Mexico sues Google over ‘Gulf of America' label change
Mexico has sued technology company Google over its decision to update its maps platforms to match President Trump's renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum announced Friday.
Sheinbaum told reporters Friday that a suit was filed against Google but did not provide further details, The Associated Press reported.
Google did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment.
The reported lawsuit makes good on Sheinbaum's threat from February, shortly after Trump signed an executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico on his first day in office.
Shortly after the order, the U.S. Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) made the change official, prompting Google Maps to follow suit for U.S. users.
Currently, those in the U.S. only see the label Gulf of America on the map while users in Mexico see the name as Gulf of Mexico. Those elsewhere see the label 'Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America).'
Sheinbaum's announcement comes one day after House Republicans took the first step in codifying the executive order to rename the body of water. The legislation, titled the Gulf of America Act, cleared the House in a 211-206 vote and now heads to the Senate, where its future looks murky.
At least seven Democrats would need to join all Republicans in supporting the legislation.
Amid the backlash earlier this year, Google maintained it has a long-standing practice of applying name changes when they are updated in official government sources, like the GNIS. In a case where official names vary between nations, Google's policy states users will see their official local names.
Sheinbaum argues Trump's executive order only applied to the area of the continental shelf under U.S. control.
'What Google is doing here is changing the name of the continental shelf of Mexico and Cuba, which has nothing to do with Trump's decree, which applied only to the U.S. continental shelf,' Sheinbaum said in February.
According to Sovereign Limits, a database of international boundaries, the U.S. has control over about 46 percent of the Gulf, while Mexico controls about 49 percent and Cuba about 5 percent.
Mexico's foreign relations ministry sent letters to Google earlier this year, urging the company not to implement the changes.
In February, Sheinbaum shared Google's response from its vice president of government affairs and public policy, Cris Turner, who said the company will not change its policy after Trump signed the order, the AP reported.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House panel to consider advancing amended assault weapons ban bill to R.I. House floor
Yellow shirts of Second Amendment supporters frame the view of Rep. Jason Knight, a Barrington Democrat, lead sponsor of the bill to ban assault-style weapons, during a House Committee on Judiciary on Wednesday, March 26, 2025. Knight's amended bill is set for a vote on Tuesday, June 3. (Photo by Christopher Shea/Rhode Island Current) After securing a big win at the federal level Monday, Rhode Island's gun safety advocates are hoping the momentum continues at the State House Tuesday when a House panel will consider an amended bill to ban assault-style firearms. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge by gun rights advocates against the state's 2022 law banning firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said in a statement he's grateful the court did not overturn the ban. 'As the Rhode Island General Assembly prepares to vote on the assault weapons ban, it is my hope that this office's successful defense of the large-capacity magazine ban inspires our leadership to act, and act boldly,' Neronha said. 'One life lost to gun violence is one too many.' The 15-member House Committee on Judiciary meets Tuesday at 3 p.m. to consider advancing amended legislation sponsored by Rep. Jason Knight, a Barrington Democrat, to the floor for a full vote by the chamber. Knight's bill has support from 38 of the House's 75 members. Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi has previously indicated support for a ban on assault-style weapons. The proposal includes revisions based on feedback from a March 26 Judiciary Committee hearing where hundreds of Second Amendment advocates in yellow T-shirts outnumbered gun safety advocates. Under Knight's bill, assault weapons are defined as semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns equipped with accessories such as pistol grips, folding stocks, or threaded barrels. The amended version removed bayonet mounts and certain .22 caliber rimfire rifles and Olympic-style target pistols from the definition. The amended legislation now takes effect July 1, 2026, rather than Jan. 1, 2026. Knight said the new date was picked in order to give store owners more time to prepare for the change, and for state and local police to develop a voluntary firearm certification program for assault-style weapons acquired ahead of the ban. Knight's original legislation proposed that grandfathered weapons be registered with state or local police. Weapons acquired ahead of the ban would continue to be exempt from the legislation, but the amended bill also exempts firearms passed down through a family. The amended bill now exempts retired law enforcement officers. That's in addition to active police and members of the armed forces who would be allowed to keep assault-style weapons under the original bill. 'We got rid of one or two things upon reflection we probably did not need,' Knight said in an interview Monday. 'The vast majority of Rhode Islanders want this policy change,' he added, acknowledging two recent polls that found widespread support for banning assault weapons. A University of New Hampshire poll released May 29 found that 55% of the 653 residents surveyed were in favor of banning the sale and manufacture of firearms with 'military-style features.' A February poll conducted for the Rhode Island AFL-CIO found 64% of Rhode Islanders support the ban. Knight has backed legislation to ban assault-style weapons since 2018 — the same year then-Gov. Gina Raimondo established a gun-safety working group after a gunman killed 17 students in Parkland Florida with an AR-15. 'You see random acts of violence that involve multiple victims stepping up,' Knight said. 'It's our responsibility as a legislature to provide public order and safety.' What's not changing in the amended bill: Violators of the proposed ban would face up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000 and forfeiture of their assault-style weapon. 'It's a good bill,' Melissa Carden, executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence, said in an interview. 'This is really momentous. This is the reason that the coalition was formed, it's been our priority for a really long time.' But Knight's changers are still not enough to appease gun rights advocates, who remain opposed to the proposed ban. 'Their concern is passing a bill for the win, and not reducing gun violence,' Glenn Valentine, president of the Rhode Island Second Amendment PAC, said in a text message Monday. The Gaspee Project, a nonprofit that touts its opposition to progressive and 'special interest' policies on its website, took to social media Friday evening to urge gun owners to keep opposing Knight's legislation. 'This amended version is just as awful as the original,' the group wrote on X. Companion legislation is filed in the Senate by Lou DiPalma, a Middletown Democrat, where the bill has 23 additional sponsors — including Senate President Valarie Lawson. DiPalma's bill was heard by the Senate Committee on Judiciary on May 14 where it was held for further study The bill has not been scheduled for the committee's consideration as of Monday. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss
The Trump administration is fighting to pause a second court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping and so-called reciprocal tariffs, the signature economic policy of his second term. The administration's new appeal, filed Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, comes less than a week after a very similar court challenge played out in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in New York, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. At issue in both cases is Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariff plan. The plan, which Trump announced on April 2, invokes IEEPA for both his 10% baseline tariff on most U.S. trading partners and a so-called "reciprocal tariff" against other countries. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify Trump's use of the emergency law to invoke widespread tariffs was struck down unanimously last week by the three-judge CIT panel, which said the statute does not give Trump "unbounded" power to implement tariffs. However, the decision was almost immediately stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, allowing Trump's tariffs to continue. But in a lesser-discussed ruling on the very same day, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, determined that Trump's tariffs were unlawful under IEEPA. Read On The Fox News App Since the case before him had more limited reach than the case heard by the CIT – plaintiffs in the suit focused on harm to two small businesses, versus harm from the broader tariff plan – it went almost unnoticed in news headlines. But that changed on Monday. Trump Denounces Court's 'Political' Tariff Decision, Calls On Supreme Court To Act Quickly Lawyers for the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – a Washington-based but still separate court than the Federal Court of Appeals – to immediately stay the judge's ruling. They argued in their appeal that the judge's ruling against Trump's use of IEEPA undercuts his ability to use tariffs as a "credible threat" in trade talks, at a time when such negotiations "currently stand at a delicate juncture." "By holding the tariffs invalid, the district court's ruling usurps the President's authority and threatens to disrupt sensitive, ongoing negotiations with virtually every trading partner by undercutting the premise of those negotiations – that the tariffs are a credible threat," Trump lawyers said in the filing. Economists also seemed to share this view that the steep tariffs were more a negotiating tactic than an espousal of actual policy, which they noted in a series of interviews last week with Fox News Digital. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify The bottom line for the Trump administration "is that they need to get back to a place [where] they are using these huge reciprocal tariffs and all of that as a negotiating tactic," William Cline, an economist and senior fellow emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said in an interview. Cline noted that this was the framework previously laid out by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had embraced the tariffs as more of an opening salvo for future trade talks, including between the U.S. and China. "I think the thing to keep in mind there is that Trump and Vance have this view that tariffs are beautiful because they will restore America's Rust Belt jobs and that they'll collect money while they're doing it, which will contribute to fiscal growth," said Cline, the former deputy managing director and chief economist of the Institute of International Finance. "Those are both fantasies." What comes next in the case remains to be seen. The White House said it will take its tariff fight to the Supreme Court if necessary. Counsel for the plaintiffs echoed that view in an interview with Fox News. But it's unclear if the Supreme Court would choose to take up the case, which comes at a time when Trump's relationship with the judiciary has come under increasing strain. In the 20 weeks since the start of his second White House term, lawyers for the Trump administration have filed 18 emergency appeals to the high court, indicating both the pace and breadth of the tense court article source: Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Independent report reveals Lamont staffer used government-issued vehicle for personal use
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) — An independent report commissioned by Gov. Ned Lamont (D) showed that a government official in his office was using a government-issued vehicle for personal use, according to a press release from the governor's office. Connecticut lawmakers reach deal on two-year budget, heads to House vote Jonathan Dach was chief of staff to the Office of the Governor (OTG) from Jan. 4, 2023 to July 3, 2024, at which time he transitioned to Senior Advisor. The report revealed that from Jan. 2023 to Sept. 2024, Dach used a Ford Escape issued by the OTG for personal use, using it to commute to and from work, parking it in prohibited locations, purchasing fuel with state funds and speeding. His personal usage violates a Connecticut state law that prohibits a public official from using their public office for personal gain. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
