The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.
The potential rebrand echoes the 2003-era rebranding of French fries as “freedom fries.”
The Bill
A new bill would officially rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.”
At least in the United States, that is. Mexico itself, not being subject to U.S. laws, could continue to call the Gulf whatever it wants. So could every other country in the world—not to mention international mapmaking and cartography organizations.
Indeed, even in the U.S., many people would likely continue to call it the Gulf of Mexico just out of habit, perhaps for years to come. The bill would only change the name in official documents, which are specified to include any “law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States.”
The House bill was introduced on January 9 by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA14). The bill does not appear to have a title.
Context
The body of water off the U.S. southeast coast borders five states to its north —Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas—plus Mexico to its west and Cuba to its southeast.
The name “Gulf of Mexico” was first used on a map in 1550. Even a few alternate names used long ago never included “Gulf of America”; instead, other names that never quite caught on included the “Gulf of Florida” and “Gulf of Cortés.”
Indeed, a Mississippi Democratic state representative’s 2012 proposal to rename it the “Gulf of America” was satirical, meant to spoof Republicans’ displays of hyperpatriotism.
Yet, President Donald Trump floated the idea with complete seriousness at a January press conference as president-elect. On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order changing two geographical names: the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, plus Alaska’s Mount Denali to Mount McKinley.
While the executive order encouraged the changes to be implemented within 30 days, Florida’s own state government under Gov. Ron DeSantis did so within hours.
But even Trump’s executive order acknowledged that the decree was only “guidance” because “congressional action is required to establish a renaming in public law.” Hence, this bill.
What Supporters Say
Supporters argue that it’s only fair that a country should name its bordering body of water after itself, at least for domestic purposes.
“The American people are footing the bill to protect and secure the maritime waterways for commerce to be conducted. Our U.S. armed forces protect the area from any military threats from foreign countries,” Rep. Greene said in a press release. (That claim is true: the Coast Guard patrols the area.) “It’s our Gulf. The rightful name is the Gulf of America.”
What Opponents Say
Trump’s simultaneous name change from Mount Denali to Mount McKinley is controversial for removing the original Native Alaskan moniker, to one instead honoring a white president who never even visited Alaska.
By contrast, the “Gulf” name change isn’t so controversial on its actual merits. Rather, opponents say it’s a waste of time and a cheap trick to score political points with Trump’s base.
“House Democrats believe that we are not sent to Washington to… rename the Gulf of Mexico,” House Democratic Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY8) said at a press conference. “We were sent to Washington to lower the high cost of living in the United States of America.”
Mexico’s own political leader dismissed the issue as irrelevant in her own country.
“He says that he will call it the Gulf of America,” Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum said. “For us and for the entire world it will continue to be called the Gulf of Mexico.” She also sarcastically suggested renaming the entire U.S. as “Mexican America” in response.
Odds of Passage
The bill has attracted 29 cosponsors, all Republicans. It now awaits a potential vote in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, controlled by Republicans.
No Senate companion version appears to have been introduced yet.
SUGGESTION: Congress Bill Spotlight: constitutional amendment letting Trump be elected to a third term
President-Elect Donald Trump speaks during a victory rally at the Capital One Arena on January 19, 2025 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images)
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.