Senate Democrats use procedural tool to reverse Trump's 'Gulf of America' naming
S.J.Res. 74 — A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration relating to "Pipeline Safety: Editorial Change To Reflect the Name Change of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America". · Filed by Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) · Introduced Aug 1, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This resolution disapproves a Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) rule that changed references from 'Gulf of Mexico' to 'Gulf of America' in pipeline safety regulations. If passed, the rule would be nullified and the original 'Gulf of Mexico' terminology would remain in federal pipeline safety standards.
Why we flagged it
This is a straightforward CRA disapproval resolution targeting a naming/editorial change in pipeline safety regulations. The mechanism is transparent and procedurally routine, though the subject matter (reversing a geographic name change) is politically charged rather than substantively regulatory.
What the text implies
- Sets precedent for using CRA to reverse purely editorial/nomenclature changes in agency rules, potentially opening the door to similar challenges on naming conventions across federal regulations.
- The underlying PHMSA rule appears to be a non-substantive editorial update; disapproving it does not alter pipeline safety standards, inspection protocols, or environmental oversight—only the geographic terminology used in those standards.
The full analysis lists 3 implications of this text.
Who it affects
The substantive civic impact is negligible—this is a nomenclature dispute with no direct effect on pipeline safety, environmental protection, or public welfare. However, the resolution raises a transparency concern: it uses the Congressional Review Act (a procedural tool for blocking agency rules) to reverse a purely editorial/naming change, which is an unusual and potentially precedent-setting use of that mechanism.