HR-10186-119
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Debbie Dingell (D-MI)
What it does
The bill would prohibit the President, the Secretary of the Interior, and any federal officer or employee acting under the President's authority from changing the official geographic name of Lake Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, or Ontario. It would declare Executive Order 14422 (issued August 27, 2026, renaming Lake Ontario as "Lake America") to have no force or effect. It would also bar federal officials from carrying out that order or any substantially similar action, and would bar the use of federal funds to do so.
Who benefits
Residents, local governments, and businesses in the eight Great Lakes states and Ontario-bordering communities that use the existing names on maps, signs, and documents. Mapmakers, shippers, and agencies that would avoid the cost of updating charts and records. Members of Congress who view naming as a legislative or local matter, and Canadian partners who share the lakes and the current names.
Who is hurt
The President and executive branch officials who would lose the ability to rename these lakes by executive action. Supporters of Executive Order 14422 who want Lake Ontario renamed. Federal agencies would bear minor administrative work to confirm compliance and halt any implementation already begun.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the Great Lakes names are long-established, are shared with Canada, and are used in treaties, navigation charts, and legal documents, so a unilateral rename would create confusion and cost. They contend Congress, not the President, should decide such changes, and that the bill uses Congress's power to limit executive action and federal spending to protect a settled, widely used set of names.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the President has long directed federal agencies on geographic naming, and that Congress is limiting a presidential decision about how the executive branch labels federal records. They contend that the bill's nullification of a specific executive order raises separation-of-powers concerns, and that the matter is symbolic and better resolved through the existing federal naming board process than by statute.
Constitutional context
Congress may limit executive action through its Article I legislative and spending powers (the Appropriations Clause), but the President's authority to direct executive agencies stems from Article II. Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952) frames presidential action as weakest when it conflicts with Congress's will. Nullifying a specific executive order by statute must still pass bicameral passage and presentment, and the President could veto it.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority over geographic naming at the expense of the President and executive agencies; the President retains a veto, and courts could review any resulting separation-of-powers dispute.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously passed legislation on federal geographic names, and a 2025 executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico and Denali drew similar disputes, but no directly analogous statute barring presidential renaming of a body of water is known.