S-5394-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsored by Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
What it does
The bill would bar 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, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, or Lake 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 order or action, and bar the use of federal funds to do so.
Who benefits
Residents, local governments, and tourism and shipping businesses in the eight Great Lakes states and Ontario-area communities that prefer the existing names. Mapmakers, publishers, and agencies that would avoid the cost of revising charts, signage, and records. Advocates of congressional control over place-naming, and parties to cross-border arrangements with Canada that use the current names.
Who is hurt
The President and executive agencies, who would lose the ability to rename these lakes and would see Executive Order 14422 voided. Supporters of the renaming who view it as a way to honor American history. Federal officials could face uncertainty over what counts as a "substantially similar" action, which could limit related commemorative or naming efforts.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Great Lakes' names are long-established, appear in treaties and shared management arrangements with Canada, and are used throughout maps, navigation charts, and state law. They contend that unilateral renaming by executive order bypasses Congress and the affected states, and that a statute is the clearest way to keep the names stable and avoid administrative and diplomatic confusion.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the President has long directed federal agencies on how they use geographic names, and that the bill overrides a specific executive decision to honor American history. They contend the "substantially similar" language is vague, may chill legitimate executive actions, and that a statute is an excessive response to a naming decision that Congress could address through its ordinary oversight.
Constitutional context
Congress may limit executive action through its Article I legislative powers and appropriations control (Art. I, §9, cl. 7), while the President invokes Article II executive authority over federal agencies. Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952) is the closest framework: presidential action contrary to Congress's will is at its weakest, though the bill's nullification of a specific order, with presentment to the President, raises separation-of-powers questions the courts have not squarely resolved for naming orders.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain power over federal geographic naming and would reduce presidential discretion, while the President retains the veto and courts could resolve any dispute over what counts as a "substantially similar" action.