Trump administration renames Lake Ontario as “Lake America,” Vermont Gov. Phil Scott calls order petty

President Donald Trump’s administration issued an executive action renaming Lake Ontario as “Lake America,” according to a White House posting of the order dated Aug. 27. In the posting, the administration said the policy recognizes the “American history of the Great Lakes” and referenced an earlier Trump executive order on renaming geographic features. The White House did not describe new regulatory mechanisms tied to the change, instead framing the action as a naming policy.

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (R) said the renaming order was “petty and disappointing” and argued the United States should focus on negotiations with Canada rather than unilaterally changing a name. Scott said, “We should be at the negotiating table, finding a path forward that strengthens both the U.S. and Canadian economies,” in remarks reported by The Hill.

Scott’s criticism was tied to a broader backdrop of worsening U.S.-Canada trade tensions, which The Hill described as intensifying. The renaming order, issued by the White House as a presidential action, became part of the attention around the relationship between the two countries, including how disputes are handled at both federal and state levels.

The White House order states that it is carried out “by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,” and it specifies a policy purpose for recognizing Great Lakes history and honoring it through the new naming. It further ties the action to an earlier executive order referenced in the posting, indicating the administration considers the naming directive part of a continued policy effort.

Scott’s response reflects an example of how states governed by Republicans can still dispute aspects of federal executive actions, particularly those that they view as symbolic or as diverting attention from economic bargaining. While the order itself is a federal directive, state officials often weigh how federal naming policies could affect state communications, materials, and intergovernmental coordination, especially when tensions with neighboring countries are already heightened.

After the White House posted the action, the practical next steps depend on how federal agencies implement the naming policy in official references, communications, and datasets, and whether they coordinate with state governments and international partners. Scott’s remarks do not indicate a legal challenge, and the White House posting does not provide details in the record excerpted about implementation timelines beyond the date of the action’s publication.