AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 3; Title 4 and Title 8, relative to the Recognizing Judea and Samaria Act.
HB1446, the “Recognizing Judea and Samaria Act,” directs Tennessee state agencies to stop using the term “West Bank” in official government materials and instead use the historical names “Judea” and “Samaria” when referring to the territory. The bill defines “official government material” broadly to include agency guidance, rules, briefings, press releases, communications, and other work products, and it bars the use of state funds to produce materials using “West Bank” for that region.
The measure also contains extensive legislative findings asserting the historical, biblical, and legal significance of Judea and Samaria to the Jewish people and to the State of Israel. It includes express carveouts stating that it does not restrict protected speech, academic work, or federal-agency terminology, and it says it should not be read to compel private individuals to adopt the terminology. At the same time, it applies to written records and materials prepared by state employees in official capacities, including certain institutional publications and course-related administrative materials at public higher education institutions.
The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 3, 4, and 8 by creating a new state policy governing terminology used by state agencies in official materials. Its practical effect is to require state agencies to avoid “West Bank” in state-produced communications and to use “Judea and Samaria” instead, except when quoting or referencing federal agency communications. It also reaches state-funded materials and certain administrative documents at public institutions, while expressly preserving First Amendment protections and academic expression.
The bill appears to have had generally favorable support among legislative majorities, advancing through subcommittee, full committee, and floor votes with more yeas than nays at each stage. The final passage votes show clear approval, though not unanimity, indicating that the measure was broadly supported but still drew meaningful opposition. The lack of committee transcript material limits insight into the tone of debate, but the vote margins suggest the bill was politically supported by most Republicans and opposed by a smaller bloc of members.
The main point of contention is the bill’s directive that state agencies adopt a politically and diplomatically loaded term for a disputed international territory, which opponents likely viewed as an ideological or foreign-policy statement rather than a neutral terminology rule. The broad legislative findings, including assertions about biblical history, international law, and the strategic interests of the United States, may also have been controversial because they go beyond a narrow naming policy. Supporters, by contrast, framed the bill as recognizing historical accuracy and Jewish heritage while including speech and academic-freedom exceptions to limit its reach.