Renaming The Gulf of Mexico Is an Imperialist Power Grab

Michelle Ellner - Melissa Garriga

 February 5, 2025
Facebook

TwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Image by Debby Hudson.

Trump’s executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America” isn’t just another absurd stunt or another example of his outlandish behavior. It signals a much deeper, more troubling agenda that seeks to erase historical identity and assert imperial domination over a region already suffering under a long history of interventionist policies. At its core, this is a move to expand the U.S. empire by erasing Mexico’s presence from a geographical feature recognized for centuries.

The name “Gulf of Mexico” has existed since the 16th century. Its recognition is supported by international organizations such as the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) and the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN). These organizations ensure that place names remain neutral and historically accurate, preventing nations from distorting or erasing cultural and historical ties to specific regions. Mexico has formally rejected this renaming, emphasizing that no country has the right to unilaterally change the identity of a shared natural resource that spans multiple borders. This is a matter of respect for international law and sovereignty, which the Trump administration has ignored in favor of pursuing nationalistic expansionism.

Erasing “Mexico” from our maps isn’t an aberration. It’s part of a long pattern of anti-Mexican racism in the U.S., ranging from political scapegoating and border militarization to violent rhetoric that fuels hate crimes. But this move goes beyond that. It fits into a much larger U.S. strategy of controlling the Western Hemisphere, which dates back to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which claimed the U.S. had the right to dictate who influences Latin America. Over time, this ideology has come to justify US-backed military interventions, coups, and economic manipulations in the region aimed at securing U.S. interests and ensuring that Latin America remains in a subordinate position.

Not only is the Gulf of Mexico a site of historical importance, but it is also rich in oil and natural resources. This fact is no coincidence. The United States has a long history of trying to control these resources including backing oil company boycotts against Mexico’s nationalized industry in the 1930s and signing trade agreements that favor U.S. companies over Mexican sovereignty. Renaming the Gulf of Mexico signals a territorial and economic claim over these waters and their resources further cementing U.S. imperial ambitions in the region.

Companies like Google Maps, which has announced plans to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America after Trump’s executive order, are just playing into the billionaire-fueled power grab that advances a racist, nationalist agenda of domination and imperialism. Even if Google only applies this change in the U.S., it still normalizes the idea that facts can be rewritten to serve a political agenda. At a time when diplomacy and mutual respect should be prioritized, honoring the internationally recognized name would send a clear message that Google values historical accuracy, global cooperation, and good neighborly relations.

The Gulf of Mexico is more than just a body of water; it is a shared resource of immense ecological, economic, and cultural significance for Mexico, the United States, and the world. It plays a critical role in regional trade, fisheries, and energy production, hosting some of North America’s most important offshore oil reserves. The United States has long considered Latin America its “backyard,” and this is another proof that its imperial ambitions are still alive.

The environmental devastation already occurring in the Gulf region is evidenced by devastating oil spills and the degradation of marine ecosystems. This destruction is further compounded as U.S. and foreign companies continue to exploit the region’s resources with no regard for the long-term damage.

The movement to rename the Gulf of Mexico fits into a broader pattern of anti-Mexican sentiment in the United States that has often manifested in political scapegoating, hateful rhetoric, and border militarization. Such rhetoric fuels violence and hate crimes against Mexican and Latino communities. While Trump’s attempt to erase “Mexico” from the Gulf of Mexico may appear symbolic, it could have devastating consequences. It reflects a disregard for historical truth, an aggressive assertion of U.S. superiority, and the continuation of exploitative colonialist practices that harm both the environment and Latin American people.

Michelle Ellner is a Venezuelan-American photographer and Latin America campaign coordinator with CODEPINK. Born in Venezuela, she holds a bachelor’s degree in languages and international affairs from the University La Sorbonne in Paris. She worked with community-based programs in Venezuela and served as an analyst of U.S.-Venezuela relations.

Melissa Garriga is the communications and media analysis manager for CODEPINK. She writes about the intersection of militarism and the human cost of war. She lives on the Gulf of Mexico.

Renaming the Gulf of Mexico Isn’t a

 Laughing Matter but Part of a U.S. Imperialist Power Grab

by Michelle Ellner and Melissa Garriga / February 5th, 2025

Trump’s executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America” isn’t just another absurd stunt or another example of his outlandish behavior. It signals a much deeper, more troubling agenda that seeks to erase historical identity and assert imperial domination over a region already suffering under a long history of interventionist policies. At its core, this is a move to expand the U.S. empire by erasing Mexico’s presence from a geographical feature recognized for centuries.

The name “Gulf of Mexico” has existed since the 16th century. Its recognition is supported by international organizations such as the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) and the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN). These organizations ensure that place names remain neutral and  historically accurate, preventing nations from distorting or erasing cultural and historical ties to specific regions. Mexico has formally rejected this renaming, emphasizing that no country has the right to unilaterally change the identity of a shared natural resource that spans multiple borders. This is a matter of respect for international law and sovereignty, which the Trump administration has ignored in favor of pursuing nationalistic expansionism.

Erasing “Mexico” from our maps isn’t an aberration. It’s part of a long pattern of anti-Mexican racism in the U.S., ranging from political scapegoating and border militarization to violent rhetoric that fuels hate crimes. But this move goes beyond that. It fits into a much larger U.S. strategy of controlling the Western Hemisphere, which dates back to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which claimed the U.S. had the right to dictate who influences Latin America. Over time, this ideology has come to justify US-backed military interventions, coups, and economic manipulations in the region aimed at securing U.S. interests and ensuring that Latin America remains in a subordinate position.

Not only is the Gulf of Mexico a site of historical importance, but it is also rich in oil and natural resources. This fact is no coincidence. The United States has a long history of trying to control these resources including backing oil company boycotts against Mexico’s nationalized industry in the 1930s  and signing trade agreements that favor U.S. companies over Mexican sovereignty. Renaming the Gulf of Mexico signals a territorial  and economic claim over these waters and their resources further cementing U.S. imperial ambitions in the region.

Companies like Google Maps, which has announced plans to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America after Trump’s executive order, are just playing into the billionaire-fueled power grab that advances a racist, nationalist agenda of domination and imperialism. Even if Google only applies this change in the U.S., it still normalizes the idea that facts can be rewritten to serve a political agenda. At a time when diplomacy and mutual respect should be prioritized, honoring the internationally recognized name would send a clear message that Google values historical accuracy, global cooperation, and good neighborly relations.

The Gulf of Mexico is more than just a body of water; it is a shared resource of immense ecological, economic, and cultural significance for Mexico, the United States, and the world. It plays a critical role in regional trade, fisheries, and energy production, hosting some of North America’s most important offshore oil reserves. The United States has long considered Latin America its “backyard,” and this is another proof that its imperial ambitions are still alive.

The environmental devastation already occurring in the Gulf region is evidenced by devastating oil spills and the degradation  of marine ecosystems. This destruction is further compounded as U.S. and foreign companies continue to exploit the region’s resources with no regard for the long-term damage.

The movement to rename the Gulf of Mexico fits into a broader pattern of anti-Mexican sentiment in the United States that has often manifested in political scapegoating, hateful rhetoric, and border militarization. Such rhetoric fuels violence and hate crimes against Mexican and Latino communities. While Trump’s attempt to erase “Mexico” from the Gulf of Mexico may appear  symbolic, it could have devastating consequences. It reflects a disregard for historical truth, an aggressive assertion of U.S. superiority, and the continuation of exploitative colonialist practices that harm both the environment and Latin American people.

FacebookTwitter

RedditEmail

Michelle Ellner is a Venezuelan-American photographer and Latin America campaign coordinator with CODEPINK. Born in Venezuela, she holds a bachelor’s degree in languages and international affairs from the University La Sorbonne in Paris. She worked with community-based programs in Venezuela and served as an analyst of U.S.-Venezuela relations. Melissa Garriga is the communications and media analysis manager for CODEPINK. She writes about the intersection of militarism and the human cost of war. She lives on the Gulf of Mexico. Read other articles by Michelle Ellner and Melissa Garriga.

Why Trump’s Tariffs Can’t Solve America’s Fentanyl Crisis

Rodney Coates

 February 5, 2025
Facebook

Americans consume more illicit drugs per capita than anyone else in the world; about 6% of the U.S. population uses them regularly.

One such drug, fentanyl – a synthetic opioid that’s 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine – is the leading reason U.S. overdose deaths have surged in recent years. While the rate of fentanyl overdose deaths has dipped a bit recently, it’s still vastly higher than it was just five years ago.

Ending the fentanyl crisis won’t be easy. The U.S. has an addiction problem that spans decades – long predating the rise of fentanyl – and countless attempts to regulate, legislate and incarcerate have done little to reduce drug consumption. Meanwhile, the opioid crisis alone costs Americans tens of billions of dollars each year.

With past policies having failed to curb fentanyl deaths, President Donald Trump is turning to another tool to fight America’s drug problem: trade policy.

During his presidential campaign, Trump pledged to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico if they didn’t halt the flow of drugs across U.S. borders, and on China if it didn’t do more to crack down on the production of chemicals used to make fentanyl. Trump reiterated his plan on his first day back in office, and on Feb. 1, he made good on that threat, imposing tariffs on all three counties and citing fentanyl as a key reason.

Speaking as a professor who studies social policy, I think both fentanyl and the proposed import taxes represent significant threats to the U.S. While the human toll of fentanyl is undeniable, the real question is whether tariffs will work – or worsen what’s already a crisis.

Fentanyl: The ‘single greatest challenge’

In 2021, more than 107,000 Americans died from overdoses – the most ever recorded – and nearly seven out of 10 deaths involved fentanyl or similar synthetic opioids. In 2022, fentanyl was killing an average of 200 people each day. And while fentanyl deaths declined slightly in 2023, nearly 75,000 Americans still died from synthetic opioids that year. In March of that year – the most recent for which full-year data on overdose deaths is available – the then-secretary of homeland security declared fentanyl to be “the single greatest challenge we face as a country.”

But history shows that government efforts to curb drug use often have little success.

The first real attempt to regulate drugs in the U.S. occurred in 1890, when, amid rampant drug abuse, Congress enacted a law taxing morphine and opium. In the years that followed, cocaine use skyrocketed, rising 700% between 1890 and 1902. Cocaine was so popular, it was even found in drinks such as Coca-Cola, from which it got its name.

This was followed by a 1909 act banning the smoking of opium, and, in 1937, the “Marihuana Tax Act.” The most comprehensive package of laws was instituted with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which classified drugs into five categories based on their medical uses and potential for abuse or dependence. A year later, then-President Richard Nixon launched the “War on Drugs” and declared drug abuse as “public enemy No. 1.” And in 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, directing US$1.7 billion for drug enforcement and control.

President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse “Public enemy No. 1” at this 1971 press conference.

These policies have generally failed to curb drug supply and use, while also causing significant harm to people and communities of color. For example, between 1980 and 1997, the number of incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses went from 50,000 to 400,000. But these policies hardly put a dent in consumption. The share of high school seniors using drugs dipped only slightly over the same period, from 65% in 1980 to 58% in 1997.

In short, past U.S. efforts to reduce illegal drug use haven’t been especially effective. Now, it looks like the U.S. is shifting toward using tariffs – but research suggests that those will not lead to better outcomes either, and could actually cause considerable harm.

Why tariffs won’t work

America’s experiments with tariffs can be traced back to the founding era with the passage of the Tariff Act of 1789. This long history has shown that tariffs, industrial subsidies and protectionist policies don’t do much to stimulate broad economic growth at home – but they raise prices for consumers and can even lead to global economic instability. History also shows that tariffs don’t work especially well as negotiating tools, failing to effect significant policy changes in target countries. Economists generally agree that the costs of tariffs outweigh the benefits.

Over the course of Trump’s first term, the average effective tariff rate on Chinese imports went from 3% to 11%. But while imports from China fell slightly, the overall trade relationship didn’t change much: China remains the second-largest supplier of goods to the U.S.

The tariffs did have some benefit – for Vietnam and other nearby countries with relatively low labor costs. Essentially, the tariffs on China caused production to shift, with global companies investing billions of dollars in competitor nations.

This isn’t the first time Trump has used trade policy to pressure China on fentanyl – he did so in his first term. But while China made some policy changes in response, such as adding fentanyl to its controlled substances list in 2019, fentanyl deaths in the U.S. continued to rise. Currently, China still ranks as the No. 1 producer of fentanyl precursors, or chemicals used to produce illicit fentanyl. And there are others in the business: India, over that same period, has become a major producer of fentanyl.

A question of supply and demand

Drugs have been pervasive throughout U.S. history. And when you investigate this history and look at how other nations are dealing with this problem rather than criminalization, the Swiss and French have approached it as an addiction problem that could be treated. They realized that demand is what fuels the illicit market. And as any economist will tell you, supply will find a way if you don’t limit the demand. That’s why treatment works and bans don’t.

The U.S. government’s ability to control the production of these drugs is limited at best. The problem is that new chemical products will continually be produced. Essentially, failure to restrict demand only places bandages on hemorrhaging wounds. What the U.S. needs is a more systematic approach to deal with the demand that’s fueling the drug crisis.

This article was updated to include details of the tariffs once they were imposed.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Rodney Coates is Professor of Critical Race and Ethnic Studies at Miami University.