Debate Over Renaming Lake Ontario Sparks Legal and Political Discourse

On Thursday, President Trump signed a controversial Executive Order titled “Honoring the American History of the Great Lakes and Renaming Lake Ontario as Lake America.” Trump’s assertion is based on the claim that “the deepest parts of the lake’s waters” are within United States territory and that the country holds most of the lake’s volume. Despite this move, 55 percent of Lake Ontario’s surface area is part of Canada, with the official international boundary cutting through the center.

A YouGov poll indicates that only 19 percent of Americans support Trump’s decision. This unilateral name change seems a petty snub to Canada, further highlighted by Trump’s 36 percent overall approval rating. Interestingly, public outrages are more pronounced over the renaming than issues such as the tragic loss of 18 U.S. service members and the injuries sustained during the Iran conflict, immigration concerns with 66,000 detained individuals who mostly have clean records, and the rise in inflation stemming from imposed tariffs.

Beyond these, there are ongoing issues with Trump’s alleged corrupt dealings, lowered standards for FBI recruits, and troubling references within the Epstein files. The accumulation of wealth by Trump and his family since assuming office further adds to concerns. Yet, renaming Lake Ontario is a minor issue compared to the vast array of other national concerns.

Trump’s legal justification for the renaming of Lake Ontario revolves around a specific federal law, which empowers the Secretary of the Interior, alongside the Board on Geographic Names, to ensure consistency in geographic names throughout federal entities. Within this law, the Board’s naming decisions must favor federal and public interests and consider specific agency interests. The Board was founded in 1890 and includes members from various federal agencies, such as the CIA and Homeland Security. Recently, the Board was involved in renaming the Gulf of Mexico to “Gulf of America.”

Cornell law professor Michael Dorf argues that this law requires more than mere compliance with Trump’s orders, suggesting that the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and the Board need to assess whether renaming the lake serves federal and public interests. However, Trump’s previous actions, like rebranding Gulf of Mexico, already challenge these guidelines.

However, the Supreme Court, favoring Trump, has nullified precedents that sought agency independence from presidential influence. Congress’s constitutional powers are stripped, giving presidents unchecked control over agency heads. In 2024, limited immunity from crime liability was granted to presidents concerning office powers.

Burgum’s allegiance to Trump’s executive order is unlikely to waver. Although he might face procedural lawsuits under the Administrative Procedure Act, the likely repercussions of such litigation, even if successful, are minimal.

Moreover, the leader of the Seneca Nation, President J. Conrad Seneca, believes Trump’s actions violate the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Past precedents show Trump’s disregard for constitutional norms, evidenced by unilateral actions like the attack on Iran and the dictatorial removal of Venezuela’s leader. Such acts have prompted accusations of war crimes against Trump, overshadowing traditional treaty violations.

If the renaming of Lake Ontario serves as a catalyst for the public to demand accountability, then it may serve a greater purpose. Support from Canada amplifies this sentiment. Kimberly Wehle is a fellow at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences and author of works on constitutional literacy and legal thinking.