Federal Bill Launches 5-Year Review to Scrub Offensive Names from Maps and National Parks

The Reconciliation in Place Names Act is a straight-up federal effort to clean up the map. It establishes a formal, five-year process to identify and rename geographic features and federal lands—think national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges—that currently carry offensive names. This means names that include slurs, promote stereotypes, or, importantly, honor historical figures who supported discriminatory policies or committed atrocities against minorities and Native Americans (Sec. 3).

Essentially, Congress looked at the current system run by the Board on Geographic Names (BGN) and decided it was too slow and opaque for the scale of the problem (Sec. 2). This bill provides the structure and political will to move things along, aiming to make sure that no place name in the country keeps prejudice alive or insults any racial minority.

The New Naming Squad

The biggest change is the creation of the Advisory Committee on Reconciliation in Place Names (Sec. 4). This 17-member committee is the engine of the whole process. The Secretary of the Interior has 180 days to set it up, and the membership is designed to be diverse and knowledgeable.

It’s not just academics; the committee must include four members from Indian Tribes, one from a Tribal organization, one from a Native Hawaiian organization, and four civil rights experts. This composition ensures that the communities most affected by these offensive names have a seat at the table, offering a direct line of input that was often missing before.

How Your Local Peak Might Get a New Name

For most people, the process will start with public engagement. The committee is tasked with setting up a system to actively collect suggestions for name changes from the public, state and local governments, and, critically, Indian Tribes (Sec. 4(e)).

Let's say there’s a local mountain peak in a National Forest named after a historical figure known for actively participating in the removal of Native Americans. The committee would review the suggestion, propose a new name (perhaps one suggested by the local Tribe), and then send that formal recommendation to the BGN. The BGN then has a three-year deadline to either accept or reject the proposal (Sec. 5).

Crucially, the BGN can only reject the committee’s suggestion if there is a “compelling reason” and a “substantial public interest” in keeping the offensive name, or if the change would violate federal law (Sec. 5(b)). This standard is high and seems designed to make approval the default outcome, though that "compelling reason" clause does give the BGN significant wiggle room to push back if they choose.

What Changes and What Stays

It’s important to note the distinction the bill makes between different types of land. For standard geographic features (like a river or a mountain), the committee sends recommendations to the BGN. But for Federal land units—National Parks or National Forests—the committee sends its renaming proposals directly to Congress for action (Sec. 4(e)(5)). This means changing the name of a mountain is an administrative process, while changing the name of, say, a National Park unit requires an act of Congress.

For local governments and agencies, this means some administrative effort. If the name of a local reservoir or peak changes, things like maps, directional signs, and official documents will eventually need updating. While the bill’s intent is about healing and reconciliation, the practical cost of implementation—even if small on a per-site basis—will be borne by those agencies and, ultimately, taxpayers.

This bill represents a serious attempt to systematically address historical injustices embedded in our maps. By involving Tribes and civil rights experts directly and setting hard deadlines, the Act aims to move past the slow, reactive process of the past and proactively build a more inclusive national landscape.