The Mexican government has raised significant objections to Google’s recent decision to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America on its maps, following the directive of former President Donald Trump. During her morning press conference on Thursday, January 30, 2025, President Claudia Sheinbaum presented this protest, underscoring the historical and legal foundations for maintaining the name 'Gulf of Mexico'.
Following Trump’s executive order on January 27, 2025, which mandated the name change for mapping applications within the United States, Sheinbaum expressed her government’s concerns. She emphasized, “The name Gulf of Mexico is not due to the imposition of any single government source, as Google erroneously suggests.” The letter to Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, outlined why the historical significance of the name should prevail over the recent change which has sparked considerable controversy between Mexico and the U.S.
Sheinbaum argued primarily on the grounds of sovereignty, stating, “If one country wants to change the designation of something at sea, it would only apply within the 12 nautical miles.” This assertion reflects Mexico's stance on historical recognition, emphasizing the Gulf’s name has been accepted internationally over centuries, with documentation dating back to the 17th century.
“In maps, we see the Gulf of Mexico name appearing since the early 1600s, and it has remained part of international records ever since,” Sheinbaum articulated. This emphasizes her argument of no unilateral power for the U.S. to alter the name of such an international body of water without collaborative agreement, especially since it is shared with Cuba and the United States.
Before the press, she elaborated on how this name is not merely reflective of power but stems from a broader recognition acknowledged under multiple international treaties. “This name is the result of a geographical and political process accepted and used by the international community, including the United States since its independence,” Sheinbaum added.
Google, upon announcing the change, claimed its adherence to nomenclature adjustments when government sources update names officially, stating, “We have long-standing practice of applying name changes when they have been updated by official government sources.” Notably, Google specified this renaming would primarily affect U.S. users, as maps viewed from Mexico will continue to show the name Gulf of Mexico.
Sheinbaum’s letter also references existing bilateral treaties between Mexico and the U.S., underscoring the legal foundation behind the historical name. “This designation is backed by twelve bilateral treaties currently active between our two nations, which assure its recognition under international norms,” Sheinbaum stated.
Highlighting geographical facts, the Gulf of Mexico covers approximately 1.5 million square kilometers, with shares distributed between the three countries: 60% to the U.S., 33% to Mexico, and 7% to Cuba. The Mexican coast along the Gulf stretches approximately 3,294 kilometers, compared to about 2,626 kilometers of the U.S. coastline. Despite these figures, Sheinbaum stressed, the sovereignty over the waters should not be claimed unilaterally by the U.S. and should take international cooperation and historical contexts seriously.
The Gulf is not just economically significant for Mexico, being rich in natural resources and fisheries, but culturally, it holds historical importance, as it has been part of Mexico's identity for centuries. The naming dispute evokes deeply rooted feelings about sovereignty and collective history.
Sheinbaum has humorously suggested, “At the end, we asked Google to present, when you type ‘America Mexicana’, the map we presented at some point.” This pointed remark, relating to how North America was once referred to as “Mexican America” on historical maps, aims to showcase the absurdity of the situation where unilateral naming can disregard mutual histories.
While Google asserts its procedure is aligned with official updates, questions remain over the transparency of this process and whether the views of other stakeholders like Mexico and Cuba were genuinely taken seriously during the decision-making process.
The diplomatic tension emphasizes the necessity for greater dialogue between the U.S. and Mexico, especially considering the economic and historical interdependence both countries share through their mutual geography. The Mexican government’s formal appeal indicates its unwillingness to back down and highlights the importance of maintaining historical nomenclature.
Sheinbaum summarized the imperative nature of the naming issue, stating, “We must reiterate our position to respect international norms and historical arrangement as co-inhabitants of shared geographical spaces.” This situation may well be another demonstration of how geographical names are not mere labels but carry heavy social, cultural, and historical weight. The outcome of this protest may shape diplomatic relations and discussions about sovereignty and acknowledgment going forward.”