Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 73.
This bill renames the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America" for all U.S. Federal laws, maps, regulations, documents, and records. The Secretary of the Interior, through the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, must oversee implementation and Federal agencies must update their documents and maps within 180 days of enactment.
Progressives emphasize cultural erasure and diplomatic concerns.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward and narrowly drafted renaming statute: it states the name change, provides a deeming clause that applies across federal laws and records, and assigns federal implementers with a 180‑day deadline.
This bill renames the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America" for all U.S. Federal laws, maps, regulations, documents, and records.
The Secretary of the Interior, through the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, must oversee implementation and Federal agencies must update their documents and maps within 180 days of enactment.
Technically simple and low-cost but symbolically provocative and internationally sensitive, making final approval in the Senate less likely.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward and narrowly drafted renaming statute: it states the name change, provides a deeming clause that applies across federal laws and records, and assigns federal implementers with a 180‑day deadline. Those elements make the bill operational for federal documents with a clear, limited implementation path.
Progressives emphasize cultural erasure and diplomatic concerns.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize cultural erasure and diplomatic concerns.
Likely sees the bill as primarily symbolic with little policy substance, and therefore unnecessary.
Concerns will focus on cultural insensitivity, erasure of Spanish-language/historical place-names, and distracting political theater from substantive policy needs.
Views the bill as symbolic and low on policy substance; tolerable if administrative costs are small.
Prefers pragmatic assessment of costs and diplomatic implications and would seek assurances that implementation is inexpensive and efficient.
Likely regards the bill positively as a patriotic or sovereignty-affirming symbolic act that aligns with nationalist messaging.
Sees little practical downside if agencies comply on schedule and at limited cost.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically simple and low-cost but symbolically provocative and internationally sensitive, making final approval in the Senate less likely.
The House passed this bill. It now goes to the other chamber, and eventually to the President for signature.
The final vote on whether the bill becomes law (pending the other chamber and the President).
The attempt to send the bill back to committee failed. The bill continues moving forward.
A motion to recommit sends a bill back to committee, often as a last-ditch attempt to stop it.
Progressives emphasize cultural erasure and diplomatic concerns.
Technically simple and low-cost but symbolically provocative and internationally sensitive, making final approval in the Senate less likely.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward and narrowly drafted renaming statute: it states the name change, provides a deeming clause that applies across federal laws and records, and ass…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.