President Donald Trump’s recent executive order aiming to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America has ignited both support and opposition across the political spectrum, sparking heated discussions about the significance of place names.
During a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, Trump declared, “We’re going to be changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the ‘Gulf of America,’ which has a beautiful ring. What a beautiful name. And it’s appropriate.” He linked the proposed name change to immigration issues, stating, “Mexico has to stop allowing millions of people to pour our country.” Trump's remarks have not been without controversy, drawing ire from several influential figures.
According to the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, which standardizes geographic names across federal government usage, name changes should only occur under compelling circumstances. Typically, changes begin at the local level where communities advocate for name shifts, gathering support through official channels.
Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston, took to social media to address tech giant Apple, highlighting the discrepancy he noticed on Apple Maps where the Gulf is still listed as the Gulf of Mexico. He tweeted, “Hey @tim_cook, just noticed Apple Maps still calls it the Gulf of Mexico. Sent a report through the app, but thought you’d want to know!” His tweet has garnered significant attention, amassing over one million views, but as of late, Apple Maps has yet to update its nomenclature.
The process to rename geographical features typically involves successive approvals from local bodies, state governments, and federal agencies like the U.S. Board on Geographic Names. A relevant case study is the renaming of Denali from Mount McKinley, which took 40 years to achieve, highlighting the challenges and local significance often tied to these discussions.
The formal request to rename Denali initiated from Alaska’s state authorities, which was followed by approval at various levels until the federal board sanctioned the name. Previous controversies around renaming experiences, such as the recent change of Lake Calhoun to Bde Maka Ska, showcase how passionate communities can become over place names, often resulting in legal action. Some residents did push back against the use of the name Bde Maka Ska, taking the state’s natural resources agency to court. The Minnesota Supreme Court eventually sided with the name change, validating the community's efforts.
Trump's executive order titled "Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness" directs the Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum, to take appropriate actions to execute the name change within 30 days. The document, signed on January 20, does not yet make the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America but aims to prompt official discussion and review within the U.S. Government.
Responses from notable figures have indicated substantial resistance to the renaming proposal. Prominent voices from Alaska’s political sphere have expressed dismay at the order, implying a disregard for established local customs and preferences.
Another layer of complexity arises from the geographic status of the Gulf of Mexico itself. It is situated outside the territorial waters of the U.S., except for the first twelve miles from shore which are considered U.S. territory. Consequently, the renaming effort raises questions about its enforceability on international maps. While the U.S. Board on Geographic Names can officially change the name on domestic maps and documents, it has no authority to compel other nations to adopt the new designation.
Experts suggest the renaming could face legal hurdles, as any objection to the new name can be taken to court, which complicates the process of changing well-known international nomenclature. It remains unclear how influential the U.S. government could be worldwide on the matter, as there's no international body regulating place names. Some speculate sanctions could be imposed on countries refusing to comply, though this remains hypothetical.
Despite the controversies, Trump's directive aligns with his broader agenda to reinforce American identity and sovereignty through commemorative namesakes. He has historically championed similar initiatives, fueling the political debate about the relevance and appropriateness of such name changes.
With the impactful nature of place names tied to identity and history, this latest development raises important questions about whose voices are heard and ignored during such decisions. At its core, the issue reflects broader cultural tensions within the nation, as people grapple with the legacies embedded in historical place names.
The debate over the Gulf of Mexico’s name has opened up discussions about national identity and the meanings tied to geographic identifiers. Whether or not the Gulf of America materializes on maps will likely depend on the outcome of multiple layers of bureaucratic processes as well as public sentiment surrounding the name change.
Time will reveal how this controversy plays out, but for now, it has certainly sparked renewed interest and dialogue about the importance of place names and their role in American heritage.