansas law by adding a new subchapter to Title 25 that restricts how state agencies may describe the West Bank in official government materials. It requires agencies to avoid the term “West Bank,” bars the use of state funds for materials using that term, and establishes a waiver process for agency heads with notice to legislative bodies. The bill affects state agencies, their communications practices, and the use of public funds for official publications, but it does not alter property law, criminal law, or federal policy.
The available voting history indicates the bill was generally well received in the legislature, passing third reading in the House and Senate by substantial margins. With no committee transcripts provided, there is no direct record of floor or committee debate, but the vote totals suggest broad support rather than a closely divided or highly contentious measure. Even so, the bill’s subject matter is inherently politically charged because it involves terminology associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and U.S. foreign-policy discourse.
The central controversy is whether Arkansas should require state agencies to use “Judea and Samaria” instead of “West Bank” in official materials. Supporters are likely to argue that the bill reflects historical naming conventions and affirms a pro-Israel position, while opponents may see it as government-mandated political messaging or an endorsement of one side of an international dispute. The waiver provision may soften operational concerns, but the underlying dispute remains over the state’s role in shaping terminology for a contested region.