Before 2024, the naming history of the Gulf of Mexico reflected a blend of indigenous heritage and European exploration. Indigenous groups, including the Maya, had their own names for the Gulf, such as Nahá, meaning “great water.” However, these names were largely replaced during European colonization. The Aztecs referred to the Gulf as Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl, or “House of Chalchiuhtlicue,” after their deity of the seas. The Maya, who used the Gulf as a major trade route, likely called it Nahá.
In the 16th century, Spanish explorers introduced new names, including Mar del Norte (Sea of the North) and Seno Mexicano (Mexican Sound). Other names used by Spanish cartographers included Gulf of Florida (Golfo de Florida) and Gulf of Cortés (Golfo de Cortés). Early European maps also referred to it by various names, such as the Gulf of St. Michael (Sinus S. Michaelis), Gulf of Yucatán (Golfo de Iucatan), Yucatán Sea (Mare Iuchatanicum), Great Antillean Gulf (Sinus Magnus Antillarum), Cathayan Sea (Mare Cathaynum), and Gulf of New Spain (Golfo de Nueva España).
As Spanish influence in the region expanded, the name “Gulf of Mexico” gained prominence, reflecting the Gulf’s geopolitical significance to the Spanish crown. By the 17th century, the name had become widely accepted, appearing in nautical charts, legal documents, and historical records.
As of early 2025, discussions about the naming and significance of the Gulf of Mexico have resurfaced, reflecting broader debates on national sovereignty, cultural heritage, and historical narratives. The Gulf’s name is not just a geographic label but a symbol tied to geopolitical tensions and identity politics. These discussions also highlight the Gulf’s economic importance, as it supports vital industries such as fishing, oil, and tourism. Recognized as one of the world’s most productive fisheries, the Gulf generates millions of dollars for local American economies. Its ecological fragility further underscores its significance in conversations about international relations, trade disputes, and environmental policy. As a result, the history and naming of the Gulf of Mexico serve as a microcosm of larger global issues.
On January 20, an executive order was issued to promote U.S. heritage by ensuring that national landmarks honor “visionary and patriotic Americans.” The order mandates the renaming of certain geographical features and establishes procedures for doing so. A key provision concerns the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (Board). Agency heads must review and potentially replace their appointees, while the Secretary of the Interior may make additional appointments. The restructured Board is tasked with prioritizing this renaming policy and ensuring federal agencies use Board-approved names consistently, especially in cases requiring Congressional approval.
The order mandates renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, citing its historical and economic significance to the U.S., including its role in trade, natural resource extraction, and maritime industries. Within 30 days, the Secretary of the Interior must rename the U.S. Continental Shelf area—bordering Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida—as the Gulf of America and update the GNIS accordingly. The Board will oversee implementation to ensure federal agencies adopt the new designation.
The attempt to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America” highlights the complex intersection of history, politics, and national identity in geographic naming conventions. Its potential impact on U.S. maritime relations and global maritime affairs stem from a single nation’s attempt to assert control over a shared geographical space. The previous name, “Gulf of Mexico,” has been in use since the mid-17th century and is recognized by international bodies like the International Hydrographic Organization. The U.S. presidential executive order, directing the adoption of “Gulf of America,” was framed as a way to honor American heritage and the Gulf’s economic importance to the U.S.. However, such unilateral renaming attempts can be viewed as a form of “naked imperialism” and chauvinism, reminiscent of historical European powers imposing names on territories in the New World.
This action can and will evoke trade frustrations and anti-Mexican sentiment. Such a change carries considerable economic implications, potentially disrupting the tourist industry and necessitating updates to official documents. The international community may also reject the new designation, leading to discrepancies in global communications. Moving forward, it’s crucial to monitor the U.S. government’s implementation of the name change and the responses from Mexico, Cuba, and other international bodies. Geographic names are subject to political and cultural contestation, and alterations can have far-reaching consequences for international relations. In short, encouraging collaboration and respecting shared resources is more vital than asserting ownership through renaming.
This Spotlight was originally released with Volume 4, Issue 2 of the ICAS MAP Handbill, published on February 25, 2025.
This issue’s Spotlight was written by Kailyn Provitt, ICAS Part-time Research Assistant.
Maritime Affairs Program Spotlights are a short-form written background and analysis of a specific issue related to maritime affairs, which changes with each issue. The goal of the Spotlight is to help our readers quickly and accurately understand the basic background of a vital topic in maritime affairs and how that topic relates to ongoing developments today.
There is a new Spotlight released with each issue of the ICAS Maritime Affairs Program (MAP) Handbill – a regular newsletter released the last Tuesday of every month that highlights the major news stories, research products, analyses, and events occurring in or with regard to the global maritime domain during the past month.
ICAS Maritime Affairs Handbill (online ISSN 2837-3901, print ISSN 2837-3871) is published the last Tuesday of the month throughout the year at 1919 M St NW, Suite 310, Washington, DC 20036.
The online version of ICAS Maritime Affairs Handbill can be found at chinaus-icas.org/icas-maritime-affairs-program/map-handbill/.
The Institute for China-America Studies is an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to strengthening the understanding of U.S.-China relations through expert analysis and practical policy solutions.
1919 M St. NW Suite 310,
Washington, DC 20036
icas@chinaus-icas.org
(202) 968-0595
© 2025 INSTITUTE FOR CHINA-AMERICA STUDIES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.