Pete Hegseth orders the Navy to rename the USNS Harvey Milk
Soon after becoming the nation's latest defense secretary, Pete Hegseth went right to work tackling one of his top priorities: He started renaming things.
Two weeks into his tenure, for example, the scandal-plagued former television personality signed an order renaming Fort Liberty in North Carolina to Fort Bragg. The controversial Pentagon chief also changed Georgia's Fort Moore to Fort Benning. Hegseth declared at the time, 'As the president has said, and I've said as well, we're not done there.'
Evidently, he wasn't kidding. Military.com reported:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the Navy to take the rare step of renaming a ship, one that bears the name of a gay rights icon, documents and sources show. Military.com reviewed a memorandum from the Office of the Secretary of the Navy — the official who holds the power to name Navy ships — that showed the sea service had come up with rollout plans for the renaming of the oiler ship USNS Harvey Milk.
NBC News confirmed the reporting, adding that the change is likely to be implemented quickly.
When then-Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced nearly a decade ago that the service would name a fleet oiler after Milk, it wasn't especially controversial. Milk came from a Navy family, served in the Navy stateside during the Korean War on a submarine rescue ship, and was honorably discharged after four years. He went on to become a celebrated civil rights pioneer in San Francisco and popular local elected official.
So why in the world would Hegseth want to name the ship? The defense secretary hasn't publicly commented, but the fact that Milk was gay apparently mattered a great deal.
Indeed, the Military.com report, which NBC News confirmed, noted that a defense official 'said that the timing of the announcement — occurring during Pride month — was intentional.'
The same report added, 'While there are some rare examples of Navy ships being renamed following construction and christening, those instances are outliers and, broadly, Navy traditions consider renaming a ship to be taboo.'
Hegseth, evidently, is prioritizing his culture war agenda over Navy traditions.
'The reported decision by the Trump Administration to change the names of the USNS Harvey Milk and other ships in the John Lewis-class is a shameful, vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers for all to chase the American Dream,' House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi said in a written statement. 'Our military is the most powerful in the world — but this spiteful move does not strengthen our national security or the 'warrior' ethos. Instead, it is a surrender of a fundamental American value: to honor the legacy of those who worked to build a better country.'
The California Democrat added, 'As the rest of us are celebrating the joy of Pride Month, it is my hope that the Navy will reconsider this egregious decision and continue to recognize the extraordinary contributions of Harvey Milk, a veteran himself, and all Americans who forged historic progress for our nation.'
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
25 minutes ago
- Axios
Democrats more likely than Republicans to boycott brands, new survey
Why it matters: These murky expectations highlight the complicated environment businesses are currently operating in. What they're saying: "Businesses need to understand how their brand aligns to current issues and the values that matter to their customer base," says Mallory Newall, vice president at Ipsos. "Brands cannot please everyone, and wading into the political fray does not come without risk. It needs to be done in a strategic way. However, there are potential upsides if companies have a clear understanding of who they're talking to and who their customers are. Those who act inauthentically will lose ground in this environment," she added. State of play: There's a disconnect in what consumers say and what they do. 53% of Americans say they are less likely to buy from a company that takes a stance they don't agree with, but only 30% actually do. Between the lines: A company's political or social stances influence Democrats more than Republicans, per the survey. Democrats are more likely to boycott (40%) than Republicans (24%), but they are also 2x more likely to go out of their way to support a brand that aligns with their values. Target is the latest American corporation to grapple with these boycotts, following its retreat from diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Of note: Boycotting is a luxury afforded to those with disposable income, per the survey. Households with incomes of $100k and above are 50% more likely to stop buying from a company they disagree with than those households making $50k and below. What to watch: 67% of Democrats say they are closely tracking how companies respond to pending Supreme Court decisions, compared to 52% of Republicans. There is more appetite across party lines for business commentary on economic issues — like inflation and trade policies — than other policy issues. The bottom line: "The data suggest that Democratic consumers are much more likely to actually follow through on the threat to withhold or reduce spending when they disagree with brands during this era of complete GOP control," says Matt House, managing partner at CLYDE.
Axios
26 minutes ago
- Axios
Exclusive: Dems press Trump admin. for response to China-backed cyberattacks
A group of Democratic lawmakers are pressing the Trump administration to clarify who is leading the government's efforts to eradicate China-backed hackers from U.S. critical infrastructure and telecom networks. Why it matters: Roughly 1,000 people have already left the nation's top cyber agency this year through voluntary buyouts and other workforce cuts. Those cuts could create dangerous weaknesses in the nation's cyber defenses, the lawmakers argue in a letter exclusively shared with Axios. Zoom in: Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) sent a letter today to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard demanding more clarity on who is leading the response against two major China-backed cyberattacks uncovered during the Biden administration. Democratic Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi, Kathy Castor, Ro Khanna, Haley Stevens, Shontel Brown and Jill Tokuda joined Torres as signatories. The lawmakers are also requesting Noem and Gabbard provide an update on any ongoing investigations into both the Volt Typhoon attacks on U.S. critical infrastructure and the Salt Typhoon campaign to surveil high-profile individuals' cell phones. The group is also asking for an update on how proposed budget cuts and the recent workforce reductions at CISA will impact those investigations. What they're saying: "This is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of grave consequence for the security of America both at home and abroad," the lawmakers write. "We owe it to the American people to protect them from the specter of a cyber 9/11 at the hands of our most formidable foreign adversary." Threat level: For years, top American officials have been warning about increasing cyber threats from China. China-backed Volt Typhoon has been prepositioning in critical infrastructure — such as water utilities, power plants and railways — for at least five years, according to congressional testimony. Salt Typhoon, another Chinese government-backed group, was caught hacking into several high-profile politicians' phones last year, including President Trump's. "Somewhere, Xi Jinping is smiling at America's insistence on degrading its own cyber capabilities," the lawmakers write.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Sides With Straight Woman on 'Reverse Discrimination'
The Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to file lawsuits over 'reverse discrimination.' The nation's highest judiciary sided with an Ohio woman who claimed that she had been passed over for a job and was subsequently demoted because she was straight. Marlean Ames, a 20-year employee at the Ohio Department of Youth Services, claimed that the promotion and the job she previously held were both given to LGBTQ people. Ames had previously lost her case in trial court and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. In siding with Ames, the court unanimously struck down a standard that had previously required individuals identifying as part of a majority group—such as being white, male, or heterosexual—to face a higher bar in proving discrimination. The ruling will affect cases in 20 states and the District of Columbia. The 6th Circuit was one of the courts that had tasked people like Ames with showing 'background circumstances' as proof, such as an internal pattern of discrimination against her at her organization. Ames did not provide any circumstances to the appeals court. In its opinion, the Supreme Court decided that the 6th Circuit's 'background circumstances' requirement 'cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court's precedents,' since the statute's 'disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.' Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal for American employers to discriminate against employees or potential employees on the basis of their 'race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.' 'The provision focuses on individuals rather than groups, barring discrimination against 'any individual' because of protected characteristics,' the court wrote. 'Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.' In its opinion, the nation's highest judiciary vacated the lower court's ruling, remanding the case to be re-deliberated under the new standard. In 2019, Ames had applied to be bureau chief of the Ohio agency. She was interviewed by two supervisors who did not hire her for it. Two more applicants for the role were also turned away. Eight months later, Ames claimed that one of the supervisors had hired a lesbian woman she knew personally to fill the role. Ames was later removed from her post as program administrator and given the option of being demoted to executive secretary or leave the agency altogether. She chose the demotion, and was replaced by a gay man. Ames claimed that she had been discriminated against as both of the hiring supervisors were lesbian women. This story has been updated.
