Federal Lands to Review and Replace Offensive Place Names: New Committee Gets 5 Years to Fix the Map

This bill, the Reconciliation in Place Names Act, sets up a dedicated, time-bound process to scrub offensive, derogatory, or hateful names from geographic features and federal land units across the country. Essentially, Congress is saying the current system for fixing these names is too slow and opaque, so they’re creating a new, focused task force to get the job done right now.

The core of the bill is the creation of the Advisory Committee on Reconciliation in Place Names (SEC. 4). This 17-member group, which must be established within 180 days, will include experts in civil rights, history, and anthropology, plus representatives from Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, and Native Hawaiian organizations. Their mission is to systematically identify and propose replacements for names that honor people who committed atrocities, supported discriminatory policies, or contain racial or sexual slurs (SEC. 3).

The Committee’s Mandate: Fixing the Map

This isn't just about a few isolated names; it’s a systematic overhaul. The Committee must actively seek renaming proposals from the public, state and local governments, and Tribes. They have a strict timeline: they need to complete all their required work—meaning sending their renaming proposals to the Board on Geographic Names (BGN) and Congress—within five years of being established (SEC. 4).

For the average person, this means if you live near a federal park or forest with a name you know is offensive, there will finally be a formal, public process to suggest a change. For example, if a local mountain is named after a historical figure known for violence against Native Americans, the Committee will review proposals for a respectful, culturally appropriate replacement name.

Less Red Tape for the Board

The bill also forces the BGN’s hand. Currently, the BGN can take years to act on name change requests. Under this Act, once the Committee sends a proposal to rename a geographic feature, the BGN has a hard deadline of three years to make a decision (SEC. 5). More importantly, the BGN is required to approve the Committee’s suggested name change unless they find a “compelling reason and substantial public interest” to reject it, or if it violates federal law. This shifts the default position from bureaucratic inertia to action.

This is a crucial detail. While the BGN still holds the final decision power, the bill sets a very high bar for rejection. The intent is clearly to ensure the majority of the Committee’s recommendations move forward quickly. However, that “compelling reason” clause is a bit of a gray area—it’s vague enough that it could potentially be used to slow down or obstruct changes if the BGN leadership isn't fully aligned with the Committee’s goals, despite the bill's intent to expedite the process.

Who This Affects and How

The most immediate impact will be felt by the communities whose history and culture have been erased or insulted by existing names—particularly Indian Tribes, who gain formal consultation rights and representation on the Committee. This is reconciliation in action, giving dignity back to the landscape and the people who live there.

For federal land agencies, like the National Park Service or the Forest Service, there will be a significant administrative lift. Every time a federal land unit or geographic feature is renamed, all maps, signs, publications, and databases have to be updated. While necessary, this process is costly and time-consuming, requiring budget adjustments and focused effort from agency staff.

Finally, for those who oppose these changes, perhaps favoring the retention of names for historical reasons, this bill establishes a clear, democratic process that prioritizes the removal of offensive language and the honoring of marginalized communities. While the public can submit comments, the focus of the new Committee is firmly on correcting historical injustices, not preserving names rooted in prejudice.