On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump made waves once more when he signed executive orders aimed at renaming significant geographical features, including the Gulf of Mexico, now termed the "Gulf of America." This action has immediately sparked widespread controversy, igniting debates not only domestically but also internationally.
The multinational energy giant, Chevron Corporation, was among the first to embrace this newly minted name. Following the executive order, Chevron, which recently announced plans to relocate its headquarters from California to Texas, incorporated the phrase "Gulf of America" multiple times within its latest earnings release. "The company started up several key projects in the Gulf of America... That's the official position of the U.S. government," declared Mike Wirth, Chevron's CEO, during discussions with Bloomberg.
Trump's renaming directive was part of his initiative referred to as Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness (RNTHAG). This order emphasized the Gulf as "an integral asset to our once burgeoning Nation" and noted its importance to America's economy, oil production, fishing, and tourism. The changing of names such as Denali back to its recognized title, denoting its historical significance to Alaska Natives, was also included.
Interestingly, the name "Gulf of Mexico" has withstood the test of time since the 1500s, being attested to by various maps and documents long before the establishment of the United States. Despite this historical depth, the Trump administration's approach has been to enforce more patriotic terminology, heralding, according to Trump, the "Gulf of America" as "a pivotal artery for America’s early trade and global commerce." Even the U.S. Coast Guard echoed this sentiment, adopting the phrase during official announcements.
Across the border, reactions have been markedly different. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum swiftly criticized Google's decision to comply with the name change on its maps for U.S. users. Presenting letters to the tech giant, she called attention to legal arguments against such unilateral moves, stressing, "The name change could only correspond to the 12 nautical miles away from the coastlines of the United States of America." This is tied to the broader conversation about maritime boundary rights as outlined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Sheinbaum went on to draw attention to the geographical and historical nuances of the situation. "If renaming geographic regions were up for debate," she quipped, "then North America should be called 'Mexican America' in reference to a 1607 map." She offered this as both humor and as evidence of the contentious nature of territorial nomenclature—an underlying theme of historical revisionism and national pride.
While Chevron has welcomed the new name, major players like ExxonMobil opted to continue using the term "U.S. Gulf Coast" rather than "Gulf of America". Any deviation between companies reflects not only corporate branding strategies but echoes the polarized public response to Trump's initiatives—a sign of the times where branding extends far beyond products to patriotism itself.
Legal experts have expressed concern over the ramifications of this executive order. Laws governing international naming rights stipulate clearly defined territorial waters, and Sheinbaum asserts the U.S. has no legal basis for rebranding shared water bodies. This assertion was carried with seriousness during her recent statements, where she engaged Google to restore historical references within its mapping systems. "We ask you to include both names. If you put Mexican America in the search engine, the map should display our presented historical references," she urged.
The ramifications of Trump's naming orders go beyond simple semantics. They touch upon national pride, historical legitimacy, and the politics of nomenclature. By adding to the layers of debate over the Gulf's name, it fosters discussions about identity for both nations. This tumultuous time lays bare sensitive historical dialogues between the U.S. and Mexico, forcing both leaders to address legacies and identities tied closely to geography.
With significant corporate players like Chevron adapting their language to fit the new political narrative, and rival firms holding on to traditional terminology, the public is caught between competing histories and names. This multifaceted situation exemplifies how names can evoke strong emotions and confusion about national identities. Yet, at its core, this dispute is yet another reflection of broader political themes echoing throughout the continent—one where, now more than ever, names and identities matter.
This controversy surrounding the Gulf of America is just one of many instances where name changes spiral out of control, igniting debates on nationalism, identity, and the fight for historical recognition, pivotal crossroads yet to be reconciled between the United States and its neighbors.