Google has announced it will change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America as part of compliance with directives from the U.S. government, particularly following President Donald Trump's executive order. This order not only renames the Gulf but also revises the name of Mount Denali back to its former title, Mount McKinley.
This significant change was highlighted during Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2025, when he announced several executive orders reflecting his administration's goals, including reaffirming U.S. historical legacies. The U.S. Department of the Interior confirmed, “According to the President’s instructions, the Gulf of Mexico will be officially called Gulf of America.”
Google's practice of updating names on its mapping services follows official governmental sources. The tech giant stated, “We’ve received a few questions about naming within Google Maps. We have a longstanding practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in official government sources,” indicating their need to adhere strictly to federal guidelines.
While this change was set to occur, it was clarified by Google representatives: “The map updates will only reflect the name change for users within the U.S. Users accessing Google Maps from Mexico will still see the name Gulf of Mexico, and international users will see both names.”
Facing this development, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum took immediate action by composing a letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai. She advocated strongly for preserving the traditional name of the region, pointing out its historical significance and usage. “The name Gulf of Mexico is not the result of the imposition of a single government source, as Google mistakenly suggests, but is accepted and historically registered since the seventeenth century,” Sheinbaum articulated.
She emphasized the name’s longstanding recognition within international circles, noting its use since 1776. “This designation is supported by twelve bilateral treaties between the U.S. and Mexico, which validate its recognition within international law,” she continued. Her letter sought to remind Google of the broader historical and geopolitical contexts affecting such decisions.
Sheinbaum also underscored the role of the International Hydrographic Organization, asserting, “Any official change to the name of seas or oceans must be evaluated by the International Hydrographic Organization,” thereby challenging the unilateral approach taken by the U.S. government.
The Gulf of Mexico covers over 1.6 million square kilometers and serves as one of the most significant ocean basins globally, bordered by the southeastern United States, eastern Mexico, and western Cuba. The Gulf is not only valuable for its biodiversity and ecosystems but also stands as one of the world’s major offshore oil production areas, contributing significantly to the national economies of the U.S. and Mexico.
Sheinbaum argued against the notion of U.S. unilateralism, contending, “It is impossible for one country to unilaterally make decisions about shared bodies of water.” The ramifications of renaming the Gulf extend far beyond mere geography; they touch upon issues of sovereignty, international agreements, and historical acknowledgment.
U.S. mechanisms exist for renaming geographical entities, including the Board on Geographic Names, which maintains naming uniformity across federal agencies. Yet, any changes would require broad international consensus, particularly from Mexico and Cuba, with which the Gulf shares significant borders.
International conventions and treaties dictate how maritime boundaries are defined, with organizations like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea offering frameworks to evaluate such claims. Concerns emerge over potential legal conflicts if unilateral changes to naming conventions lead to disputes over maritime delimitation.
Supporters of the name change within the U.S. government view it as part of reclaiming national identity and historical legacies, with Trump’s administration explicitly stating its goals to fortify American sovereignty. His push to rename the Gulf and Mount Denali reflects broader themes within his agenda to prioritize U.S. heritage among global narratives.
For now, the name change has set the stage for significant discussions about history, international law, and the complex string of relationships governing shared geographical names and their meanings.
Moving forward, Google’s mapping updates may usher in issues of compliance and resistance, not only from Mexico but from international communities as well. The interplay of local perceptions and authoritative actions will certainly mold public response and acceptance.
Amidst the controversies, this story highlights how even geographical names carry weighty historical significance, deserving of delicate handling within international paradigms. Naming conventions reflect cultural identity and heritage, requiring sensitivity to the voices of those who share these spaces.