What’s in a name?

Once they seized power, the Bolsheviks set about re-making Russia in their own image. One manifestation of this was changing place names: Saint Petersburg became Leningrad, Tsaritsyn became Stalingrad.

Following in their footsteps, Trump has renamed the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. This calls to mind the pathetic attempt to rebrand French fries as “Freedom Fries” during GW Bush’s invasion and military occupation of Iraq that France opposed. Of course, Trump’s action will prove far more ephemeral, as the world will revert to the Gulf of Mexico after he leaves office. Just like the Bolshevik place names reverted to their earlier form after Stalin’s death. But as with Stalin, the goal is sinister:

At first, this may seem absurd, even laughable—a petty rebranding with no real impact. In reality, it is a frighteningly important shift—a calculated loyalty test designed to divide the country, enforce obedience and flag those who refuse to fall in line.

 

This renaming isn’t just about maps and geography. It is a direct challenge to government officials, businesses, educators and everyday Americans to see who will comply and who will resist. If people can be forced into adopting this name change, it sets a dangerous precedent—making future demands for loyalty even easier to enforce.

 

How the Name Change Is a Loyalty Test

 

The order creates real consequences for those who refuse to comply. It impacts multiple areas of American life, from government agencies to businesses and even casual conversations.

 

1.        Purging “Disloyal” Government Workers

 

Federal employees—from military officers to agency staff—are expected to use “Gulf of America” in all official reports, documents and conversations. Those who continue calling it the “Gulf of Mexico” will be seen as defiant and resistant. Over time, this serves to identify and remove those who are not fully aligned with the Trump regime.

 

2.        Businesses and Federal Contractors Forced to Comply

 

Any company working with the federal government—whether in defense, consulting or education—will be required to update all materials to reflect the name change. Failing to comply will put federal contracts at risk, forcing businesses to adopt the change regardless of personal or corporate beliefs. Over time, pressure will spread to the private sector, making noncompliance increasingly difficult.

 

3.        Everyday Conversations Become Political

Even outside of government and business, the words people use will signal their political stance. Someone who says “Gulf of America” signals their loyalty, just like “Democrat Party” instead of “Democratic Party” is a MAGA loyalty signifier. This creates a new way to divide Americans, turning even casual conversations into a political battleground.

 

4.        Schools and Teachers Could Face Pressure

Republican-led states are likely to require teachers to use "Gulf of America" in classrooms.

Refusing to comply will result in disciplinary action or termination. Teachers who continue using “Gulf of Mexico” will be outed as uncooperative and could face backlash from parents, school boards or state officials.

 

The Power of Language: Historical Parallels

 

This isn’t just about renaming a body of water—throughout history, controlling language has been a tool for enforcing political power. In the Stalin era, failure to use approved government terminology marked people as political enemies, often leading to punishment or exile. In Nazi Germany, renaming cities and institutions helped eliminate opposing ideologies and reinforce state propaganda. In Mao’s China, the government controlled language to erase opposition and enforce Communist ideology.

 

By forcing people to use “Gulf of America,” Trump isn’t just changing a name—he is testing obedience, identifying opposition and reshaping reality.

 

Why This Matters: The Next Step in Compliance

 

This executive order is a gateway to further control. If people and institutions accept this change without resistance, future demands for loyalty will be even easier to enforce.

This move is designed to sort people into “loyal” vs. “disloyal” groups, identify and remove those who resist and make future ideological demands more enforceable. Once compliance becomes a habit, bigger shifts will follow. If the government can force people to say what they want on something small, what stops them from enforcing it on something bigger?