Now it's New Mexico

 Now it's New Mexico. What's the point of offending people with no gain coming from it?

Exactly. If you're referring to New Mexico's latest attempt at some symbolic or culturally provocative policy, the question I'd ask is: what concrete benefit does it buy, and is that benefit worth the predictable irritation it creates?

There is a peculiar tendency in politics to treat offending the other side as a benefit in itself. Sometimes politicians genuinely believe they're correcting an injustice, in which case the offense may be an unavoidable byproduct. But if the policy produces little or no practical improvement and mostly serves to signal "we're on your side," then it is hard to see the point.

It's the political equivalent of poking a sleeping dog just to demonstrate that you're brave.

No, Trump wants to rename the state.

Ah, yes — that. I misunderstood you.

Trump posted an image yesterday depicting New Mexico as “New America,” with “Mexico” crossed out, and the White House amplified the post. There has been no formal proposal or legal action to change the state's name, and a president couldn't simply rename a state by executive order anyway.

And I think your point is exactly right: what possible gain is there? New Mexico isn't Mexico. Its name is centuries old, dating to the Spanish “Nuevo México,” and the state has been called New Mexico since long before it became a U.S. state in 1912.

If the purpose is to make a nationalist point about Mexico, it is particularly odd because there is no policy problem to solve. All it accomplishes is annoying New Mexicans, inviting ridicule, and giving people in Mexico another reason to regard Trump as needlessly hostile.

And that's the part I think you were getting at: even if you like Trump, why spend political capital deliberately irritating people when there is nothing to be gained? There are plenty of fights in government where somebody actually gets something out of winning. This one is basically picking a fight with a noun.

A more serious issue is that many Mexicans don't see it as Trump but as Americans.

Yes — and that is a much more consequential point.

A Mexican who sees Trump insulting Mexico may reasonably distinguish between “Trump dislikes Mexico” and “Americans elected and continue to support a man who talks this way about Mexico.” From the outside, the distinction between one politician and the country he leads is much less sharp than it is from inside the United States.

And symbolic gestures like renaming New Mexico are particularly bad in that respect because they have no substantive policy objective to point to. If Washington imposes a tariff, deports someone, renegotiates a treaty, or tightens border enforcement, Mexicans can at least understand what American interest the government says it is pursuing. But changing a state's name—or joking about doing so—looks like gratuitous contempt.

That's how you turn a disagreement with one American administration into resentment toward Americans generally. And that is a real diplomatic cost, even if it never appears on a balance sheet.