Your Cart is Empty
The Gulf of Mexico Rebranding - A Cartographic Response
On Day One of his term, President Trump issued an Executive Order entitled "Restoring Names that Honor American Greatness"— a proclamation with a strange twist: purporting to rename the Gulf of Mexico. In doing so, the order overstepped longstanding U.S. and international naming and jurisdictional law by attempting to claim authority the President simply did not have to change an international place name that has been accepted since the 1500s.
The move triggered global headlines, widespread confusion, and sharp criticism—especially from the cartographic community. It was a political stunt wrapped in a renaming campaign, one that sidestepped international naming protocols and, not incidentally, fueled a nationalist, anti-Mexican agenda.
When we’re talking about what parts of the Gulf are "American" or not, it’s not just about naming—it’s about a complex web of geology, law, and geopolitics. The term “Gulf of Mexico” reflects that complexity and shared geography. Slapping a new name on it, like "Gulf of America", ignores all of that.
As mapmakers, we care deeply about accuracy, history, and honoring place. This blog is part of our effort to clarify what’s really going on. Our Mapping the Gulf of Mexico projectis another.
This post explores what the Executive Order actually says, what it doesn’t, and why it matters—not just to mapmakers, but to anyone who cares about truth, history, and resisting cultural erasure.
What the Executive Order Says (and Doesn’t Say)
Executive Order 14172
Sec. 4. Gulf of America. (a) The area formerly known as the Gulf of Mexico...in recognition of this flourishing economic resource and its critical importance to our Nation’s economy and its people, I am directing that it officially be renamed the Gulf of America.
The language of this provision implies sweeping Presidential authority to rename the entire Gulf of Mexico. But under international law and longstanding naming conventions, the President does not have the authority to unilaterally rename an international body of water—even within maritime zones where the U.S. exercises certain limited rights to resource management that do not include naming authority.
Accurate coverage of the facts, like many in this new Administration, got lost in the noise. Supporters celebrated the idea that Trump had somehow erased the name "Gulf of Mexico" from all maps with the stroke of a pen.
This is not what the Executive Order did. As written, it stated:
...within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior shall, consistent with 43 U.S.C. 364 through 364f, take all appropriate actions to rename as the “Gulf of America” the U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba in the area formerly named as the Gulf of Mexico. (bold added)
Before we dive further into what this Executive Order got wrong—and why it matters—it’s worth unpacking some of the terms being tossed around in the news and political commentary in relationship to this decision. Words like seaward boundary, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf all have specific meanings when it comes to geography, naming conventions and authority. Let’s break them down so we can better understand what authority a U.S. President does and doesn’t have when it comes to naming oceans and seas.
What These Terms Actually Mean (Maritime Zones 101)
What is a Seaward Boundary?
A seaward boundarymarks how far a country’s full authority stretches into the ocean—usually12 nautical miles from the coastline. This distance is also recognized under international law by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Article 3.
Here’s why this matters: Trump’s Executive Order said the renaming would extend to the “seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba.” Mexico and Cuba each claim a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea under international law. These zones are fully sovereign - meaning they are the territory of these other countries.
Note: “Seaward boundary” is not a precise legal term under international maritime law, though it appears in customary usage. In this context, it refers to the 12-nautical-mile territorial seas of Mexico and Cuba.
This concept of a national seaward boundary dates back to an arguably simpler time: the seaward boundary limit was originally set by how far a cannon could fire from shore—at the time about 3 nautical miles. That old “cannon shot rule” shaped early maritime law, but it’s since been replaced by the 12-mile rule accepted around the world as the territorial boundary of coastal nations.
That means the U.S. President's Executive Order was actually asserting naming rights from the U.S. territorial seas, across shared international waters, and up to the very edge of Mexico and Cuba’s sovereign waters—and in doing so, possibly implying at least some degree of control over what lies between. That’s a really big overreach.
So when Trump pointed to the "seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba" in his EO, he was directly crossing lines he has no legal authority to cross—let alone rename.
To understand why this is a problem, it is helpful to know what lies between the U.S. territorial waters and the territorial waters of our neighbors to the South.
International maritime law also allows coastal states to claim a contiguous zone, for the certain limited authority necessary to prevent the infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial seas.
A contiguous zone extends from 12 to 24 nautical miles offshore, where nations can enforce laws related to customs, immigration, and pollution. The U.S. established this zone by Presidential proclamation in 1999, extending zones claimed by previous Presidentsin accordance with the provisions of international law and the relevant United Nations Conventions.
However, this zone does not confer sovereignty and does not include authority to rename geographic features or maritime spaces.
What is an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
An EEZ is an area up to 200 nautical milesoffshore where a country has special rights to explore, conserve, and manage marine resources. The U.S. claimed its EEZ in 1983. This area includes waters from three to 200 miles (5 to 322 km) offshore, or 9 to 200 miles (14.5 to 322 km) offshore in western Florida and Texas.
Importantly, EEZ rights do not include naming rights of these international waters.
What about the Continental Shelf?
The continental shelf is the underwater edge of a continent—rich in oil, gas, and minerals. Countries can claim rights to the seabed and subsoil up to 200 nautical miles (and beyond in some cases).
The U.S. never ratified the 1983 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), so it cannot actually assert its extended continental shelf claims through that international process. However, the U.S. has nonetheless claimed an extended shelf for resource extraction.
However, continental shelf claims are about the resources that lie below the seabed—not naming rights of international bodies of water.
So now that we’ve clarified what these maritime zones actually mean, here’s the key takeaway:
While a country can rename features within its territorial sea—those 12 nautical miles where it exercises full sovereignty—it cannot unilaterally rename areas beyond that.
This includes the contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone (EEZ), continental shelf claims, and clearly demarcated international waters. These zones may grant certain economic or enforcement rights, but they do not grant unilateral renaming rights under international law.
The power to designate names of international waters lies with international naming authorities, not with any one nation's government, and certainly not with a single executive order. The name “Gulf of Mexico” exists because of centuries of shared geography, international consensus, and historical continuity—not because it was granted or revoked by a U.S. president.
What the Maps Show (and Don’t Show)
Take a look at the maps below and the geography makes the political stunt even more obvious.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Government agency charged with managing coastal resources (among other important functions), clearly show these internationally recognized boundaries on its maps, as do all other legitimate recognized maritime boundary information resources.
Maritime boundaries of the Gulf of Mexico for the U.S., Mexico and Cuba.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other reputable sources clearly show internationally recognized boundaries:
-
Green dotted line: U.S. Territorial Sea
-
Dark red line: U.S. Seaward Boundary (hugging the coastal US states)
-
Lighter green landmass edge: U.S. Continental Shelf ( Here is another image)
-
Pink line: U.S./Mexico/Cuba EEZ Boundary (splits Gulf roughly in half)
The Mexico–U.S. EEZ boundary becomes the U.S-Cuba boundary.
The red line is the U.S.–Mexico maritime boundary in the Gulf of Mexico.
What the Executive Order Can—and Can’t—Do
By attempting to rename this internationally recognized body of water, all the way to the very edge of our neighbors territory to the South, the President was asserting a form of control over territory he does not own—territory shared by Mexico, Cuba, and the global community.
The name Gulf of Mexico remains the internationally recognized official name.
The International Hydrographic Organization continues to call it the Gulf of Mexico. While there appears to be no formal process for such a renaming in place, the absence of such a process is not evidence of Trump's authority. Instead, it is evidence of the extreme and bizarre nature of such an attempt. Consider the possibility of a similar attempt to rename the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans as the East or West American Sea and the absurdity of this assertion of authority is obvious.
By attempting to rename this internationally recognized body of water, the President was asserting control over territory he does not own—territory shared across multiple sovereign nations and protected by international law.
Media Failures and Widespread Misinformation
Unfortunately, most media failed to clarify the geography, history, or legal context of this event. The name change was reported as sweeping and unilateral—when in fact, it was limited, symbolic, and legally questionable.
Trump then doubled down, directing government agencies to replace the word "Mexico" with "America" across all federal resources—and later banning the term "Gulf of Mexico" altogether in official communications.
The press missed the most important point. From a geography and cartography perspective, the "new" name, at best, is an addition to a portion of the northernmost section of the Gulf of Mexico, in the limited area where Trump had territorial legal authority to rename it, certainly not a replacement.
But the Administration didn’t stop at federal agencies. It turned next to the private sector—pressuring the platforms that shape how billions of people navigate the world. What happened next reveals how much control Big Tech has over what we see, and how easily they can bend to political will.
Big Tech Bends the Knee: Location-Based Mapping
Trump then demanded that all digital mapping companies, like Google and Apple, replace the name Mexico with America. Apparently to avoid openly contradicting the Administration, Google and Apple quietly adjusted their map labeling by location.
Which they did, with much fanfare from Trump's misinformed supporters who saw this large scale eradication of all things "Mexico" as a huge win for Trump's vision of America.
Google and Apple—both U.S. based tech giants that are deeply entangled with the federal government through contracts, court battles, and regulatory pressure—responded with a calculated move: they manipulated naming visibility based on user location.
U.S. users see "Gulf of America." Mexican users see "Gulf of Mexico." Elsewhere, both names may appear. The name you see depends on where you are and what your device is set to—geography by algorithm.
This isn’t just localization—it’s narrative control.
In the U.S., the Geographic Names Information System(GNIS) has officially updated “Gulf of Mexico” to “Gulf of America.” As we announced two weeks ago and consistent with our longstanding practices, we’ve begun rolling out changes to reflect this update. People using Maps in the U.S. will see “Gulf of America,” and people in Mexico will see “Gulf of Mexico.” Everyone else will see both names. The names you see in the Maps app are based on your country location, which is determined by information from your phone’s operating system (e.g., iOS and Android), including your SIM, network, and locale. If you’re using Google Maps on the web, the names are based on the region you select in your Search settings or your device’s location, if you haven’t selected one.
The geography names you might see depends on where you might be.
Apple made no statement—they simply made the change. Microsoft was vague, saying: “We are committed to providing users with accurate and up-to-date information.”
When truth is filtered by tech giants and dictated by political power, geography becomes propaganda.
These platforms have enormous power to shape public understanding by tailoring information based on geography, demographics, and personal data. Their compliance gave political cover to a campaign rooted not in fact, but in ideology.
Google and Apple are reinforcing political narratives while downplaying their own role in shaping public understanding of geography.
It is worth noting that Google and Apple also receive substantial federal funding through contracts, grants, and tax incentives from politicians, and they do not want to jeopardize that deep flow of government money so it is unsurprising that they did what Trump asked them to do: they replaced the text Mexico with America, and called it politics as usual.
This kind of capitulation by major global information providers has a chilling effect—handing the Administration unprecedented power to distort digital reality and shape public understanding to fit its agenda.
The Associated Press Chose the Ethical High Ground
The AP issued a statement refusing to adopt the renaming:
"The Associated Press… will refer to the Gulf of Mexico by its original name, which it has carried for 400 years, while acknowledging the name Gulf of America."
Trump promptly banned the AP from the White House press room.
An Unpopular Name
The rest of the world, and the majority of Americans, also did not agree with the change. Many saw this move for what it really is, an act of political theater that hits inflammatory buttons of our current political climate which seem to guide many of this Administration actions: including racism, nationalism and cultural erasure.
A poll by Offshore revealed only 29% supported the name change.
How the Interior Department Expanded the Order
Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum signed Secretary's Order 3423 in February 2025, directing the U.S. Board on Geographic Names to rename the Gulf of Mexico in all federal systems. He ordered total erasure of the name by directing the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. This order did not acknowledge the specific boundaries stated in the Executive Order, it directed eradication of all instances of the Gulf of Mexico from throughout the Federal Government including from the Geographic Names Information System, the system which governs uniform geographic name usage throughout the entire Federal Government.
This order only applies to government agencies—it hasno legal authority over publishers, mapmakers (like us), or tech companies. But many complied anyway, out of fear of retaliation from a hostile administration.
Is that blanket expansion of geographic coordinates above and beyond the scope of the original Executive Order even legal?
Whether this is all legal is a question for the courts—but few are willing to challenge a name change especially amidst the many broader constitutional and legal crises unfolding in the U.S. (though the AP is fighting back in court against the retaliation it was subjected to for refusing to change the name).
Is This About Drilling? No.
Some have falsely claimed the renaming the Gulf was about reopening offshore drilling blocked by Biden. This is fiction.
Trump did issue a separate EO to reverse Biden’s ban, even though that ban was mostly symbolic—covering areas with no industry interest. Trump supporters also forget that Trump himself banned offshore drilling near Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina until 2032.
A Pattern of Erasure
This isn’t an isolated case.
Changing the name “Gulf of Mexico” to “Gulf of America” was a symbolic move—and its apparent purpose was to erase the word Mexico in a public and inflammatory way. Trump has repeatedly relied on misleading and false Mexican stereotypes throughout his campaigns and presidencies, including statements like:
“The Mexican government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”
This messaging has become a foundation of Trump's nationalism.
In 2016, Mexico’s President Enrique Peña Nieto responded:
“There have been episodes in human history… where these expressions of this strident rhetoric have only led to very ominous situations in the history of humanity. That’s how Mussolini got in. That’s how Hitler got in.”
Many world leaders recognize the renaming for what it is: an act of political theater wrapped in racism and nationalism, with global consequences.
What's Coming Next
According to a the White House document entitled: Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness more name changes are on the way:
Sec. 5. Additional Action. The Secretary of Interior may solicit public and intergovernmental input regarding additional patriots to honor, particularly in light of America’s semiquincentennial celebration, and shall recommend action to me, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy.
That means more name changes are likely.
This Is Not Just About Maps
The “Gulf of America” isn’t just a name change—it’s a deliberate act of cultural erasure, rooted in nationalism, misinformation, and political spectacle.
That’s why we’re responding here and also with what we do best: a map that tells the broader story.
As cartographers, we will continue to honor truth, context, and complexity. We will publish maps that respect cultural heritage and highlight the full story of place—not erase it.
Mapping the Gulf of Mexico: A Cartographic Stand for Truth is our latest project—a bilingual, historically accurate, art-quality map of the entire Gulf region, from Florida to Texas, Mexico to Cuba. It honors the deep history, culture, and environmental richness of this vital place, and pushes back against efforts to distort or erase it.
This is more than a map. It’s a stand for truth, accuracy, and respect.
If we want the truth to survive, we need to map it clearly—together.
We invite you to take a stand with us and help us tell the deeper cultural, environmental and political story of the Gulf of Mexico Region.
Check out our Kickstarter campaign and if you can, we invite you to help create a historically accurate, bilingual map of the Gulf of Mexico—one that accurately reflects the region’s rich environmental, political, and cultural story by pre-ordering a copy of this innovative map.