On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order called Restoring Names that Honor American Greatness (EO). The EO intended to “promote the extraordinary heritage of our Nation and ensure future generations of American citizens celebrate the legacy of our American heroes” through naming or renaming geographical features. EO, Section 1.
Enacted laws and the language of the EO limit the reach of the EO’s directives. This post discusses the limitations, as well as the complex context that must be considered.
Who Names U.S. Geographic Features?
The Board on Geographic Names (BGN) receives and processes requests to name and rename geographic features. The BGN was first established in 1890 by Executive Order 28 and housed within the Department of the Interior. In 1947, Congress enacted legislation that abolished the existing BGN and transferred all duties to a new congressionally-established BGN.
Title 43, Sections 364 through 364f, of the United States Code (Statute) details BGN organization and purposes. As of 1947, the BGN operates conjointly with the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to uniformly name federally-owned geographic features.
What Limits the EO?
The EO is limited by statute and its own language. The EO is also limited to federally-owned geographic features.
Limitation 1: By Statute, BGN Appointments Serve Two-Year Terms
What the Statute Says
Section 364a…Each member shall be appointed for a two-year term but may be reappointed to successive terms….
What the EO Says
Section 2(a) Within seven days of the date of this order, each agency head with authority to appoint members to the Board on Geographic Names (Board) pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 364a, shall review their respective appointees and consider replacing those appointees in accordance with applicable law.
Why the Difference Matters
Congress directed the BGN to appoint members for two-year terms. President Trump directed members to be reviewed and possibly replaced within 7 days.
The Secretary and other appointing authorities must follow the Statute where the EO conflicts with it.
Limitation 2: By Statute, BGN Principles, Policies, and Procedures Must Balance Federal, State, and Public Interests.
What the Statute Says
Section 364b The principles, policies, and procedures formulated [by the BGN] shall be designed to serve the interests of the Federal Government and the public…and to give full consideration to the specific interests of particular Federal and State agencies.
What the EO Says
Section 2(c) …the Board shall advance the policy established in section 1 of this order to honor the contributions of visionary and patriotic Americans and may update its principles, policies, and procedures as needed to achieve this policy.
Why the Difference Matters
BGN principles, policies, and procedures must balance the interests of branches and agencies of federal and state governments, as well as the public. BGN must update principles, policies, and procedures in a way that considers the President’s interests as stated in the EO alongside other relevant interests.
Limitation 3: The Language of the EO Limits the Reach of Renaming The Mountain
The EO acknowledges that the federal land surrounding the mountain “shall retain the name Denali National Park and Preserve” as enacted by Congress in 1980. This acknowledgement is a nod to congressional authority to change names enacted by Congress. It also points to competing interests in names for the area where the mountain exists.
Limitation 4: the Language of the EO Limits The Reach of Renaming the Gulf
The EO does not attempt to rename the entire Gulf of Mexico to be Gulf of America (gulf) but only renames the part of the gulf that includes the U.S. Continental shelf.
Limitation 5: Sovereignty limits the reach of renaming the gulf
The EO acknowledges the limitations of U.S. sovereignty when it limits renaming the gulf in federal maps and documents to the part of the gulf covering the U.S. continental shelf. The EO does not direct a name change for any other part of the gulf.
Conclusions
The EO illustrates the importance of the details. Rarely are things as simple as change this name, because the world exists as a complex set of relationships among humans, levels of government, and sovereign governments. The relationships exist in context, history, and competing interests, and all of the interests might be rational.
Don’t give in to binary thinking. Rarely are things strictly yes or no, all or nothing, extreme this or extreme that. Humanity does its best work suspended between extremes.
Appendix 1. Balancing the Interests related to the Mountain’s Name
A mountain in modern-day Alaska has been named Denali and Mount McKinley, alternately, for 230 years. If the balance of interests weighs heavier for Denali, it may be up to the President to reverse his directive and find a more fitting tribute to former President William McKinley.
Timeline Related to the Mountain
1794. A British explorer referenced the mountain as Denali, a name of Native American origin.
1867. The U.S. purchased the land where the mountain sits.
1896. A prospector called the mountain Mount McKinley, after a presidential nominee from Ohio who supported the gold standard.
1912. Congress created the Territory of Alaska.
1917. Congress formalized the name Mount McKinley.
1975. Based on a resolution by the Alaskan State Legislature, the Alaskan governor requested the BGN change the mountain’s name to Denali.
1980. Congress enacted legislation to name the Denali National Park and Preserve as the land surrounding the mountain.
2015. The Secretary renamed the mountain Denali and noted that William McKinley “never visited, nor did he have any significant historical connection to, the mountain or to Alaska.”
2025. President Trump directed the Secretary to rename the mountain Mount McKinley.
Conclusions About Renaming the Mountain
As discussed in the main sections of this post, law requires the Board on Geographical Names and the Secretary of the Interior to balance the federal, state, and public interests related to naming a place.
President Trump’s 2025 EO has ordered the name of the mountain to be reinstated as Mount McKinley. The directive likely disrupts the balance of interests for naming this mountain.
It has historically been named both Denali and Mount McKinley, with the name Denali recorded first in time. Denali relates to an indigenous language where the mountain sits. The Alaska legislature, at least in 1975, expressed interest in naming the mountain Denali. And former President William McKinley had no connection to the place other than his name from the pen of a gold prospector.
To resolve the probable imbalance of interests, President Trump could reverse his directive and find a more balanced way to honor former President McKinley by naming (or renaming) a geographical feature actually connected to him.
Appendix 2. Why Context Matters In changing the gulf’s name
President Trump’s 2025 EO, at Section 4(b), directed the federal government to “rename as ‘The Gulf of America’ the U.S. Continental Shelf area…and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba in the area formerly named as the Gulf of Mexico.” The EO limits the part of the gulf to be renamed, and those limits are well supported by sovereignty and international law.
Renaming the entire gulf goes far beyond the EO, sovereignty, international law, and common sense. However, renaming the area north of the U.S.-Mexico boundary could at least raise awareness that U.S. sovereignty itself is limited.
Sovereignty, International Agreements, and the World Court
Sovereignty, generally
A sovereign nation has the right to name geographical features for its own official purposes but has no right to impose those names on private parties, international organizations, or other countries.
International Agreements, Generally
Treaties between nations might use a shared name for a geographical feature owned in whole or part by either nation. Often, names are practical matters for treaties to clarify the rights related to the feature discussed.
And some international organizations aim to standardize geographic names for use on maps, charts, and documents. Typically, even member nations are not bound to use the standardized names.
The World Court
There is no single international organization that settles disputes and enforces its decisions globally. Despite its informal name of World Court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has significantly limited reach.
The ICJ is the judicial body of the United Nations (U.N.). While U.N. member nations are generally subject to the ICJ Statute, non-members are not. Even among members, the ICJ settles disputes in limited ways.
The ICJ issues two types of opinions: advisory opinions and dispute opinions. Advisory opinions are not binding for member-nations. Dispute opinions are only binding for the member-nations that are parties to the dispute. This differs from the U.S. caselaw concept of precedent that requires later judges to use earlier cases as guides to decide new cases.
Besides the ICJ Statute, treaties between member-nations may recognize ICJ jurisdiction over treaty-related disputes. Withdrawing from a treaty with an ICJ jurisdictional clause or from the clause alone will prevent ICJ jurisdiction over future disputes that are filed after withdrawal.
To my knowledge, there is no ICJ dispute or ruling that governs the naming of the gulf. An ICJ dispute that rules on a different body of water or the extent of maritime sovereignty would not have an impact on naming the gulf.
Sovereignty and International Agreement in the Gulf
The gulf’s historical name, Gulf of Mexico, has a long history. However, maritime sovereignty over the gulf itself has also long been split.
Sovereignty over the U.S. Continental Shelf
In 1945, Presidential Proclamation No. 2667 assertedU.S. sovereignty over the natural resources of its continental shelf.
As done from time to time, in 2023, the U.S. Department of State announced new outer limits of the continental shelf for each body of water touching a U.S. coastline. The new outer limits were defined through exploration and discovery in cooperation with the scientific and cartography community.
Developments of Maritime Sovereignty in International Law
In 1958, the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf provided a definition of the continental shelf. The U.S. and Mexico were parties.
In 1978, the Treaty on Maritime Boundaries between the United States of America and the United Mexican States separated the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of the two countries.
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provided a science-based definition of the continental shelf. Mexico was a party, and the U.S. has understood the Convention to reflect customary international laws. Part of the definition is “the area to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.”
In 1983, Presidential Proclamation No. 5030 claimed a 200-nautical-mile EEZ.
In the 2000 Treaty with Mexico on Delimitation of Continental Shelf, the U.S. and Mexico agreed that their shared continental shelf boundary extends beyond 200 nautical miles. Using the methodology of previous treaties, a new boundary represented an “equidistant line drawn from the respective U.S. and Mexican coastal baseline.” Mexico agreed it would not claim or exercise sovereign rights or jurisdiction over the seabed and subsoil north of the boundary. The U.S. agreed to the same terms south of the boundary.
In December 2023, the U.S. Department of State announced new outer limits of the continental shelf after a project that joined legal, data collection, scientific, and cartographic disciplines.
A map depicts the U.S.-Mexico maritime boundary and the U.S. extended continental shelf. [Update 2/11/2025: The U.S. State Department removed the map shown above. That map is, however, located on this archived page: https://2021-2025.state.gov/downloads-us-ecs-project/.]
Conclusions About renaming the Gulf
Changing the name of the gulf is not an all-or-nothing proposition. To align with existing treaties, law, and the EO, use both names: Gulf of America north of the known boundary and Gulf of Mexico south of the that boundary.
Sources
This post relies on many primary sources. Download a works cited page.
This post provides law-related information. Nothing in the post is legal advice or counsel. If you need legal help, contact a local licensed attorney or your state bar association.