On Thursday, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Honoring the American History of the Great Lakes and Renaming Lake Ontario as Lake America.” He claims this right because the deepest parts of the lake lie within United States territory and the country holds the majority of its volume. However, approximately 55 percent of Lake Ontario’s surface is in Canada, and the official international boundary divides the lake in half.
A YouGov poll indicates that only 19 percent of Americans support Trump’s decision, which many interpret as an affront to Canada. Despite the low support, the order is on relatively solid legal ground. This legal footing contrasts with Trump’s overall approval rating, which stands at 36 percent. The public shows more concern about the lake’s renaming than about other issues, such as U.S. service members’ casualties in the Iran conflict, the rise in inflation due to tariffs, or the conditions in immigration detention camps.
Trump cites a specific federal law to justify the renaming. The law grants the Secretary of the Interior and the Board on Geographic Names the authority to standardize geographic nomenclature and orthography. The law stipulates that naming must serve federal and public interests and consider the interests of federal and state agencies. Established in 1890, the Board includes members from several federal departments like the CIA and the Department of Agriculture.
Cornell law professor Michael Dorf argues that the law requires more than compliance with Trump’s directives. The Interior Secretary and Board must assess whether renaming Lake Ontario benefits federal and public interests. However, Trump and Secretary Doug Burgum have bypassed these requirements before, as seen in the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico.
Recently, the Supreme Court has made decisions bolstering presidential power. These decisions allow presidents to dismiss agency officials for any reason, enhancing their control over agencies. This environment makes challenging Trump’s orders difficult, suggesting that Secretary Burgum is unlikely to oppose the renaming initiative.
While a civil lawsuit could arise against Burgum for not adhering to the Administrative Procedure Act, the outcome of such legal action would likely have minimal effects. President J. Conrad Seneca of the Seneca Nation has cited the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua—which involves six tribal nations—as grounds against Trump’s decision. However, past actions by Trump, like bypassing Congress on tariffs and military decisions, indicate such challenges may be insufficient.
The situation reflects broader concerns about the rule of law in America. If these events highlight the need for change and prompt public action, it could lead to significant developments. Canadian citizens are in solidarity with the U.S. in these matters.
Kimberly Wehle is a fellow at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences and the author of several books on constitutional and legal issues.
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.