Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness

Below is the complete structured analysis of Executive Order 14172, as requested:

Overview

Purpose and Policy Objective

Executive Order 14172, titled "Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness," is a directive issued by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025. This order is a broad initiative aimed at reinstating and preserving historical names and terms that reflect the United States’ national heritage and the legacy of revered American figures. It emanates from a perspective that celebrates American history through its naming conventions, suggesting that prior changes have undermined this aspect of cultural remembrance.

Key Provisions and Actions

The EO mandates a comprehensive review and potential replacement of appointees to the U.S. Board on Geographic Names. This is followed by specific naming directives, notably the restoration of the name "Mount McKinley" for North America's highest peak, which had been renamed to "Denali." The order also proposes renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America." Both actions are positioned as efforts to honor historical figures and geographical regions that have played pivotal roles in the nation’s development.

Contextual Significance

The initiative appears rooted in a broader desire to realign national symbols with specific historical narratives, underscoring contributions from American leaders considered embodiments of patriotism and achievement. 'Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness' thus reflects President Trump’s policy focus on nationalism and traditionalism, aiming to evoke national pride through historical acknowledgment.

Legal and Policy Implications

Constitutional and Statutory Framework

The EO primarily engages with the legal framework provided by 43 U.S.C. 364 through 364f, which governs the U.S. Board on Geographic Names. This statute outlines the processes and authorities responsible for the official naming or renaming of places within the United States. By invoking this statute, the EO makes procedural adjustments, requiring compliance with these legal directives while emphasizing presidential authority in influencing national symbols.

Policy-Based Changes

The order seeks to revise existing naming policies, impacting federal nomenclature and geographic databases such as the Geographic Names Information System. This rebranding effort necessitates changes across federal documents, contracts, and communications, fostering a narrative consistency that aligns with the EO's objectives. However, the directive indicates potential conflicts between existing legal precedents and new policy initiatives.

Interagency Coordination and Compliance

One notable change is the reinforcement of federal agency coordination to ensure consistent usage of new place names. The EO extends to several departments, particularly involving the Secretary of the Interior, ensuring comprehensive implementation within the legal framework. This can lead to revisions of regulatory documents and alterations in national park and resource management policies.

Procedural Adjustments

The EO encourages the U.S. Board on Geographic Names to revise its principles and procedures, ostensibly to better align with the new policy priorities set forth by President Trump. This has implications for the board’s decision-making processes, potentially reducing its autonomy in favor of a more centrally-directed approach to cultural heritage.

Potential for Judicial Review

Although the order stipulates adherence to existing laws, its significant alterations to recognized geographic names and its redirection of policy priorities could provoke legal scrutiny. Judicial review may become necessary to address disputes over the authority and interpretation of statutory obligations in relation to presidential power.

Who Benefits

Proponents of Nationalism and Traditionalism

The EO is likely to resonate with segments of the American public who prioritize national history's commemoration and celebration. Traditionalists and nationalists, particularly, could appreciate and support these changes as reassertions of American identity and pride.

Political Allies and Stakeholders

Politically, individuals and groups aligned with President Trump, including certain conservative politicians and organizations, might see these changes as fulfilling ideological and electoral promises. The renaming efforts serve to reinforce narratives that align with the administration’s leaning toward increased prominence of domestic achievements.

Cultural Heritage Advocates

Some cultural heritage advocates who believe in preserving historical figures' names might welcome the reinstatement of old place names. This group could argue that such actions preserve the integrity and continuity of national stories and emphasize the achievements of past leaders.

Local Economies and Tourism

Regions like those surrounding Mount McKinley or the Gulf of America might argue that the restored names will have economic benefits, through enhanced tourism rooted in the reemphasis of historical and cultural legacies. Tourism industries often capitalize on nostalgia and perceived authenticity that come with historical continuity.

Academic and Historical Institutions

Universities, museums, and institutes focused on American history may see the name restorations as an affirmation of their educational objectives, providing renewed opportunities to re-engage with historical discourse and public interest in American heritage topics.

Who Suffers

Indigenous and Local Communities

The reinstatement of names like Mount McKinley indefinitely marginalizes indigenous naming conventions and histories, as the renaming of Denali represented a reclamation of native heritage. Renaming efforts may be perceived as dismissive of previous efforts to recognize and respect Indigenous cultural significance.

Environmental and Cultural Advocacy Groups

Groups focused on environmental and cultural preservation may view the changes as regressive. These stakeholders argue that renaming in opposition to established historical and scientific consensus undermines substantial efforts to incorporate diverse cultural narratives within the national context.

Latin American Communities

The renaming of the Gulf of Mexico could be negatively perceived in Latin American contexts, particularly in Mexico and Cuba, who share borders and historical ties with the Gulf. This action might be considered an affront, symbolically distancing these historical and geographic partnerships.

Critics of National Revisionism

Intellectuals and political critics may view the EO as a form of revisionist history. By prioritizing a selective representation of American history, such actions potentially obscure complex historical narratives in favor of simplified, glorified depictions. This could undermine nuanced understanding and discourse.

Federal and State Administrative Systems

Federal agencies and state entities may face logistical burdens arising from widespread name changes. Revisions in legal documentation, signage, and digital systems require substantial allocation of resources and time, potentially straining administrative capacities already tasked with diverse public responsibilities.

Historical Context

Previous Renaming Efforts

The renaming of Denali by President Obama's administration marked a significant policy gesture towards acknowledging Indigenous heritage, fulfilling a longstanding request by native Alaskan tribes. Trump’s EO represents a direct reversal of this policy, underscoring political and ideological differences between successive administrations.

American Nationalism Under Trump

National pride and historical reverence have been recurring themes in Trump's political narrative. This EO, like others during his presidency, reflects a commitment to nationalist policies—rooting contemporary American identity in a storied past perceived to be under threat by contemporary cultural trends.

Semiquincentennial Context

The timing of the EO coincides with the lead-up to America's semiquincentennial celebration in 2026. This places the order within a broader context of preparing for a high profile, patriotic anniversary, where historical narratives will be highly visible and politically salient.

Impact on Geographic Naming Trends

The executive order may set a precedent for future administrations regarding the power and scope of presidential influence on geographic naming conventions. This could enable or obstruct similar initiatives based on the ideological orientation of succeeding governments.

Legacy and Competitor States

Shifts in place naming conventions might have ripple effects on how different administrations view international partnerships and mutual historical recognition. In a globalized society, the EO reflects inward-looking tendencies, potentially limiting cooperation or alignment with adjacent states and regions.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

Legal Challenges and Precedents

Given the tendency for controversial EOs to provoke legal challenges, this directive could face judicial scrutiny. Potential legal disputes may focus on interpreting the presidential authority under existing statutes and on procedural interests of states and federal lands affected by the renaming.

Congressional Interference

There may be congressional pushback, particularly from members critical of nationalism-focused initiatives. Legislative efforts might be directed to safeguard previous naming decisions or to reinforce legislative oversight capabilities in geographic policy areas.

International Relations and Diplomatic Tensions

The renaming of the Gulf of Mexico may incite diplomatic tensions with neighboring countries who share this geographical region. Such actions might require conciliatory efforts via diplomatic channels to mitigate potential friction arising from perceived territorial and cultural assertions.

Implementation Concerns

The practical implementation of the order poses significant logistical challenges. Federal agencies involved will need to execute extensive updates across a broad spectrum of government documents, systems, and resources, requiring staff training and potentially reallocated funding. The scope of this undertaking may lead to inconsistencies and deviations from intended objectives.

Public Backlash and Tension

Given the polarizing nature of such symbolic changes, public reaction is likely to be varied and contentious. Segments of the population supporting progressive naming decisions may actively oppose the rollbacks, resulting in public demonstrations or campaigns to resist or reverse the EO’s directives.