Which federal actors actually have authority to rename airports and train stations, and what is the process?
Executive summary
The authority to rename U.S. airports is primarily local: the airport “sponsor” (a city, county, airport authority or state) decides to rename an airport and then notifies federal agencies for administrative recognition, while the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) processes paperwork, updates charts and grant agreements but does not itself approve or deny name choices [1] [2]. By contrast, renaming federally owned train stations or other federal facilities often requires congressional action or specific federal-entity approval, making Congress the decisive actor when ownership is federal [3] [4].
1. Who actually controls airport names: the local sponsor, not the FAA
Practically every recent change shows that the entity that owns or operates an airport—the Airport Sponsor, typically a municipality, county or airport authority—has the power to adopt a new name; once that governing body votes or decides, it submits the change to the FAA for recognition and administrative updates rather than seeking FAA permission to make the policy choice [1] [2].
2. The FAA’s role: administrative recognition, not naming authority
The FAA’s job is to implement the change across federal systems: the sponsor submits documentation (commonly via the FAA’s Airport Data and Information Portal, ADIP), the agency updates air traffic control maps, federal grant agreements may need amendment, and it can take months for all federal references and charts to reflect a new name—tasks that are administrative rather than veto power [1] [2] [5].
3. Train stations and federally owned facilities: Congress matters
When a station or building is owned by the federal government, renaming usually cannot be accomplished solely by a local vote and typically requires an act of Congress or federal approval; reporting and historical precedent show attempts to rename major federally owned stations or buildings have required congressional bills or federal action [3] [4].
4. Codes, ticketing and international bodies: separate but related processes
Changing an airport’s public name does not automatically change operational identifiers; IATA issues three‑letter commercial codes and has its own application process requiring documentation of the airport’s official name and governing authority, while ICAO codes and FAA identifiers follow other bureaucratic paths—so multiple agencies update different elements after a sponsor’s decision [6] [7].
5. Political actors, Congress and presidential ambitions: the extra layer
Elected officials and the White House can push for name changes, and Congress can directly rename federally owned facilities through legislation—as shown by past and proposed bills to rename federal airports and the historic congressional role in renaming Washington National/“Ronald Reagan” discussions—yet those political pushes do not change the underlying administrative chain for non‑federal airports, and attempts to leverage funding for renames have been publicly resisted as beyond singular authority [4] [8] [9] [10] [11].
6. Practical constraints, commercial rights and hidden agendas
Beyond legal authority, practical constraints shape outcomes: federal grant agreements must be modified when names change, trademark or commercial agreements may be necessary for using a private person’s name, and political motives—branding, legacy building or campaign messaging—often drive rename efforts, which is why state or federal bills and executive pushes (e.g., recent high‑profile proposals) attract scrutiny about motive and process [2] [12] [11].
7. Bottom line — who to contact and what to expect
For a local airport, the decisive actor is the airport sponsor; the FAA is the administrative partner that updates federal systems after the sponsor files the required paperwork through portals like ADIP and coordinates changes to charts and grants [1] [2] [5]. For train stations or facilities still owned by the federal government, Congress is effectively the naming authority and must be engaged to change official designations [3] [4]. If international or ticketing codes must change, IATA and other coding authorities are separate steps in a multi‑agency process [6] [7].