“Who owns the name of the place?”… Trump wages a new war on the map

Washington, DC – From “Gulf of America” and “Lake America” to the Strait of Hormuz being described as a “new US territory,” this investigation traces the hidden power behind place names, who owns the databases that create maps, and how a single name can change on your phone screen without altering the world’s borders on the ground. Trump didn’t need a single soldier to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico. On January 20, 2025, the US president signed an executive order with the telling title, “Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness,” directing the US government to use the name “Gulf of America” instead of “Gulf of Mexico” in US federal usage. Months later, the new designation became part of US government maps, documents, and data.

The battle then shifted from the Gulf to a lake on the US-Canadian border. On August 27, 2016, Trump signed an executive order renaming Lake Ontario “Lake America” in US federal usage, directing the Department of the Interior and the US Geographic Names Board to update the official geographic database and remove references to the previous name. Canada, however, did not change its map. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney declared that the lake would remain “Lake Ontario,” asserting that the historical name predates both Canada and the United States. Thus, the same body of water came to have two official names, depending on the country viewing it. Then came the most controversial move.

In August 2026, Trump published a map of the Strait of Hormuz labeled “NEW U.S. Territory,” after having previously expressed his desire to consider the strait American territory. However, this remained merely a statement and a published map; it did not, in itself, mean that the United States had legally annexed the strait or that its international status had changed. This raises the real question: Can a head of state change the name of the world simply by altering a database? The first answer is yes, but only within certain limits. The second, and more important, answer is no, not necessarily beyond those limits.

The map is not one

Official U.S. documents reveal a massive institutional structure behind the names that appear on maps. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names, established in 1890, is now a federal agency tasked with standardizing the use of geographic names within the U.S. government. Multiple federal agencies participate in its work: the U.S. Geographic Survey (USGS) supports domestic names, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) supports foreign names. The Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) is not simply a website for searching names; the USGS describes it as the federal and national standard for geographic names within the United States and the official resource used by federal agencies in their electronic and printed products. Outside of the U.S., there is another, even more interesting, system. The NGA manages the Geographic Names Server (GNS), which it officially describes as the official repository of standardized spellings for foreign geographic names approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names.

But the official page itself includes a crucial caveat: the names in the database do not necessarily reflect the U.S. government’s position on sovereignty over geographical features. This statement alone reveals the difference between a place name and ownership of that place. Washington can tell its institutions: use a specific name. But using a name within a U.S. database does not mean that international borders have shifted.

Trump didn’t change the map… he changed an “American version” of it.

The Gulf of Mexico is a prime example. The U.S. executive order did not state that the United States had assumed sovereignty over the entire Gulf. Rather, it directed the Department of the Interior to rename the area it designated as falling under U.S. jurisdiction, and U.S. government agencies began implementing the new name. In August 2025, NOAA issued a final rule updating its regulations and adopting the name “Gulf of America,” while simultaneously emphasizing that the change did not fundamentally alter existing regulations or their scope. Even U.S. nautical charts began using the new name; recent NOAA publications display “Gulf of America.” This illustrates the distinction between two things: changing the name within the U.S. administrative system does not equate to changing international sovereignty over the waters.

When Google entered the battle

The story became more complicated when the name moved from government records to mobile phones. On February 10, 2025, Google officially announced that Google Maps users in the United States would see “Gulf of America,” while users in Mexico would see “Gulf of Mexico,” and users in the rest of the world would see both names. More importantly, Google clarified that the displayed name depended on the user’s location or the region settings on their device or account. Thus, the map was no longer a static image. The same place could now have three different names within the same application, depending on where the user was standing. In the United States: Gulf of America; in Mexico: Gulf of Mexico; and in other regions: Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America). This is no small technical matter. It marks the beginning of an era where the same geography can have different interfaces depending on the user’s location.

The map you see is not necessarily the map your neighbor sees.

The American experience reveals that mapping companies don’t necessarily operate according to a single global standard. In the case of the Gulf of Mexico, Google explicitly stated that the name varies depending on the country or region. Apple also adopted the new name in its US maps after updating the US Geographic Names database. Conversely, some platforms refuse to adopt the name. Following the “Lake America” ​​decision, MapQuest announced that it would not change the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America, according to recent reports. So, Trump can change the name in his government’s database, but he cannot issue a direct order to every mapping company in the world. And this is where the “map wars” begin.

The United Nations does not have a “universal dictionary” to impose on countries.

The United Nations might seem like the only entity that can tell the world: “This is the correct name.” But the reality is more complex. The United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN) works to standardize geographical names at both the national and international levels, emphasizing that standard names are essential for communication, administration, law, navigation, mapping, and data integration. However, the UN itself does not have the authority to choose the name of every place in the world. UNGEGN documents clarify that determining a standard name is primarily the responsibility of states and their national authorities, and that the Group does not have a mandate to decide on names on behalf of states. In cases of disputes over place names that extend beyond national jurisdiction, the organization encourages the states involved to engage in dialogue and reach a solution. This means that a name is not a centralized UN decision. It is the result of a network of national authorities, international institutions, maps, and databases.

Who owns the names of the seas and oceans?

Here comes another organization, one that most map users are unfamiliar with: the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO). Through specialized mechanisms, the IHO works to standardize the names of marine features and develop rules and standards for their international use. The Special Committee on Subsea Names (SCUFN) explains that it selects names for marine features, prepares international lists of names, and promotes their use on maps, nautical charts, scientific publications, and documents, in coordination with the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names. This leads to a more complex issue: if a single country decides to use a new name for a marine feature whose name is disputed, the name does not automatically become a “universal name.” This is because there is another international system of maps, standards, and hydrographic bodies at play.

The Strait of Hormuz: The moment when war transcended its “name”

In the Gulf and the Gulf, the primary dispute was over name. But the Strait of Hormuz presents a completely different case. Trump published a map describing the strait as a “new US territory,” at a time when the strait is at the heart of the US-Iran conflict and a strategic waterway for global energy. However, designating a place on a map as “US territory” does not legally equate to acquiring sovereignty over it. International law of the sea establishes a special regime for straits used for international navigation. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) dedicates Part III to straits used for international navigation, including the legal status of the waters, the right of transit passage, and the obligations of littoral states. Therefore, any genuine attempt to alter the legal status of the Strait of Hormuz would be fundamentally different from changing its name in a database. A name can be changed by administrative decision, but sovereignty, boundaries, and maritime rights are governed by different international legal rules.

Why is this point important?

Because the real danger isn’t waking up tomorrow to find that the US borders have shifted on the map. The more tangible danger is something far more subtle: multiple “versions of geography.” An American version, a Canadian version, a Mexican version, a Chinese version, an international version. And each version might appear on a different screen. This isn’t a theoretical assumption. Google has already provided a practical example of this in the case of the Gulf of Mexico, when it changed the displayed name depending on the user’s country.

“Atlas of Disputed Names”

From here, an original result of the investigation can be constructed: the “Atlas of Disputed Names” database.

Location | U.S. Name | International/Local Name | What Has Changed? | Has Sovereignty Changed?

Gulf of Mexico | Gulf of America | Gulf of Mexico | Name in U.S. Use | No

Lake Ontario | Lake America | Lake Ontario | U.S. Federal Use | No

Strait of Hormuz | Described on Trump’s Map as New U.S. Territory | Strait of Hormuz | Political Speech/Map | No Legal Decision of Annexation
Mount Denali | Mount McKinley in U.S. Federal Use | Denali in Widely Used Local/International Use | U.S. Official Name | No

This table reveals something fundamental: changing a name doesn’t move borders. But it can change the language we use to describe borders and the world around us. The real power isn’t in the map, but in the database. In the past, anyone who wanted to change our perception of the world needed a printed map; today, it’s enough to change a single record in a database. A government database, then an API, then a map application, then a search engine, then an AI model. And so, the decision moves from a government office to a phone screen, then to millions of daily searches. And here a new battle emerges, one that didn’t exist in the same way before the age of digital maps.

Who owns the “original data” from which the maps are made?

The U.S. Geographic Information System (GIS) provides geographic name data to the government and the public, and offers services, interfaces, and data that can be used in geographic information systems, maps, and GEOINT products. GNIS is the official source of geographic names used in U.S. federal products. In other words, modern warfare doesn’t begin with the map; it begins with the database that creates the map.

Artificial intelligence: the next frontier

If Google can display a different name depending on the user’s location, the following question becomes even more critical: What will the AI ​​say when asked, “What is the correct name?” Will it answer, “Gulf of America”? Or “Gulf of Mexico”? Or will it display both names? And what will happen when the user asks:

“Who does the place belong to?”

Here, the conflict shifts from map to knowledge. A map might display two names, but an AI model might offer a single, seemingly definitive answer. This makes geographic name databases part of a cognitive infrastructure that can influence how millions of people understand the world. However, this point requires separate field testing before being accepted as fact. Therefore, the next part of the investigation should be based on documented testing of multiple AI models, recording the answer, date, and geographic region for each test, rather than drawing premature conclusions.

From “the name of the place” to “the making of reality”

What Trump has done so far does not prove that he can redraw international borders with a naming decree. But he has demonstrated something else, something far more significant: that a state can impose a new name on its administrative apparatus, and that this name can then be transferred to databases, then to digital maps, and finally to everyday life. This raises a political and cultural question: Is a name merely a description, or is it an instrument of power? History tells us that names are not neutral. The United Nations itself links geographical names to language, culture, history, and identity, and considers their standardization part of administration, navigation, mapping, and data exchange. Therefore, the battle over “American Gulf” and “American Lake” is not just about words. It is about: Who has the right to define a place?

Trump cannot, with a single executive order, make Lake Ontario American territory, nor can he transform the Strait of Hormuz into a US territory simply by adding the phrase to a map. But the White House can do something less obvious and more pervasive: change the name used by US government institutions, and then databases, then maps, then applications, then search engines, and, in the future, artificial intelligence systems. Thus, borders on the ground don’t shift, but the language the world uses to perceive its borders changes on the screen. In an age where the digital map has become the window billions have onto geography, perhaps the question is no longer, “Who owns the land?” but rather, “Who owns its name?” And this is where the “war of maps” begins.