AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 3; Title 4 and Title 8, relative to the Recognizing Judea and Samaria Act.
SB1663, titled the “Recognizing Judea and Samaria Act,” directs Tennessee state agencies to use the historical names “Judea” and “Samaria” instead of “West Bank” in official government materials. The bill defines “official government material” broadly to include guidance, rules, briefings, press releases, communications, and other work product prepared by state agencies, and it bars the use of state funds to create official materials that refer to the region as the West Bank. It also states that the land south of Jerusalem should be called Judea and the land north of Jerusalem Samaria for purposes of state government usage.
The bill includes extensive legislative findings asserting biblical, historical, legal, and strategic reasons for adopting the terminology, and it frames the change as consistent with support for Israel and Jewish sovereignty. It expressly excludes federal communications from the restriction and says it should not be read to compel private speech or to limit academic speech, including lectures, classroom remarks, scholarly articles, and research publications at public institutions of higher education. At the same time, it says the rule does apply to written records and materials prepared by state employees in their official capacities for administrative or institutional purposes, including course descriptions, catalogs, and institutional publications.
If enacted, the bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 4 and 8 by creating a new state policy on terminology used by state agencies when referring to the West Bank/Judea and Samaria. Its practical effect is to change how state government documents, communications, and some public-institution materials describe the region, while leaving federal terminology, private speech, and most academic expression untouched. The act takes effect July 1, 2026.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history appears supportive but not unanimous. The Senate State & Local Government Committee recommended passage with amendments by a 5-3 vote, indicating meaningful support among committee members but also notable opposition. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote suggests the bill was politically and substantively contested.
The main point of contention is the bill’s attempt to impose a preferred geopolitical and historical terminology on state agencies, which some may view as a symbolic foreign-policy statement rather than a neutral administrative rule. Supporters appear to favor the bill as a recognition of Israel’s historical claims and as a rejection of the term “West Bank,” while opponents likely object to the state taking a position on an international territorial dispute and to the breadth of the restrictions on official materials. The bill’s carve-outs for academic speech and federal references suggest lawmakers anticipated concerns about free expression and institutional autonomy.
The bill would add a new section to Tennessee law restricting state agencies from using the term “West Bank” in official government materials and from spending state funds to produce such materials. It would require state agencies to use “Judea and Samaria” instead, while exempting federal communications and preserving protections for speech, academic work, and private expression. The measure would affect state agencies broadly, including departments, boards, commissions, and public institutions when acting in official or administrative capacities.
The available voting record suggests the bill had solid support but also significant opposition. In the Senate State & Local Government Committee, it advanced 5-3 with an amendment, which indicates the measure was not broadly unanimous and drew enough concern to produce a divided vote. Because no committee transcript is available, the specific arguments are not recorded here, but the overall sentiment appears favorable among supporters and skeptical among a minority of members.
The central controversy is whether Tennessee should direct its agencies to adopt politically and historically loaded terminology for a disputed region in the Middle East. Supporters view the bill as affirming Israel’s historical and legal claims and rejecting language they consider inaccurate or politically biased. Opponents are likely to object to the state inserting itself into an international territorial dispute, to the symbolic nature of the mandate, and to the breadth of the official-materials restriction. The bill’s explicit exemptions for academic speech and private expression indicate lawmakers were also trying to address free-speech and institutional-autonomy concerns.