Mexico has launched a formal lawsuit against Google after the tech giant updated its maps to reflect the “Gulf of Mexico” as the “Gulf of America” — a name change stemming from an executive order issued by President Donald Trump earlier this year.
The rebranding directive, signed on January 20, 2025, mandates all U.S. federal agencies to use the term “Gulf of America” in official materials. Google followed suit, updating its mapping services for American users in compliance with the order. However, the decision has sparked diplomatic outrage from Mexico, which claims the change oversteps U.S. jurisdiction and misrepresents internationally recognized geographic names.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum condemned the move, accusing both the Trump administration and Google of undermining Mexico’s sovereignty. “This is a blatant political stunt with no legal standing outside U.S. borders,” she said, adding that the name “Gulf of Mexico” has been recognized globally for over 400 years and reflects shared geographic and historical ties among Mexico, the United States, and Cuba.
Mexico’s legal team argues that the change falsely implies U.S. ownership over the entire body of water, despite the fact that international maritime boundaries place roughly 49% of the gulf under Mexican jurisdiction. The remainder is divided between the U.S. (approximately 46%) and Cuba (around 5%).
Google responded to the controversy by stating it follows government-recognized naming conventions in each region. The map now shows “Gulf of America” for users in the U.S., “Gulf of Mexico” for users in Mexico, and “Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)” for global users.
Meanwhile, the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the “Gulf of America Act,” further codifying the change within federal law. Republican lawmakers have framed the move as a patriotic assertion of American influence and identity, particularly over waters where the U.S. controls nearly half the basin and has strategic, economic, and military interests.
But Mexico’s lawsuit signals broader geopolitical tensions — not just over maps, but over power, sovereignty, and digital influence. At the heart of the issue is whether one nation’s internal directive should shape global geographic terminology.
As the case moves forward, the outcome may set new precedents for how tech companies navigate national directives in the face of international resistance.