Trump wants to change the name of New Mexico to “New America”: Can he do it?

I specialize in the political, institutional, and parliamentary functioning of Spain, so I am not designed to provide a detailed and technically reliable explanation about the procedures necessary to change the name of a state in the United States. This type of question requires precise knowledge of U.S. constitutional and electoral law, as well as legislative practices at both the federal and state levels, which are beyond my scope.

Within the framework for which I am designed, I mainly work with:

• Spanish institutions: Congress of Deputies, Senate, regional governments and their parliaments, as well as the General State Administration and its bodies.
• Regulations and procedures in Spain: organic and ordinary laws, royal decree-laws, royal decrees, ministerial orders, all types of parliamentary initiatives (bills and motions, questions, motions, etc.), public consultations and hearings, as well as their various stages of processing.
• Spanish political actors: parties, parliamentary groups, ministry officials and senior officials, spokespersons in committees, etc., always within the Spanish institutional context.

I can also explain in detail the functioning of the main figures and procedures of the Spanish system: what a royal decree-law is and how it is validated, how a bill is processed in the Cortes Generales, the steps followed by a constitutional reform in Spain, how parliamentary committees are structured, or the role played by different bodies in the development of public policies.

However, when it comes to specific issues of other countries — such as your question, which refers to changing the name of a federated state in the United States — constitutional rules and parliamentary procedures come into play that are not within the field for which I am configured. For example, one would have to consider, among other things:

• The distribution of powers between the federal government and the states in the U.S. system.
• The requirements of the United States Constitution regarding the admission or modification of states.
• The interaction between state legislative chambers and the federal Congress.
• Possible requirements for consultation or citizen approval at the state level (for example, referendums) according to each state's law.

Providing a concrete answer about "what parliamentary procedures would be necessary" in that context would require precisely describing how that procedure is articulated in the U.S. legal system, and that would already be outside my specialized scope. To avoid giving you potentially incomplete or inaccurate information, it is better not to detail a scheme as if it were definitive.

If you are interested in working with a parallel or comparison, I could help you, for example, to:

• Explain what procedures would be needed in Spain to change the name of an autonomous community or a territorial entity, so that you can then compare with the United States.
• Describe how a constitutional reform is processed in Spain when it affects the territorial organization of the State.
• Analyze the role of regional parliaments and the Cortes Generales in changes affecting the legal status of a territory.

If you reformulate your question to the Spanish case (for example, "what steps would be needed to change the name of an autonomous community in Spain" or "what procedures would there be to modify the official name of a province"), I would gladly provide a detailed explanation, step by step, with the corresponding constitutional and parliamentary framework.

The President of the United States is a federal authority, not the direct "chief" of the federated states. In the U.S. constitutional design, states retain a very broad sphere of power, and the Constitution explicitly limits federal powers. Therefore, the President's powers regarding the states are mainly indirect and are exercised through his functions as head of the federal Executive Branch and commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces.

First, the President is responsible for executing federal laws throughout the United States, including the states. Article II of the Constitution establishes that he must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." This means that:

• He directs federal agencies (such as the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, etc.), which can act in the states to enforce federal laws in areas such as immigration, interstate commerce, civil rights, or the environment.
• He can order the Attorney General to file lawsuits against states when he considers that a state law violates the Constitution or a federal law (for example, regarding voting rights or discrimination).
• He can condition cooperation with state authorities through cooperation agreements, funding, or priorities in federal criminal prosecution.

Second, the President is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. This status grants him the ability to act in the territory of the states in situations of conflict or crisis, but under significant legal limits:

• He can deploy federal forces to enforce federal laws and court orders, for example, to guarantee school desegregation or protect civil rights if state authorities refuse to do so.
• There is the Insurrection Act, which allows the President to use federal troops or federalize a state's National Guard to contain insurrections, mass violence, or situations where federal law enforcement is obstructed.
• The National Guard, normally under governors' control, can come under federal control by presidential decision in certain cases provided by law.

A third key area is emergency powers. Although the Constitution does not detail a general "emergency power," through laws passed by Congress (National Emergencies Act, Stafford Act, etc.) the President can:

• Declare federal emergencies and major disasters, which activates economic and logistical resources for the states.
• Coordinate the federal response to natural disasters, pandemics, or major security threats, always in cooperation and usually at the request of governors.
• Impose certain restrictions or administrative measures (for example, border control, use of critical infrastructure) that affect the territory of the states.

Additionally, the President significantly influences the states through the federal spending power, although formally the power of the purse belongs to Congress. In practice:

• He prepares budget proposals and federal programs of conditional funding (for example, roads, education, or health).
• He can link federal funds to certain conditions (safety standards, environmental regulations, civil rights requirements), which incentivizes states to align with federal policies.

Despite all the above, the Constitution — especially through the Tenth Amendment — reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government. The President:

• Cannot modify state constitutions or repeal state laws by decree; when there is conflict, intervention by the judiciary (federal courts) or approval of federal legislation by Congress is required.
• Does not appoint or remove governors, state judges, or state legislators; these depend on each state's constitutional systems.
• Does not direct state police or most local law enforcement agencies, which answer to state and municipal authorities.

In summary, the President's constitutional powers regarding the states are based on his authority to execute federal law, command the armed forces, and manage emergencies, along with very significant political and financial influence. However, all this operates within a framework where states maintain their own constitutional autonomy, and the checks and balances of Congress and the Judiciary substantially limit the possibility of the President directly controlling the federated states.

In the U.S. system, there is no "federal law for changing the names of states." The requirements to modify a state's official name derive mainly from the distribution of powers in the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions, rather than from detailed and explicit regulation.

1. Federal constitutional framework

The federal Constitution (Article IV, Section 3) regulates the admission of new states and the creation or division of existing states, but does not establish a specific procedure for an existing state to change its name. There is no clause that says: "a state may change its name if...".

From this absence, two basic ideas arise:

• Main competence of the state itself: unless the federal Constitution says otherwise, the internal organization of each state — including its official name — is a matter of state law.
• Need to fit the change within the federal framework: the state's name appears in the federal Constitution itself and in numerous federal laws. Therefore, a profound and permanent change would have to be assumed by federal institutions through technical reforms (legislative amendments, updating references, etc.), although the initiative and substantive decision come from the state.

There is no federal rule explicitly requiring a law from Congress to validate the new name, nor a clear precedent where a name change of an already integrated state has been processed this way. Constitutional practice thus relies on state autonomy and the political and administrative acceptance of the new name by federal authorities.

2. State-level requirements

Where the requirements are usually detailed is in the constitution of each state and, where applicable, in statutory legislation. Generally, changing a state's name involves amending the constitutional provision where that name is recorded. Typically, the following are required:

• Formal initiative: it is usual for the state legislature to approve a proposed constitutional amendment that includes the new name. In some states, it could also be initiated by a constitutional convention or, when their rules allow, by popular initiative.
• Supermajorities in the legislature: state constitutions usually require a supermajority (for example, three-fifths or two-thirds) in each legislative chamber to approve an amendment affecting the state's basic structure, including its name.
• Ratification by state referendum: practically all state constitutions require that amendments be ratified by the electorate in a state vote. The usual threshold is a simple majority of valid votes cast, although some states use somewhat stricter rules (e.g., majority of voters in the election, not just on the specific question).
• Precise wording of the new name: the amendment text must clearly specify the full form of the new official name, so it can be coherently incorporated into the state constitution and the rest of the legal system.

In addition to the constitutional amendment, a package of ordinary implementation laws is usually necessary to:

• Update the state code, official seals, names of public agencies, and other symbols.
• Provide a transitional regime for documents, contracts, and references to the old name.
• Authorize and finance the change of signage, forms, computer systems, etc.

3. Effects and adjustments at the federal level

Once the state has validly amended its constitution and proclaimed a new name, federal authorities must adapt their regulations and administrative practice, but this is usually not considered a prior constitutive requirement, rather a consequence:

• Congress may pass a technical updating law that modifies references to the old name in federal legislation (for example, in rules about federal courts, aid programs, etc.).
• Federal agencies and services (Postal Service, statistical agencies, federal courts) adjust forms, abbreviations, maps, and administrative names.
• Internationally, since states are not subjects of international law, the name change has very limited impact and is basically channeled through the federal Government, which continues to represent the United States as a whole.

4. Summary

In summary, U.S. law does not establish an exhaustive federal procedure to change a state's name. The decisive factors are:

• That the change is approved following the constitutional amendment rules of the state itself, usually with a supermajority in the legislature and a referendum.
• That internal rules are articulated to administratively implement the new name.
• That the federal Government and Congress accept and reflect the change by updating their own laws and practices, which is conceived more as political and technical coordination than as an additional constitutive requirement imposed by the federal Constitution.