Federal government renames Gulf of Mexico and Denali in line with Trump directive

In a move set to spark both debate and curiosity, the federal government has announced the implementation of President Trump’s directive to rename two iconic geographic features: the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska’s Mount Denali. The Interior Department revealed the changes in a press release, signaling a shift in how these landmarks will be recognized in federal use.

The Gulf of Mexico Becomes the Gulf of America

The most sweeping change is the rebranding of the Gulf of Mexico, which will now officially be known as the Gulf of America. The department noted that the U.S. Board on Geographic Names is working "expeditiously" to update the change in the Geographic Names Information System, confirming that it is effective immediately for federal use. While the directive’s practical implications remain to be seen, the announcement is expected to reignite discussion over national identity and historical naming conventions.

Denali Returns to Mount McKinley

The federal government is also reversing a decision made during the Obama administration to rename Alaska’s tallest mountain Denali. The mountain will once again bear the name Mount McKinley, after the 25th President of the United States, William McKinley. McKinley, who never visited Alaska, was honored posthumously after his assassination in 1901, when the name gained traction following a gold prospector’s 1897 article.

The decision to restore the McKinley name overturns a 2015 ruling by the Obama administration, which officially adopted "Denali," the name long used by Alaska’s Indigenous people. Denali, meaning "the high one" in the Koyukon Athabaskan language, had remained a cultural touchstone for Native communities and a point of pride for many Alaskans.

Historical and Cultural Context

The renaming of the Gulf of Mexico is a new initiative without precedent, while the debate over Denali/Mount McKinley has simmered for decades. Supporters of the name Denali argue that it honors the mountain’s Indigenous heritage and cultural significance, while advocates for the McKinley name view it as a tribute to a historical president.

Critics of the renaming initiatives have called them politically motivated, while supporters see them as efforts to align geographical names with broader national priorities. The Interior Department, however, has framed the changes as a matter of executive directive, with little additional commentary.

What Happens Next?

The U.S. Board on Geographic Names is tasked with formalizing the updates across government maps and systems, and the public will likely see the changes reflected in future federal publications and resources. How the renaming will resonate with the broader public remains an open question, with reactions likely to vary depending on regional, cultural, and political perspectives.

As these iconic landmarks take on their new (or restored) identities, the nation may find itself in a broader conversation about the significance of names—and the histories they preserve or erase.