My phone was constantly buzzing with “Breaking News” alerts during the first day of Trump’s presidency. Seeing the flood of his executive orders, withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Health Organization, eliminating DEI programs, and more was exhausting. But I caught a break when I saw the headline reading “Trump renames ‘Gulf of Mexico’ to ‘Gulf of America’”. I laughed out loud. What a ridiculous thing to do in the first days of one’s presidency. The United States is facing many problems right now. Is this really top of the agenda?
After the initial shock faded, I had to ask: besides the fact that this was a hilarious move, why did he do it? Well, he did not just rename the Gulf of Mexico; he has renamed a few geographical places around America. Renaming the Gulf and “Mount Denali” is part of Trump’s Executive Order, “Restoring Names that Honor American Greatness.” Unpacking these seemingly irrelevant changes and a few other examples reveals some patterns in Trump’s renaming frenzy.
Gulf of America
The most well-known change is renaming the “Gulf of Mexico” to the “Gulf of America.” But first, let’s take a step back and look at how the renaming process in the U.S. works. To keep names standardized, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names requires uniform names throughout the federal government. This process usually starts with a local request to change a name. Large amounts of paperwork are then filed, and it gets officially changed with the board. For example, Minnesota recently changed the name of a large lake in Minneapolis to Bde Maka Ska, a Dakota name for the lake that has been passed down through oral history.
The Gulf is a slightly different situation. It’s not actually owned by the U.S. Our water jurisdiction, including the Gulf, is broken down into three zones: territorial sea, contiguous zone, and the exclusive economic zone. The territorial sea is the only zone in which the U.S. claims sovereignty and is 12 nautical miles from the U.S. baseline. The other two are for control to prevent infringement of laws and regulations, as well as the right to manage natural resources. Ultimately, however, these two zones are international waters.
Changing the name nationally means that the Board on Geographic Names would change the name to “Gulf of America” on official U.S. maps. However, there is no international body that standardizes names. There is also no enforcement mechanism to require companies within the U.S. to print and create maps, documents, or signage with the new name.
This lack of enforcement means that it is inherently a political signal if an organization follows the name-change order. Google decided to have users of Google Maps in the U.S. see “Gulf of America,” while users in Mexico will see “Gulf of Mexico.” All other users will see both names.
This decision has faced significant backlash, so much so that Google Maps turned off users’ ability to post reviews under the label “Gulf.” Google has since deleted many negative reviews displaying distaste for the name change.
Google’s choice to prevent users from expressing their opinions demonstrates that more is at stake than just the name. According to Ian Hurd, a political science professor at Northwestern University who researches international law, name disputes arise from culture war politics. He goes on to say, “Nationalist governments often project an image of power by giving ideologically laden names to places. This appears to be the motivation in Trump’s claim to the “‘Gulf of America.'”
Besides the ideological signifiers of nationalism that come with this name change, there are also serious geopolitical ramifications. Shortly after Google’s stunt, the president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, threatened to sue the company because she deemed the act to be inaccurate. Google shows the name change over the entire body of water, but she argues that the name change only applies to the part of the continental shelf under U.S. control. On top of the already strained relationship between the U.S. and Mexico through Trump’s border laws and declaration of a trade war, Michigan State University’s political science professor Matthew Zierler observes a real “potential for this to be a major dispute.” The name change is truly emblematic of US power projection, unilateralism, and entitlement to push other countries around.
Mount McKinley
The Executive Order Restoring Names that Honor American Greatness also changed the name of Alaska’s “Mount Denali” back to “Mount McKinley.” This mountain already has a rich naming history. It got the name from William Dickey, who, inspired by William McKinley’s nomination as the Republican presidential candidate, called the mountain “Mount McKinley” in an article he published in the New York Sun. The name became official in 1917.
In 2015, the Obama administration renamed the mountain “Mount Denali” to honor and preserve the mountain’s indigenous history. This is the name originally used by Alaska’s Athabascan people, translating to “The Great One.”
Why would Trump override this? Trump has a very fond idea of and unique affinity with the 25th President McKinley. Trump has referred to McKinley as the “tariff king.” In his inaugural address, he characterized McKinley as a “great president” who “made our country very rich through tariffs.” You know what other president is very fond of tariffs? President Trump himself. Trump has imposed significant taxes on Canada, China, and the E.U. He even doubled down on his use of tariffs, despite their negative impact on the U.S. stock market.
McKinley also has a history in territory and land acquisition. He played a significant role in using the Spanish-American War of 1898 to expand the U.S. by acquiring the Philippines and Puerto Rico, and annexing Hawaii.
Having such praise and admiration for McKinley is particularly revealing of Trump’s ego, where the latter has alluded to seizing a piece of the Panama Canal, buying Greenland, or annexing Canada.
Red-White-and-Blue-Land
The idea of buying Greenland is not just an idea. Earl “Buddy” Carter (R-Ga) introduced a two-page bill titled “Red, White, and Blueland Act of 2025” to aid in Trump’s desire to purchase Greenland and officially rename it “Red, White, and Blueland.” Similar to renaming the “Gulf of Mexico”, the bill requires the U.S. Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) to update the name of “Greenland” for users who access official maps and documents.
Greenland holds increasing strategic importance as climate change causes more of the Arctic to melt. This opens up new trade routes like the Northern Sea Route (NSR) that are advantageous for China and Russia. However, Denmark, which owns Greenland as a territory, is not interested in becoming part of America. They’ve set the price for the land at a hefty $1 trillion.
The U.S. has been in this position once before. Even without climate change, Greenland has always been a strategic position between the US and Europe. Rich resources like rare earth minerals have made the Arctic a place of interest. In 1910, President William Howard Taft’s administration explored the possibility of buying Greenland. The countries got to the negotiation stage, but it was pushed down the agenda due to World War I.
Fort Bragg
Besides bodies of water, mountains, and entire countries, Trump has also reverted the name of a military base, “Fort Liberty,” to “Fort Bragg.” The original name for “Fort Bragg” was named in honor of Confederate general Braxton Bragg. He served in the Second Seminole War, the Mexican-American War, and the Civil War. The reality is that the confederacy’s legacy is one of white supremacy, and current military bases honoring the actions of its generals is not an effective way to understand history.
Even if you were to overlook his association with the confederacy, Bragg was an objectively bad general. According to historian Peter Cozzens, “Even Bragg’s staunchest supporters admonished him for his quick temper, general irritability, and tendency to wound innocent men with barbs thrown during his frequent fits of anger.”
During Trump’s first term in 2021, Congress passed a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that renames military installations named after Confederate soldiers and prevents future installations from being named after them. This provision was in response to the increased calls to rename military bases, ships, and other military assets due to the heightened desire for racial justice after the murder of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis police in 2020.
Trump has found a loophole. Trump has renamed the military base after Pfc. Roland L. Bragg, who earned the Silver Star and Purple Heart in WWII. Although some see it as a way to overshadow the painful legacy, it seems to be more of a sly way to continue to honor Confederates.
There is definitely a trend. “Fort Bragg” is not the only military installation facing this loophole. In 2023, “Fort Benning” in Georgia was renamed to honor Lt. Gen. Harold Moore, a highly decorated infantry commander for 32 years, and his wife, Julia.
“Fort Moore” is now reverting to “Fort Benning.” It is not named after the original Confederate general, but rather Corporal Fred Benning, who served with honor for a couple of years during World War I. The son of Harold and Julia Moore says, “When I compare his short service in World War I to mom and dad’s lifetime of service, and everything they did and influenced, I have to ask the question — why?” He went on to call the reversal “an absolute loophole.”
Why?
The real question is: why go through the trouble? After all, it is just the name of a mere gulf or a fort. It may be insignificant, but it just might not be. There are two possible explanations for Trump’s new hobby.
First, it’s an excellent headline. Trump has employed a “flood the zone” strategy in which he is attempting to overwhelm the media and opposition by making as many changes as possible. The “Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness” Executive Order was far from the only executive act signed on January 20th. While Trump was entertaining the masses with acts that are subtle, eye-catching, and ridiculous to the point of hilarity, he was also defining sex strictly as male or female and cracking down on illegal immigration. He takes up headlines and time from the press, and he gives people something to mull over that isn’t outrageous policies. Renaming the Gulf acted as not only fuel to the fire, but also a diversion to focus America on something seemingly harmless.
Second, it is to be contested whether name changes are harmless, as they all share a common theme: American exceptionalism, power, and control.
Trump’s vision of America is not necessarily palatable to everyone. It’s one where human rights are in jeopardy and democracy is being threatened, all to bring a “golden age” to America. It’s one where America is put first at the cost of the environment, the freedoms of America’s people, and global relationships.
However, this doesn’t signal to him a reason to change course, but rather a challenge to win over the American people. How can he both convince undecided voters and truly wear out those who staunchly disapprove of him? Small changes that project his vision but appear inconsequential.
Trump’s goal is to expand the U.S. in some form. Whether it is showing countries that he can push Mexico around by taking their Gulf, perpetuating America’s history of white supremacy by displacing Native Americans’ cultural ties to land, or trying to buy a new territory. But this is not a popular idea. Renaming these historically relevant places and weakening his opponents’ political sensibilities through the oversaturation of implausible policies increasingly eases the access for nationalism to slip by and enter the American consciousness as an acceptable canon. The imperfect but work-in-progress nation we once knew will be gone, and in its place will be an ultranationalist nation
Fundamentally, this is a display of power. As Jennifer Mercieca, a historian of American political rhetoric at Texas A&M University, puts it, “The power to name mountains and bodies of water is the power to define reality, to erase maps (and perhaps redraw national boundaries) – such power exceeds the limited Constitutional powers of a president. And, ultimately, I believe that Trump is trying to do big things, to leave his mark on the nation and the world.”
Featured Image: Fast Company
Comments are closed.