U.S. users looking for Lake Ontario on Google Maps will now find “Lake America” in its place, after President Donald Trump’s executive order to rename the lake amid an escalating trade stoush.

Google announced Saturday that the lake, which borders the Canadian province of Ontario and the U.S. state of New York, will appear as “Lake America” in the U.S., “Lake Ontario” in Canada, and “Lake Ontario (Lake America)” for users in the rest of the world. 

The company said it changed the maps following the formal renaming by the U.S. Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), and that the update is in line with its “long-standing policy for bodies of water with names that vary from country to country.”

Read More: The Trouble With Trump’s Attempt to Rename Lake Ontario

The change has divided tech companies.

MapQuest, the first commercial web mapping service, said in a Thursday post, “We’re not changing the name of Lake Ontario. Name it whatever you want at your leisure.” The post included a link to a satirical tool allowing users to give the lake a name of their choosing and an image of a parody map labeling the body of water, “Lake Are We Doing This Again?”

As of Sunday, Apple had not changed the name on Apple Maps.

Lake Ontario/America

The change comes after Trump signed an executive order Thursday to officially rename the body of water—the latest salvo in an escalating trade war with Canada. After trade talks abruptly collapsed earlier this month, the U.S. and Canada announced tit-for-tat tariffs of up to 50% on some goods.

Canadian officials also called for Canadians to boycott U.S. travel and products, while Trump revived rhetoric of Canada being the “51st state” of the U.S., claiming that Canada wanted “the benefits of being a State, without being one.”

The name change has faced significant opposition from Democrats. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D, Mich.) announced plans to introduce the “Hands Off Our Great Lakes Act,” a bill that would reverse Trump’s order renaming the lake. Other Democratic lawmakers reportedly said they were preparing legislation to counter the name change.

Canadian officials also derided the name change. Prime Minister Mark Carney rejected the renaming on Thursday, noting that Canadians will continue “calling it Lake Ontario—then, now and always.”

On Saturday, Ontario Premier Doug Ford unveiled a newly erected 24-by-12-foot sign overlooking the lake in Winona, Ontario, that read “Lake Ontario Now and Always” in English and French.

Ford told ABC Sunday that the name change is “like something out of ‘Saturday Night Live.’”

“No one’s going to call it Lake of America. It’s been Lake Ontario for hundreds of years. It’s going to continue being Lake Ontario. It’s just so disappointing,” he said.

Some Ontario government and business websites that use data from Google Maps showed “Lake America” after the change. A Google spokesperson told Axios that website developers embedding Google Maps can select a region to localize their maps.

“Following recent changes by Google, we’re actively reviewing our websites to make sure they all identify Lake Ontario by its correct name: Lake Ontario,” Stephen Crawford, Ontario’s minister of public and business service delivery and procurement, posted. “As Ontarians, we will always stand up for our province, our identity and the places that define it.”

Follows renaming Gulf of Mexico as the ‘Gulf of America’

Google made a similar change in February 2025 after Trump issued an executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America.” Google began displaying “Gulf of America” to Google Maps users in the U.S. after the name change was made in the U.S. federal geographic database.

Users in Mexico continued to see “Gulf of Mexico” and users elsewhere saw both names. Soon after, Apple Maps adopted the new name for U.S. users.

Mexico filed a lawsuit against Google in May 2025, arguing that the U.S. did not have the authority to rename the entire gulf, including waters under Mexican jurisdiction. The suit followed Google’s refusal to limit the “Gulf of America” label to the portion of the gulf under U.S. jurisdiction, as Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum had requested. The lawsuit remains pending before the Superior Court of Justice of Mexico City.

Both Google and Apple also changed their U.S. map labels for North America’s highest peak from Denali to Mount McKinley last February. Trump had directed the name change in the same executive order, reversing a 2015 decision that had restored Denali, the mountain’s Alaska Native name, as its federal designation.

MapQuest retained the names of Denali and the Gulf of Mexico, and also offered users the option to rename the gulf as they pleased.

Paying for a fancy coffee, a trip to the cinema, or a dinner out can trigger a burst of happiness—that is, before the guilt sets in.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans said they feel guilty when they spend money on things that give them a little joy, according to a new Cost of Life Today report by Ally Bank.

The YouGov survey, which polled more than 5,000 American adults, found that financial pressures are making happiness harder to afford, with the average American adult scoring 54.2 out of 100 on Ally’s “Joy Index,” which measures people’s ability to afford and prioritize happiness, how frequently they experience it, and how resilient it remains under financial stress.

The report comes during a cost-of-living crisis that has squeezed household budgets around the world. In the U.S., home prices have risen around 45% since 2020, while outstanding credit card debt remained at near record highs at $1.26 trillion in the second quarter of this year. Those pressures have intensified as President Donald Trump’s war against Iran has disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, driving up gas prices and the costs of fertilizers and other commodities.

Affordability appears to be a defining concern for American voters, with both progressive Democratic candidates and Republicans campaigning on promises to lower everyday costs.

Why rising costs are making Americans feel guilty about spending

Rising costs are creating a squeeze on how much people can enjoy their non-necessary purchases.

Although 68% of respondents report spending on "joy" every month, just 15% said that joyful purchases and experiences are easy to afford, and only 20% said it is easy to afford essential expenses.

Seventy-seven percent of respondents said they reduce, delay, or avoid spending on joy at least occasionally because of financial pressures or other priorities. Around 70% of respondents feel stressed at least monthly by balancing joy with financial responsibilities, and 69% feel overwhelmed by financial responsibilities at least monthly.

Women are more likely to experience guilt around spending. Three-quarters of women respondents felt some guilt when spending on personal joy and 25% felt a lot of guilt, compared with 68% and 15% of men, respectively.

Having more money could also bring you more joy. Higher incomes were associated with stronger overall Joy Index scores.

Still, mindset made a difference. Respondents with a “joy mindset” were nearly twice as likely to experience joy at least weekly, and reported experiencing it at virtually identical levels across income groups.

How different generations experience joy

Guilt was also more common among younger respondents. Around 77% of Gen Z and 76% of millennials reported feeling at least some guilt over joy-related purchases. That includes 23% of millennials and 22% of Gen Z who felt a lot of guilt. The report did not specify examples of joyful purchases.

Baby boomers reported the lowest guilt levels, with 63% feeling some amount of guilt. Nearly a third of boomers said spending on joy was “completely worth the cost.” Boomers were the happiest generation, scoring 57.1 out of 100 on the Joy Index. Boomers on average spend the most on joy each month, at $298.

Gen Z came second in terms of happiness, with a score of 55.2. Unlike other generations, a majority of Gen Z respondents—56%—said they have a dedicated budget for joy.

Gen Z respondents reported spending an average of $295 per month on things that bring them joy, compared to $287 among millennials and $259 among Gen X.

When money is tight, 47% of respondents seek lower-cost or free ways to experience joy, while 42% save up before spending. Some make steeper trade-offs: 20% cut back on necessities, and 13% take on debt or use credit.

In the previous three months before the survey, 38% of respondents cut back on dining out, 34% on shopping, 27% on entertainment, 25% on travel, and 21% on their hobbies. People were less willing to sacrifice time with or money spent on loved ones. Just 17% cut back on social time with friends, 11% on spending to help others, and 9% on their pets.

For many Americans, luxury looks less like extravagance and more like breathing room. When asked what counts as luxury today, 56% of respondents said vacations. But that was followed by half of respondents who said having money left after paying bills was a luxury. Around 47% of respondents said being able to save and still enjoy life, and eating out without worrying about the bill were also luxuries.

Other luxuries included free time, hobbies, and high-quality groceries.

The Trump Administration has removed a painting by artist Kehinde Wiley, who notably painted former President Barack Obama’s official portrait, from one of its embassies over what officials called its “woke ideologies.”

The painting was removed from the U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, earlier this month on ideological grounds. Commissioned by the State Department in 2013, the painting, “Young Artists After Siamesas 1960,” depicts four Dominican models against a floral backdrop in Wiley’s quintessential style.

The U.S. ambassador to the Dominican Republic Leah Campos posted a video of the painting’s removal on social media to the tune of heavy metal song “We’re Not Gonna Take It.” The video shows the painting covered in a tarp emblazoned with the American flag prior to its removal.

“In the Trump Administration and under my leadership we are turning away from globalist and woke ideologies and instead embracing American patriotism and the beauty of our great country!” Campos wrote.

The State Department is looking into whether it can legally sell the painting, which was paid for with taxpayer dollars, a spokesperson for the department told The New York Times on Monday.

TIME has reached out to Wiley for comment.

Renowned artist

Wiley is known for his large-scale portraits of Black subjects, whom he depicts in the style of classical European portraiture, often placing them against vibrant floral backgrounds. Art critics have described Wiley’s work as challenging traditional ideas of race and representation. He has described his own work as centering on “power and who has it.” His presidential portrait of Obama was unveiled in 2018 and hangs in the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery.

For “Young Artists After Siamesas 1960,” Wiley collaborated with students from the Facultad de Artes and the Altos de Chavon School of Design, both prominent art schools in the Dominican Republic. The subjects in the painting were modeled by four local art students. The work drew inspiration from two Dominican art works, Celeste Woss y Gil’s 1940 painting “Desnudo Feminine” and Gilberto Hernández Ortega’s 1960 work “Siamesas.”

The painting was part of the embassy’s permanent exhibition, assembled through the State Department’s Art in Embassies program. Established in 1963, the program is aimed at fostering cross-cultural dialogue and diplomacy through art. In 2015, the State Department awarded Wiley its Medal of Arts in recognition of his contributions to the program.

But in recent years, Wiley faced criticism from conservative commentators over his 2012 painting “Judith and Holofernes.” The painting portrays a Black woman holding the severed head of a white woman, which Wiley later described as a play on the “kill whitey thing.” The work, currently on view at the North Carolina Museum of Art in Raleigh, reimagines a 17th century painting by Giovanni Baglione that depicts the biblical story of Judith beheading an invading general to save her town.

Wiley also faced scrutiny in 2024 for sexual assault allegations, which he denies.

The State Department spokesperson told the Times that “the work of an individual with such violent and racist words and depictions has no place in the America First State Department.”

In a recent interview with former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, Erin Scavino, director of Art in Embassies, called the painting “very woke” and “aesthetically terrifying.” Scavino became director of the program at the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second term after previously working as an attorney and appearing as a contestant on Trump’s reality show The Apprentice. She is also the wife of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino.

Art attack

As part of the Art in Embassies program, Scavino has emphasized acquiring and displaying works with patriotic imagery. Last month, she organized an exhibition in Washington titled “Passport to Patriotism: 250 Years of Diplomacy” that featured 68 representations of the American flag across 56 works.

Earlier this year, Scavino claimed her objections to so-called “satanic baby art” at the U.S. ambassador’s residence in Bucharest had forced Kathleen Kavalec from her post. The ambassador’s departure had previously been described as a planned retirement.

The State Department also changed its process for selecting the 2026 U.S. pavilion at the Venice Biennale, including replacing diversity language with requirements concerning “American values.” Critics described the process as politicized and opaque, pointing to the appointment of Jenni Parido, a reported friend of Scavino with no prior professional museum experience, as the pavilion’s commissioner. Last July, Parido founded the nonprofit American Arts Conservancy, which the State Department selected as the pavilion’s commissioning institution.

The Trump Administration has pursued similar changes across other federal cultural institutions especially in connection with the country’s 250th anniversary this year. In an executive order issued last March, Trump directed the Smithsonian to remove what he called “improper ideology” and “divisive narratives” and instead emphasize American greatness. The same month, his Administration sharply cut the federal staff responsible for preserving a collection of 26,000 publicly owned artworks.

The Trump Administration also canceled more than 1,400 humanities grants, but a federal judge permanently blocked the action in May. And the Administration proposed eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), independent federal agencies created to support cultural projects, in its budget requests for 2026 and 2027.

The Trump Administration ordered 30 universities to audit their foreign research partnerships or risk losing funding.

The order, issued Monday by the Defense Department, instructs universities to review their ties to 130 foreign institutions, mainly Chinese, that “engage in activities that increase the likelihood of U.S. government-funded research and development efforts being misappropriated.” Schools that fail to terminate any “problematic” partnerships within two weeks may lose their eligibility for future federal research funding.

The order is intended to protect taxpayer-funded research from “unauthorized technology transfer, intellectual property theft and adversarial exploitation,” the Pentagon said in the announcement.

“The Department of War has zero tolerance for academic partnerships that compromise our national security,” Emil Michael, undersecretary of war for research and engineering, said.

The announcement did not identify which schools had received the order or how they were selected, but a U.S. official told the Associated Press on Tuesday that they include Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Johns Hopkins University.

The order is the latest effort to clamp down on alleged Chinese influence in the U.S., including in higher education. The Trump Administration and several lawmakers from both parties have argued that China exploits U.S.-funded research to obtain sensitive technology and intellectual property.

U.S. concerns about Chinese intellectual property theft and espionage have grown in recent years. Last year, a federal jury convicted former Corning scientist Ji Wang of stealing files containing trade secrets from a Pentagon-funded project. Prosecutors said he planned to use the technology in a Chinese business backed by government entities. In May, Eileen Wang, the mayor of Arcadia, Calif., resigned after admitting to acting as an unregistered Chinese government agent before taking office.

But some observers have warned that the crackdown unfairly politicizes academic collaboration, stigmatizes Chinese academics, and could weaken American scientific competitiveness.

The Chinese embassy in Washington said in a statement to news outlets that it opposed “the overstretching of the concept of national security and the politicisation or instrumentalisation of normal scientific, educational and academic exchanges.”

“The U.S. side should abandon the Cold War mentality and foster an open, fair and non-discriminatory environment for educational, scientific and people-to-people exchanges between China and the United States,” it added.

Here’s what to know about the raft of policies aimed at curbing institutional ties to China.

Order targets primarily Chinese institutions

The foreign institutions the U.S. seeks to blacklist were identified by the Pentagon last month. Eighty-eight of the 130 institutions are in mainland China, while the remaining institutions are in Russia and Iran. The list has been updated annually since an earlier version was first released in 2023. It was established under Section 1286 of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, which was enacted during President Donald Trump’s first term.

While some Chinese universities on the list have more explicit ties to the military, others are prominent civilian institutions with extensive international research partnerships. These include Fudan University and Shanghai Jiao Tong University. The updated list also added a number of other Chinese institutions with varying links to China’s defense and security establishment, including Shandong University, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Shenyang Aerospace University, and the University of International Relations.

People familiar with Chinese academic institutions previously told TIME that Chinese Communist Party structures are embedded throughout the country’s universities, making institutional links to the government common, even though individual students or researchers may not be engaged in political or military work.

The Pentagon also instructed universities to audit collaborations with organizations associated with “rebranded Confucius Institutes.” Confucius Institutes are non-profit language and cultural programs funded by the Chinese government and hosted in universities around the world. Launched in 2004, there were at one time more than 100 Confucius Institutes operating on U.S. college campuses. But most U.S. programs closed after 2019 amid congressional scrutiny and federal funding restrictions. By late 2023, there were fewer than five active Confucius Institutes in the U.S.

Many universities, however, retained partnerships with their former Chinese partner institutions or established successor language and cultural programs under different names. Critics characterized some of these arrangements, particularly those that continued to receive Chinese funding or instructors, as “rebranded Confucius Institutes.” Of 74 former Confucius Institute hosts surveyed by the Government Accountability Office in 2023, 43 said they maintained ties to their former Chinese partner institutions. Nine reported receiving continued funding or other support for programming from those institutions, although eight of the nine said the partnerships predated their Confucius Institutes.

Crackdown on broader Chinese ties

The Trump Administration has pursued a slate of policies that build on Trump’s first-term “China Initiative.” These have included tighter scrutiny of universities’ foreign funding and research partnerships and restrictions on collaborations with blacklisted Chinese institutions. The Trump Administration has also increased vetting of Chinese student visa applicants, threatened visa revocations for some students, and renewed investigations of China-linked researchers.

Since last year, the Pentagon has prohibited funding fundamental research projects conducted in collaboration with a listed foreign institution or its employees. The policy was expanded in March to bar the use of equipment from listed entities in certain Pentagon-funded projects.

Meanwhile, China has sought to bring in more foreign talent and investment, including by seeking to attract more international students to its universities and exchange programs, and by introducing a K visa for young foreign STEM professionals.

Dozens of Chinese tenure-track scholars have left U.S. universities for China over the past year.

Days before the latest announcement, the Republican-led House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party and the House Education and Workforce Committee released a report accusing Harvard of failing to adequately screen its relationships with Chinese institutions linked to the People’s Liberation Army and China’s defense industry. The investigation said it identified more than 140 publications co-authored by Harvard-affiliated researchers and scholars at certain Chinese defense-linked civilian universities.

Harvard disputed the report’s “mischaracterizations,” and said it follows federal national security standards.

The changes also come as the U.S. seeks to maintain its lead over China in the global AI race. A 2025 report warned that major AI data centers in the U.S. were vulnerable to Chinese espionage, sabotage, and intellectual property theft.

In July, the Administration recommended redirecting potentially billions of dollars of federal research funding from universities toward individual scientists and AI-focused projects as part of an effort to counter Chinese scientific advances.

Last week, Reuters also reported that the Administration was preparing to tell 35 partner countries that participation in Pax Silica—a U.S.-led initiative to strengthen supply chains for semiconductors, critical minerals, and AI infrastructure—was conditioned on their refusal to join China’s rival AI framework. The reported demand appeared in an internal draft and has not been formally issued.