The digital world of cartography has become the latest arena for political maneuvering, as exemplified by former United States President Donald Trump’s executive orders impacting online map platforms. Google Maps recently announced a significant update for its US users: the renaming of the Gulf Of Mexico On Map displays to “Gulf of America.” This change, alongside the renaming of North America’s highest peak from Mount Denali back to Mount McKinley, reflects the implementation of Trump’s directives within digital spaces.
This article delves into the specifics of these changes on Google Maps, the underlying political motivations, and the broader implications for how digital maps represent contested place names around the world. We will also examine how Google has historically navigated such geopolitical sensitivities and what this recent change means for users seeking to locate the Gulf of Mexico on map.
Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum highlights a 1661 world map displaying the Gulf of Mexico during a press conference, addressing Trump’s comments about renaming the water body. [File: Presidencia de Mexico/Handout via Reuters]
Understanding the Google Maps Changes
For users accessing Google Maps within the United States, the familiar name Gulf of Mexico on map will be replaced with “Gulf of America.” However, this alteration is geographically limited. Users in Mexico will continue to see the water body labeled as Gulf of Mexico. For those accessing Google Maps from any other location globally, both names, “Gulf of Mexico” and “Gulf of America,” will be displayed, acknowledging both naming conventions.
In a parallel update, Mount Denali, the towering peak in Alaska, will revert to being displayed as Mount McKinley for all Google Maps users worldwide. These changes are contingent on official updates by the US government, signaling Google’s adherence to governmental naming standards.
To clarify the specifics of the update:
- Within the US: Google Maps will display “Gulf of America” instead of Gulf of Mexico on map.
- Within Mexico: The name will remain Gulf of Mexico on map.
- Outside US & Mexico: Google Maps will show both “Gulf of Mexico on map” and “Gulf of America.”
- Mount Denali: Will be changed to Mount McKinley globally on Google Maps.
The Genesis of the Renaming: Trump’s Executive Order
The roots of these digital map changes lie in a series of executive orders signed by President Trump on his inauguration day, January 20th. Among these directives was an order to officially rename the Gulf of Mexico on map to the Gulf of America and Mount Denali to Mount McKinley. This move, while primarily symbolic for domestic audiences, has tangible consequences for digital representations of geography.
The Gulf of Mexico on map is a significant body of water bordered by Cuba, several eastern Mexican states (Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatan, and Quintana Roo), and the US Gulf Coast states (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida). It’s a region rich in marine biodiversity and crucial for both countries’ economies.
Mount Denali, located in Alaska, is the highest mountain in North America, reaching an elevation of 6,190 meters (20,308 feet). Its renaming is also steeped in history and political symbolism.
The name Gulf of Mexico on map has historical precedence, dating back approximately 400 years. English geographer Richard Hakluyt referred to it as “Gulfe of Mexico” in his 1589 publication, “The Principall Navigations, Voiages and Discoveries of the English Nation.” In Spanish, it is known as El Golfo de Mexico.
While President Trump can issue executive orders affecting domestic naming conventions, the international community is not obligated to adopt these changes. There are no international legal frameworks dictating the universal naming of maritime spaces or disputed territories. Renaming Mount Denali, within US territory, is a more direct action. Trump’s motivation to rename it Mount McKinley honors former Republican President William McKinley, who served from 1897 to 1901, despite McKinley never having visited Alaska.
This decision has sparked controversy, particularly concerning Mount Denali. Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, voiced strong opposition, stating on X (formerly Twitter) that “Our nation’s tallest mountain, which has been called Denali for thousands of years, must continue to be known by the rightful name bestowed by Alaska’s Koyukon Athabascans.” Denali, meaning “the tall one” or “the high one” in the Koyukon Athabascan language, is the preferred name among Alaska’s Indigenous people and many state residents. Historically, the mountain was officially named Mount McKinley in 1917 before being officially renamed back to Denali by President Barack Obama in 2015, reflecting a complex history of naming and political influence.
Google Maps’ Rationale and Historical Approach
Google Maps’ decision to implement these name changes, albeit with regional variations for the Gulf of Mexico on map, aligns with their stated policy of reflecting official government name updates. According to their X post, “We have a longstanding practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in official government.” In the US context, this means following updates to the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), the official database maintained by the US Geological Survey (USGS).
A 2008 Google Public Policy Blog post further elucidates their approach to complex naming disputes. Google assembles cross-functional teams, including engineers, product managers, GIS specialists, policy analysts, and geopolitical researchers, to address these issues. This process aims to incorporate local knowledge and diverse perspectives in navigating sensitive naming conventions.
However, beyond policy, economic considerations undoubtedly play a role. As Sterling Quinn, a geography professor at Central Washington University, points out, map providers like Google operate “to support their business missions of search and advertising.” Therefore, their mapping decisions are ultimately guided by what best serves these business objectives. Google’s strategy appears to be minimizing user dissatisfaction, either through regional customizations or by acknowledging multiple names.
Quinn suggests that Google’s “Gulf of America” change is “more of a sign that they want to maintain uninterrupted business, rather than a sign that they agree with Trump’s change.” In politically charged situations, corporate mapping decisions can be heavily influenced by the economic and political power of the involved parties.
Precedent Examples: Contested Place Names on Google Maps
This isn’t the first instance where Google Maps has displayed varying names based on the user’s location, particularly when it comes to politically sensitive regions:
-
Kashmir: The region of Kashmir, disputed between India and Pakistan, is depicted differently depending on the user’s location. Within India, Google Maps shows Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh as part of India with solid borders. Outside India, including in Pakistan, these regions are outlined with dashed lines, indicating a disputed territory.
-
Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf: The water body bordered by Iran and Arab nations is another example. Iran refers to it as the Persian Gulf, while Arab countries call it the Arabian Gulf. Google Maps reflects this regional divergence. In Iran, it’s labeled Persian Gulf; in Arab countries bordering the gulf, it’s Arabian Gulf. Elsewhere, it is often displayed as “Persian Gulf (Arabian Gulf).”
-
Sea of Japan/East Sea: The sea between Japan and the Korean Peninsula is known as the Sea of Japan by Japan and the East Sea by both Koreas. Google Maps reflects this by using Sea of Japan in Japan, East Sea in South Korea, and “Sea of Japan (East Sea)” in other locations.
These examples highlight Google Maps’ nuanced approach to representing contested place names, often opting for location-based variations or dual naming conventions to navigate geopolitical sensitivities.
Reactions to the Gulf of America Change
The announcement regarding the Gulf of Mexico on map renaming to “Gulf of America” has elicited varied reactions. Online platforms, particularly X, have seen a mix of acceptance and criticism. Some users expressed support, while others indicated they might switch to alternative mapping platforms like Apple Maps in protest.
When it does, I will delete google and use DuckDuckGo and Apple maps.
— UncleTummy No Blue checkmark but voting Blue (@UncleTummyTX) January 29, 2025
Interestingly, Apple Maps has also faced similar geopolitical mapping controversies. In 2019, the lower house of the Russian parliament announced that Apple Maps would display Crimea as part of Russia when viewed from within Russia, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, an act widely condemned internationally. Outside of Russia, Apple Maps correctly marks Crimea as Ukrainian territory.
Currently, Google Maps uses dashed lines to demarcate Crimea’s borders with both Ukraine and Russia, irrespective of the user’s location, indicating its disputed status.
Al Jazeera’s attempt to get a comment from Apple regarding potential name changes for the Gulf of Mexico on map or Mount Denali did not receive a response, leaving open the question of how other mapping platforms will address these US government directives.
The Subjectivity of Maps
Professor Quinn’s observation that “Many people want to treat maps like objective documents, but maps are a product of the culture and values of the people that produce them,” underscores a crucial point. Place names are not static; they are “fluid, contested, and political.” Ultimately, the names that gain currency are those used in everyday conversations, which may not always align with institutionally produced maps.
However, the widespread use of platforms like Google Maps gives them significant power to shape global perceptions. Changes like renaming the Gulf of Mexico on map, even with regional variations, highlight the inherent subjectivity of maps and their potential to reflect and reinforce political narratives.
In conclusion, the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico on map on Google Maps for US users is more than just a cartographic update. It’s a reflection of political influence on digital spaces, Google’s navigation of geopolitical sensitivities, and the ongoing debate about the objectivity and inherent biases within maps themselves. As users engage with digital maps, understanding these underlying dynamics becomes increasingly important for critically interpreting the information presented.
