This event scores extremely high on distraction (B=35.35) while minimal on constitutional damage (A=2.01), yielding D=-33.34. The question itself is absurd - presidents have no unilateral authority to rename international bodies of water or geographic features recognized by international convention. The Gulf of Mexico name derives from Spanish colonial era and is used internationally. This is pure information operation: highly memeable (renaming oceans), generates massive outrage/mockery, novel absurdity, and media catnip. Layer 2 shows extreme mismatch between spectacle and substance (9/10), fits pattern of nationalist performative statements, and serves as narrative pivot from actual policy. Intentionality is very high (12/15) - this is deliberate absurdist signaling with no genuine policy pathway. Constitutional impact is minimal: slight separation of powers concern (testing executive authority boundaries rhetorically) and minor rule of law (disregard for international naming conventions), but no actual mechanism for implementation, narrow population impact, and information operation reduces modifier. Severity is low given complete reversibility and lack of durability. Classic List B: high-hype distraction with negligible constitutional substance.