Relating to renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.
HB 3634 would direct Texas state agencies to replace references to the “Gulf of Mexico” with “Gulf of America” in agency rules, policies, and other materials, and it would also add statutory construction provisions stating that references in Texas law to the Gulf of Mexico should be read as references to the Gulf of America. The bill is framed as a response to a federal law or executive order renaming the body of water, and it includes definitions, deadlines, and procedures for agencies to plan and document the transition.
The bill requires state agencies to complete the renaming by April 1, 2026, with priority given to materials affecting public health and safety, emergency management, homeland security, commerce, environmental protection, and coastal resource management. It also authorizes coordination with federal agencies, requires agencies to document costs and maintain data security, and allows the governor to order similar name changes for other places or things if federal law or executive order requires it. The Texas Legislative Council would be tasked with preparing a nonsubstantive revision of the codes for the 90th Legislature.
HB 3634 would affect state administrative practice and statutory interpretation rather than creating a new regulatory program. It would require broad updates across state agencies, including higher education institutions and judicial branch entities as defined in the bill, while preserving the validity of existing laws and proceedings that already refer to the Gulf of Mexico. The bill also includes exceptions where renaming would conflict with federal funding conditions or impose undue burden or cost.
There is little recorded public debate in the provided materials, and no votes are listed. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be presented as an administrative consistency and federal-alignment bill, with an emphasis on public safety, sovereignty, and continuity of operations. The absence of committee transcripts makes it difficult to identify detailed support or opposition, but the structure of the bill suggests its main controversy would likely center on the practical costs, administrative burden, and whether Texas should adopt a politically charged geographic renaming.
The bill was left pending in the House State Affairs Committee on April 14, 2025, and no final committee or floor vote is shown in the provided history.
The bill would amend Texas Government Code to add rules of construction for references to the Gulf of Mexico, require state agencies to update rules and materials to use “Gulf of America,” and direct the Texas Legislative Council to prepare conforming code revisions. It would also create new administrative duties for agencies, including planning, reporting, documentation of costs, and compliance with any applicable federal directive, while authorizing enforcement through state auditor review and attorney general injunctive relief. Existing laws and proceedings referencing the Gulf of Mexico would remain valid, and agencies would be excused from changes that conflict with federal funding conditions or create undue burden or cost.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote data, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s text and status. The bill itself is written in supportive, implementation-focused language, emphasizing consistency with federal directives, public health and safety, homeland security, commerce, and state sovereignty. Its pending status in committee suggests it had not advanced to a recorded vote at the time provided.
The main points of contention implied by the bill are administrative cost, burden, and the political significance of renaming a widely used geographic term. The bill anticipates these concerns by exempting agencies from amendments that would impose undue burden or cost, and by excluding situations where renaming would violate federal funding conditions or other legal requirements. Potential critics would likely focus on the necessity of the change and the expense of revising rules, policies, maps, databases, and public-facing materials, while supporters would likely emphasize alignment with federal action and consistency across state government.