What This Bill Does
The ARTIST Act would amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to strengthen protections for Alaska Native people who make and sell authentic handicrafts and marine mammal ivory products. It defines key terms such as “authentic Alaska Native article of handicrafts and clothing,” “marine mammal ivory,” and “traditional Alaska Native handicrafts,” and it preserves an exemption for certain Alaska Native taking of marine mammals for subsistence or for making and selling those items. The bill also bars states from blocking interstate commerce and other transactions involving marine mammal ivory, bone, or baleen incorporated into authentic Alaska Native handicrafts. It would also require the Secretary of the Interior to justify certain depletion or impact findings in writing, publicly available on the Secretary’s website, using substantial evidence and considering Indigenous knowledge.
- Defines “authentic Alaska Native article of handicrafts and clothing” in section 101(b) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
- Allows Alaska Natives in coastal Alaska to take marine mammals for subsistence or to make and sell authentic handicrafts, if not wasteful.
- Bars states from prohibiting interstate commerce, importation, sale, transfer, trade, barter, or possession of qualifying marine mammal ivory, bone, or baleen items.
- Requires the Secretary to support certain depletion and impact findings with substantial evidence and to post the written justification publicly.
- Lets the Secretary regulate depleted stocks by species, geography, season, or other factors after notice and hearing.
Who This Bill Affects
For Alaska Native artisans and hunters who qualify under section 101(b) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act as revised here, the bill would make it easier to continue making and selling authentic handicrafts using marine mammal ivory, bone, or baleen, including in interstate commerce. For consumers and resellers, the bill would clarify that only items that truly fit the statutory definition can be sold as authentic Alaska Native articles, while states could not block those lawful transactions. For people outside Alaska, the bill has little direct day-to-day effect except through the market for these products and through federal wildlife-management decisions under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Alaska Native artisans and subsistence hunters They would argue the bill protects cultural practices that depend on traditional materials and methods, while preserving a lawful path to sell authentic handicrafts. The interstate-commerce protections could reduce uncertainty and state-by-state barriers for small producers.
- Rural Alaska communities They may support the bill because it recognizes that marine mammal use can be part of both subsistence and local economic activity. The ability to sell edible portions for native consumption or in a native village or town in Alaska also reflects local food and community practices.
- Tribal and Indigenous rights advocates They could favor the bill’s requirement that the Secretary consider Indigenous knowledge and publicly justify certain findings with substantial evidence. That gives affected communities a stronger procedural role when federal restrictions are imposed.
- Wildlife conservation advocates They may worry that expanding commerce protections for ivory, bone, and baleen could make enforcement more difficult and create incentives that are harder to monitor. Even with depletion safeguards, they may see the bill as weakening the practical deterrent against overuse or illegal trade.
- State regulators States that want broader authority over wildlife trade could object to the explicit prohibition on state restrictions for qualifying Alaska Native items. They may argue the bill limits state-level consumer protection or wildlife enforcement tools.
- Animal welfare critics of ivory markets They may oppose any bill that normalizes sale of marine mammal ivory, even when tied to Alaska Native handicrafts. Their concern is that legal markets can blur lines and complicate efforts to prevent illicit ivory commerce.
Key Implications
-
““The provisions of this Act shall not apply with respect to the taking of any marine mammal by any Alaska Native…””
This is the core exemption. It means certain Alaska Native taking of marine mammals would remain outside the Act’s general prohibition when it is for subsistence or for making and selling authentic handicrafts, subject to the bill’s limits.
-
““An item presented as an authentic Alaska Native article… may be sold in interstate commerce only if it comports with the definition””
This creates a truth-in-labeling rule. Sellers cannot simply claim an item is authentic; it must meet the statutory definition, which matters for enforcement and for buyers trying to distinguish lawful cultural goods from misrepresented products.
-
““No State shall prohibit the interstate commerce, importation, sale… of marine mammal ivory…””
This preempts state laws that would otherwise block qualifying Alaska Native ivory, bone, or baleen items. In practice, it gives these products a federal protection against state-level bans when they are incorporated into authentic handicrafts.
-
““the Secretary shall demonstrate in writing… that… such regulation… is supported by substantial evidence””
This raises the documentation burden for certain federal decisions affecting Alaska Native takings and related findings. It could make it harder to impose or defend restrictions unless the agency builds a strong record and publicly explains it.
-
““including Indigenous knowledge””
The bill requires that Indigenous knowledge be considered in the evidentiary record for certain decisions. That gives traditional ecological and cultural knowledge a formal place in federal wildlife-management analysis.
Latest Status
June 2, 2026
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 588.
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.