The digital world of maps has become the latest arena for political disputes, as exemplified by recent changes to Google Maps. Users in the United States searching for a Map Of Gulf Of Mexico may now find it labeled as the “Gulf of America,” a change mirroring an executive order from US President Donald Trump. This alteration by Google has ignited discussions about the objectivity of maps and the influence of political agendas on geographical representations in the digital age.
This move by Google, announced on Monday, reflects a broader directive from the Trump administration, which includes renaming not only the Gulf of Mexico but also Mount Denali, North America’s highest peak, to Mount McKinley. While these changes are slated to be officially implemented by Google Maps for US users, the global response and historical context surrounding these geographical names add layers of complexity to what might seem like simple cartographic updates.
Google Maps’ Shifting Names: Gulf of America and Mount McKinley
The specifics of Google’s update are nuanced. For users within the US, the map of Gulf of Mexico will display “Gulf of America.” However, for users in Mexico, it will retain its historical name, “Gulf of Mexico.” Interestingly, for users outside of these two nations, Google Maps will display both names – “Gulf of Mexico” and “Gulf of America.” In contrast, the renaming of Mount Denali to Mount McKinley is set to be universally applied on Google Maps, irrespective of the user’s location.
These changes stem directly from one of the 26 executive orders signed by President Trump upon his inauguration on January 20th. This particular order officially renames the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and Mount Denali to Mount McKinley, sparking immediate debate and raising questions about the authority and implications of such unilateral name changes in a globally connected world.
The Historical and Geographical Context of the Gulf of Mexico
The Gulf of Mexico is a significant body of water bordered by Cuba, several eastern Mexican states including Tamaulipas, Veracruz, and Yucatan, and the US Gulf Coast states of Texas, Louisiana, and Florida. This vast expanse has been known as the Gulf of Mexico for approximately four centuries. Historical records, such as English geographer Richard Hakluyt’s 1589 publication “The Principall Navigations,” refer to it as the “Gulfe of Mexico.” In Spanish, it is also known as “El Golfo de Mexico.”
While President Trump can enforce the “Gulf of America” designation domestically, this name change does not hold international legal weight. There are no international governing bodies that dictate the universal naming of maritime spaces or disputed territories. Therefore, the global community is not obligated to adopt this new nomenclature.
The situation with Mount Denali is slightly different, as it lies entirely within US territory. Trump’s decision to revert its name to Mount McKinley honors former President William McKinley, although McKinley himself never set foot in Alaska. This renaming disregards the mountain’s long-standing name, Denali, given by the Indigenous Koyukon Athabascan people of Alaska, which translates to “the tall one.” Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voiced strong opposition, emphasizing the historical and cultural significance of the name Denali. It is worth noting that the mountain was officially named Mount McKinley in 1917 but was renamed back to Denali in 2015 by President Barack Obama, reflecting a shift towards recognizing Indigenous names and heritage.
Google Maps’ Rationale and the Timing of Changes
Google has stated that these name changes on their map of Gulf of Mexico and Mount Denali will be implemented once the US government officially updates these names in their official databases. Specifically, for the US, this refers to the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), managed by the US Geological Survey (USGS). While the exact timeline is unclear, Trump’s initial directive aimed for these changes to be reflected within 30 days of the executive order, potentially by February 19th.
Google’s official explanation for implementing these changes is rooted in their policy of reflecting local official names for map users. As Google stated on X, “When official names vary between countries, Maps users see their official local name. Everyone in the rest of the world sees both names. That applies here too.” A 2008 Google Public Policy Blog post further elaborates on their complex internal process involving various experts to navigate such naming disputes, balancing global consistency with local sensitivities.
However, experts suggest that economic factors also play a significant role in these decisions. Sterling Quinn, a geography professor at Central Washington University, argues that Google’s mapping decisions are ultimately driven by business objectives related to search and advertising. Their approach often involves minimizing user dissatisfaction and maintaining business continuity, which can lead to region-specific customizations or the inclusion of multiple names. In this context, the “Gulf of America” change can be interpreted as Google prioritizing uninterrupted service within the US market, rather than necessarily endorsing the political motivations behind the name change.
Precedents and the Subjectivity of Maps
This is not the first instance where Google Maps has displayed different names for the same location depending on the user’s geographical location, highlighting the inherent subjectivity in mapmaking.
Kashmir
The region of Kashmir, contested between India and Pakistan, is depicted differently on Google Maps depending on the user’s location. For users in India, Jammu and Kashmir, including Ladakh, appear as integral parts of India with solid borders. However, outside of India, including in Pakistan, these regions are outlined with dashed lines, indicating a disputed territory.
Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf
Similarly, the water body known as the Persian Gulf to Iran and the Arabian Gulf to Arab nations is labeled according to the user’s location. In Iran, it is shown as the Persian Gulf, while in Arab countries bordering the gulf, such as Qatar, it is labeled Arabian Gulf. For users elsewhere, Google Maps often displays “Persian Gulf (Arabian Gulf),” acknowledging both names.
Sea of Japan/East Sea
The sea between Japan and the Korean Peninsula is another example. Japan refers to it as the Sea of Japan, whereas both North and South Korea call it the East Sea. Google Maps reflects this regional naming difference, displaying Sea of Japan in Japan and East Sea in South Korea, and “Sea of Japan (East Sea)” in other locations.
These examples underscore that maps, particularly in the digital age, are not purely objective representations of geography. They are influenced by political, cultural, and economic considerations, reflecting the perspectives and priorities of those who create and control them.
Public Reaction and the Nature of Maps
The announcement regarding the map of Gulf of Mexico renaming has evoked varied reactions. Some users online have expressed support, while others have indicated they might switch to alternative mapping platforms like Apple Maps in protest.
Historically, even Apple Maps has faced similar controversies. In 2019, the Russian parliament reported that Apple Maps would show 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 identifies Crimea as Ukrainian territory. Currently, Google Maps uses a dashed line to denote the boundary between Ukraine and Crimea, regardless of the user’s location.
As Professor Quinn aptly summarizes, maps should not be seen as objective documents but rather as products of the cultures and values of their creators. Place names are fluid and often politically charged. While community usage ultimately shapes the common names for geographical locations, widely used platforms like Google Maps wield significant influence in shaping global perceptions of the world. The renaming of the Gulf of Mexico, therefore, is more than just a cartographic change; it is a reflection of the complex interplay between politics, technology, and the ever-evolving representation of our world.
