S. 254Senate bill · 119th CongressSigned into lawNative Americans

ARTIST Act

Sponsored byDan SullivanR-AKIntroduced Jan 24, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jun 12, 2026) No: 119-99.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Jun 12, 2026

Alaska’s Right to Ivory Sales and Tradition Act or the ARTIST Act

This act prohibits states from imposing bans on marine mammal products produced by Alaska Natives.

Specifically, states may not prohibit the interstate commerce, importation, sale, transfer, trade, barter, or possession of marine mammal ivory, marine mammal bone, or baleen legally produced by an Alaska Native as an authentic Alaska Native article of handicrafts and clothing.

Face Value

as enrolled
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • On decisive vote

    House · Jun 3, 2026

    A fast-track vote: no amendments, short debate, and two thirds needed to pass. Used for bills expected to be uncontroversial.

    40414

    Passed

    Every vote →

Discussion

12 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
22
MidwestMechanicDemoPA-17voted Nay23d ago
No. Unfunded mandates are still mandates, and this pushes the cost down to states and localities without saying so out loud.
-1
civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Yea25d ago
This is my worry too — the cost estimate always assumes full compliance and full compliance never happens.
3
TheQuietMajorityDemoCA-12voted Yea17d ago
That's the part I can't get past either. The authority is broad and the guardrails are thin.
10
b_haverfordDemoLA-6voted Yea23d ago
Counterpoint: the reporting requirement is the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
22
lauren_vDemoOK-2voted Yea28d ago
In favour, with a caveat: the effective date is doing a lot of work here. If it slips, everything else in this bill is theoretical.
17
PlainsVoterDemoIL-7voted Nay26d ago
I'd oppose this. It reads like it was written to be announced rather than administered.
4
TenthAmendmentDemoTX-4voted Yea21d ago
Sure, but 'the states are doing it' cuts the other way for me. If it's working there, why federalise it?
9
hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Yea21d ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it now means starting over in the next Congress.
4
marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Nay21d ago
I'd add that the states already doing this haven't seen the effects the opponents predicted. That's some evidence.
4
mfitzhughDemoGA-9voted Yea19d ago
Same conclusion, different reasoning. I'm less worried about scope and more about who administers it.
10
RedRiverRonDemoNJ-1voted Nay27d ago
The intent is fine. The drafting is not. There's no sunset, no review, and no mechanism to stop it if it turns out to be counterproductive.
10
civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Yea18d ago
Where are you seeing that? I read the summary twice and it doesn't say that anywhere.
Your position on S. 25469% Yea · 26 VoteWire users