PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 11, 2025
This bill provides statutory authority for the designation of the military installation under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army in Fayetteville, North Carolina, as Fort Bragg.
The installation was originally designated as Fort Bragg for Confederate general Braxton Bragg, and was changed to Fort Liberty in 2023. On February 10, 2025, the Department of Defense issued a memorandum to rename it to Fort Bragg, in honor of Army PFC Roland Bragg, who served during World War II.
People & committees
Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 11, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1214 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1214 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1214 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1214 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-11 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill proposes naming the Army installation in Fayetteville, North Carolina, Fort Bragg after enactment. It would also require references to that installation in federal laws, maps and other records to be understood as references to Fort Bragg.
The military installation under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army located in Fayetteville, North Carolina, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and designated as Fort Bragg.
Any reference to such military installation in any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be considered to be a reference to Fort Bragg.
Section 1(b) would use the existing definition of “military installation” in section 2801 of title 10 of the United States Code.
In this section, the term military installation has the meaning given such term in section 2801 of title 10, United States Code.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated June 11, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Armed Services on February 11, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-06-11T23:26:35Z. 2025-02-11: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. 2025-02-11: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-11. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; earmark disclosures and committee or conference materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No narrow exemption, carve-out or preferential treatment meeting this category’s definition was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jun 11, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI