Do any current national or state government maps use the name 'Gulf of Mexico' vs alternative names?
Executive summary
U.S. federal agencies were directed to call the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America” by Executive Order 14172 signed January 20, 2025; the White House ordered the Interior Secretary to update the Geographic Names Information System within 30 days [1]. Major U.S. federal services and some American institutions began adopting the new federal usage, while Mexican authorities, international bodies, major news organizations and some map providers continued to use or display “Gulf of Mexico” or both names [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What changed inside the United States: a federal re‑labeling, not an international treaty
President Trump’s Executive Order 14172 explicitly directed the Secretary of the Interior to rename the U.S. continental‑shelf portion of the body of water the “Gulf of America” and to update the GNIS and other federal records within 30 days, making “Gulf of America” the official federal designation for U.S. agencies [1]. Federal bodies therefore began using that name for domestic maps and services—an administrative change under U.S. law, not an international agreement [1] [5].
2. Which U.S. national agencies and services used the new name
The White House and the Department of the Interior announced the change and moved to update federal databases such as GNIS and the National Map; reporting shows the National Weather Service units and other U.S. government offices began using the “Gulf of America” label in forecasts and federal products following the order [1] [6]. Trade‑ and law‑linked analyses treat the federal designation as effective for U.S. contracts and regulatory texts that rely on federal toponyms [2].
3. State governments and local maps: uneven and largely unchanged reporting
Available sources document federal action and federal agencies’ adoption [1] [2] but do not provide comprehensive lists of every state government map or municipal GIS update. Reporting notes U.S. federal agencies updated GNIS and The National Map, yet there is no exhaustive public catalog in the cited reporting showing each state’s mapping product either adopting or retaining “Gulf of Mexico” (available sources do not mention a comprehensive list of state government maps).
4. Private mapmakers and platforms: mixed display policies
Google and other mapping platforms responded unevenly: Google was reported as honoring the U.S. federal change within the United States while showing “Gulf of Mexico” in Mexico and displaying both names in some other places; Mexico pushed back and sought restoration of “Gulf of Mexico” on Google Maps [7] [8]. Mexico said it might sue Google over the map labeling and requested the full restoration of “Gulf of Mexico” on Google Maps; Google’s in‑country labeling policy left users in different countries seeing different names [3] [8].
5. International and media pushback: names remain contested beyond U.S. jurisdiction
Mexico and international bodies did not accept a unilateral U.S. rename. Mexico argued the naming decision had sovereignty implications and pointed out it controls roughly 49% of the Gulf, while the United Nations recognizes the historical name “Gulf of Mexico,” which Mexico cited in its objections [3]. Major news organizations like the Associated Press and others largely continued to use “Gulf of Mexico” in reporting while noting the U.S. federal change; AP also updated style guidance to reflect both decisions and said it would keep the historical name in wide use [5] [4].
6. Legal and practical limits: federal authority does not compel foreign recognition
Scholars and reporting noted the executive order alters U.S. federal usage but cannot force other countries, international organizations, or independent mapmakers to accept the new name; recognition abroad requires bilateral or multilateral agreement or voluntary acceptance by other authorities and platforms [9] [6]. The International Hydrographic Organization and U.N. processes carry weight for international charts and naming conventions, and historical naming practices are longstanding [9] [10].
7. Competing perspectives and political context
Proponents framed the change as restoring American nomenclature; critics characterized it as symbolic nationalism or imperial overreach that could worsen U.S.–Mexico relations [1] [11]. Media analyses and academic commentary warned that unilateral domestic renames of transboundary features create confusion for navigation, contracts and diplomacy, and noted that some U.S. institutions complied while global usage often preserved the traditional name [2] [11] [7].
Limitations: sources collected here document federal action and responses by Google, Mexico and major media, but do not contain a definitive, itemized inventory of every national‑ or state‑level map currently using one name or the other; for a complete map‑by‑map audit, consult individual state GIS portals and international hydrographic authorities (available sources do not mention a complete, state‑by‑state list).