HB0435 establishes a formal Utah state policy directing state agencies and official government materials to refer to the land controlled by Israel that was taken from Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War by its historical names, “Judea and Samaria,” rather than “West Bank.” The bill defines “official government material” broadly to include rules, press releases, communications, briefings, guidance, and publications produced by a state agency, and it defines “state agency” to include state departments, divisions, offices, commissions, and similar institutions.
The bill also specifies a geographic framing within that terminology, stating that land south of Jerusalem is considered Judea and land north of Jerusalem is considered Samaria. It does not appropriate money and contains no other special clauses. The bill takes effect on May 6, 2026.
Impact
HB0435 would add a new section to Utah Code Title 63G, Chapter 34, creating a state policy on terminology used by state agencies when referring to a specific area in the Israeli-Palestinian context. In practical terms, it would prohibit state agencies from using the term “West Bank” in official government materials for the land described in the bill and would require the state to use “Judea and Samaria” instead. The measure affects state agencies’ written and electronic communications, but it does not regulate private speech or directly alter federal law.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be strongly value-driven and likely intended to make a symbolic foreign-policy statement rather than to change state operations in a budgetary or administrative sense. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate or vote history to indicate formal support or opposition. The bill’s filing status suggests it was introduced but not advanced in the available record.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s mandated terminology for a politically sensitive and internationally disputed territory. Supporters would likely view the measure as affirming Israel’s historical claims and aligning state language with that position, while opponents would likely object that it adopts a contested political framing and restricts neutral governmental terminology. The prohibition on using “West Bank” in official materials is the clearest flashpoint, because it directly compels state agencies to adopt one side of a disputed naming convention.