By examining other territorial name disputes worldwide, we know that renaming the Gulf of Mexico could potentially promote division, identity politics, and undemocratic practices. These changes could develop into a new and existential threat for the US.

On Monday, 20 January 2025, it was announced that the new president of the United States of America, Donald Trump, issued an executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, aiming to promote American greatness.

As such, 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. The Secretary shall subsequently update the GNIS to reflect the renaming of the Gulf and remove all references to the Gulf of Mexico from the GNIS, consistent with applicable law. The Board shall provide guidance to ensure all federal references to the Gulf of America, including on agency maps, contracts, and other documents and communications shall reflect its renaming,

says part of the executive order uploaded online at the official website of the White House.

Many articles have been written exploring whether the United States of America and its new president have the authority to rename the Gulf of Mexico. Allow me to say that throughout my experience of studying the use of different names to refer to the same geographical location for more than five years, that discussion is not important. Even if international organisations and other countries oppose the idea, the US can still internally promote the new name and convince the citizens to follow this new reality. Throughout the world, there are many active territorial name disputes, conflicts where they include the use of alternative names to define a particular location, such as the Kurdistan, Kuril Islands/Northern Territories, Macedonia, Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh, Palestine, Persian/Arabian Gulf, South China Sea, Western Sahara, to name a few.

Promote division, identity politics, and an existential threat

Thoroughly investigating these disputes shows that territorial names can hold enormous symbolic power and meanings that might be connected with a seemingly improved version of reality (hyperreality), making the local population firmly believe that the location is an essential part of the country’s territory. Of course, as the assigned name might not have the same meaning for every individual, powerful societal actors, like the state, must promote their dominant version of reality through national education, mandating all official communications to use that name, censoring the different views, taking legal actions against those who do not use the preferred name, and sanctioning other countries. It seems that the new government in Washington is already heading in that direction—even companies such as Google have announced that they plan to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.

Renaming the Gulf of Mexico seems unimportant, but in the long run, it could be an essential tool for dividing citizens, promoting nationalism, and identity politics—creating an existential threat. Suppose the dominant narrative that the Gulf of America represents American greatness becomes the new norm. In that case, people will even protest against a new name change, as the “Gulf of America” would have become an integral part of its identity. Losing the name could be perceived as a national loss. To simplify things, it is worth looking at the Persian/Arabian Gulf and the Macedonian Name Dispute (MND).

The Persian/Arabian Gulf

In this dispute, Arab countries do not seem to agree about the name “Persian Gulf.” According to them, it shows Iran’s aspirations for controlling the region, despite the United Nations supporting the name. To promote their version of reality, the name “Arabian Gulf” was adopted, thus there were changes in the names of sports associations and universities, including the creation of the so-called “Arab Gulf Office” in 1977 by Saddam Hussein. On the other hand, the Iranian side prohibits Airlines from entering their airspace if the Persian Gulf is not used.

The Macedonian Name Dispute (MND)

On the European continent, the MND has sparked significant controversy between Greece and the country now-named North Macedonia, despite attempts to resolve the issue through the Prespes Agreement (or Prespa Accord) that came into effect on 12 February 2019. After the fall of Yugoslavia and gaining independence, the country sought to be names “Macedonia.” Greece strongly opposed this and avoided referring to the country as Macedonia, going so far as to criminalise individuals who expressed a different view from the state, forming scientific organisations to prove scientifically how Macedonia can only be Greek, and spreading hate through mob attacks to those challenging the dominant state narrative, and a lot more.

For the Greek state, a key narrative is that the name Macedonia amounts to a hijacking of the legacy of Alexander the Great and his father, an essential part of the Greek national identity. After a series of influential demonstrations in both countries, a referendum, constitutional changes, the expulsion of Russian diplomats for interference in domestic affairs, and surviving a vote of no confidence in Parliament, both countries agreed, among other things, on the name of North Macedonia. However, the accord remains unpopular, and the parties that implemented the agreement no longer hold power, having suffered significant electoral defeat. North Macedonia did not gain EU membership as expected, and both countries frequently use alternative names to refer to North Macedonia in their domestic and sometimes international affairs. For many years, the MND has been used as a tool for winning electoral support, realising personal ambitions, distracting the public’s opinion, restricting different opinions, and undermining democracy.

At this point, it is worth noting that MND triggered Greece’s largest demonstration in history. In 1992, around one million Greeks gathered in Thessaloniki to protest the then-negotiating process and assert that Macedonia could only be Greek. Some of the country’s largest protests took place more recently (2018-2019) over the name change, stopping only with the Prespa Accord.

Conclusion

Renaming the Gulf of Mexico should not be taken lightly. As modern examples showcase, such popular sounding promises can become a tool for shutting down different views and political opponents, and undermining freedoms and democratic values. The promise to “rename” geographic sites has symbolic power that can fuel nationalistic narratives, reshape how the population thinks about the Gulf, and maintain a distorted dominant truth that would be impossible to challenge.

Minos-Athanasios Karyotakis is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the David C. Lam Institute for East-West Studies (LEWI) of Hong Kong Baptist University. His research has advanced the understanding of global media politics through environmental communication, hate propaganda, media ethics, and power relations. For more information, please visit his website: minoskar.net.

This article is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.