Navy to strip gay rights activist Harvey Milk's name from oil tanker
WASHINGTON − The Navy will rename an oil tanker that named after slain gay rights activist Harvey Milk, U.S. officials told Reuters on Tuesday, the latest move in the military under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to root out diversity, equity and inclusion.
In 2016, the U.S. Navy said it would name one of its new class of oil tankers after Milk, a Navy veteran who later became one of the first openly gay people elected to public office in the United States.
The USNS Harvey Milk was christened in 2021, as part of the John Lewis class of tankers.
More: Stonewall veterans sound alarm over Trump's attempt to erase trans history
A U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the directive for the change came from Hegseth's office.
In a statement, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said Hegseth was committed to ensuring names of military installations and equipment "are reflective of the Commander-in-Chief's priorities, our nation's history, and the warrior ethos.
"Any potential renaming(s) will be announced after internal reviews are complete," Parnell said.
The Pentagon and the U.S. Navy did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The official said it was unclear when the renaming would actually take place, but noted that June is Pride Month, observed annually to honor the LGBTQ rights movement.
More: Military schools threaten pro-DEI student protesters with disciplinary action
Another official said it would not be surprising if additional ships in the John Lewis class were renamed, since other tankers honored civil rights and human rights leaders.
The planned name change was first reported by military news website Military.com.
Milk served in the U.S. Navy in 1951 as a diving officer during the Korean War. Elected to the San Francisco board of supervisors as the first openly gay California politician, he was killed in office in 1978.
Since taking office in January, Hegseth, a former Fox News host, has eliminated diversity initiatives at the Pentagon and ended observances of identity celebrations such as Black History Month.
DEI programs seek to promote opportunities for women, ethnic minorities and other traditionally underrepresented groups. Civil rights advocates argue that such programs, generally backed by Democrats, are needed to address longstanding inequities and structural racism.
They have come under attack from conservatives, who say race- and gender-focused initiatives are inherently discriminatory and fail to prioritize merit.
In February, Hegseth chided past celebrations of the U.S. military's diversity in a broad address to Pentagon staff, saying: "I think the single dumbest phrase in military history is 'our diversity is our strength.'"
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Hegseth strips gay icon Harvey Milk's name from Navy ship
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reveals why military recruitment has soared under Trump
Joining "Fox & Friends" live from Normandy, France, where Allied forces once stormed the beaches to turn the tide of World War II, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth honored the 81st anniversary of D-Day with a message that looked not only to the past but to the future. As the nation honors the bravery and sacrifices of World War II veterans, Hegseth emphasized a new wave of patriotism among today's young Americans – one he says is driving an uptick in military recruitment. "It's historic. Of course it's a morale shift. It shifts back to the day President Trump was elected and then inaugurated," he said Friday. World War Ii Veterans Travel To Normandy For Emotional D-day Commemoration The Army alone has posted the best recruiting numbers in years, reaching 61,000 for fiscal year 2025, with four months remaining. That's an increase of more than 6,000 from 55,150 in fiscal year 2024. Hegseth told co-hosts Ainsley Earhardt, Lawrence Jones and Brian Kilmeade that the spirit inside the U.S. armed forces is "incredible" right now, and the morale shift isn't isolated to the Army. Read On The Fox News App "It's also the Air Force, it's also the Navy, it is also the Marine Corps, Coast Guard and, as the president says, law enforcement," he continued. "Across the board, the spirit of our country, [there's a] willingness and desire to serve, because they see leadership that believes in the country that's going to have their back, that says, 'We want you to be warriors. We're not doing this politically correct garbage anymore. We're doing war fighting. We're training, we're preparing, we're focused on [getting] back to basics, and… the young people of America have responded, and they'll continue to respond." Trump Declares May 8 As 'Victory Day' For World War Ii: 'Going To Start Celebrating Our Victories Again!' Hegseth attended this year's ceremony where military officials and veterans commemorated the 81st anniversary of D-Day. He started his morning with a physical training session with rangers from the 75th Ranger Regiment on Omaha Beach at nearly the same time as the first landing craft would have hit in 1944. "These men [World War II soldiers] were willing to charge toward the guns with almost no chance of success, especially in those first waves, and they did it for us," he said. Days ago, the defense secretary honored the sacrifices of U.S. armed forces at Arlington National Cemetery in Washington, D.C., where he greeted a number of World War II veterans whose resolve remains high more than half a century later. "The contrast of those 100-year-old World War II vets and then those 25-year old Army Rangers that I did a workout with this morning – the blood of fighting for freedom still pumps in the veins of Americans, and we still raise those types, and that's what was really cool to see."Original article source: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reveals why military recruitment has soared under Trump
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Religion cases spark both unanimity and division at Supreme Court
Religious rights are sparking both unanimity and deep divisions on the Supreme Court this term, with one major decision still to come. On Thursday, all nine justices sided with Catholic Charities Bureau in its tax fight with Wisconsin. But weeks earlier, the court's 4-4 deadlock handed those same religious interests a loss by refusing to greenlight the nation's first religious charter school. Now, advocates are turning their attention to the other major religion case still pending this term, which concerns whether parents have the First Amendment right to opt-out their children from instruction including books with LGBTQ themes. 'The court has been using its Religion Clause cases over the past few years to send the message that everything doesn't have to be quite so polarized and quite so everybody at each other's throats,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of Becket, a religious legal group that represents both the parents and Catholic Charities. The trio of cases reflect a new burst of activity on the Supreme Court's religion docket, a major legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure. Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations over 83 percent of the time, a significant jump from previous eras. The decisions have oftentimes protected Christian traditions, a development that critics view as a rightward shift away from a focus on protecting non-mainstream religions. But on Thursday, the court emerged unanimous. The nine justices all agreed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment in denying Catholic Charities a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. Wisconsin's top court denied the exemption by finding the charity wasn't primarily religious, saying it could only qualify if it was trying to proselytize people. Catholic Charities stressed that the Catholic faith forbids misusing works of charity for proselytism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday's majority opinion finding Wisconsin unconstitutionally established a government preference for some religious denominations over others. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Sotomayor wrote. The fact that Sotomayor, one of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, wrote the opinion heightened the sense of unity. 'She's voted with us in several other cases, too, and I think it just shows that it is not the partisan issue that people sometimes try to make it out to be,' said Rienzi. However, Sotomayor's opinion notably did not address Catholic Charities' other arguments, including those related to church autonomy that Justice Clarence Thomas, one the court's leading conservatives, endorsed in a solo, separate opinion. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which filed a brief backing Catholic Charities, similarly called the unanimity an 'encouraging' sign. 'If they can find a way to do that, they want to do that. And that's why I think you have the opinion written the way that it was. It was written that way so that every justice could feel comfortable signing off on it,' said Gardner. Supporters and critics of the court's decision agree it still poses repercussions on cases well beyond the tax context — and even into the culture wars. Perhaps most immediately, the battle at the Supreme Court will shift from unemployment taxes to abortion. The justices have a pending request from religious groups, also represented by Becket, to review New York's mandate that employers' health care plans cover abortions. The regulation exempts religious organizations only if they inculcate religious values, meaning many faith-based charities must still follow the mandate. And for the First Liberty Institute, it believes Thursday's decision bolsters its legal fights in the lower courts. It represents an Ohio church that serves the homeless and an Arizona church that provides food distribution, both embroiled in legal battles with local municipalities that implicate whether the ministries are religious enough. Thursday's decision is not the first time the Supreme Court has unanimously handed a win to religious rights advocates. In 2023, the First Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian U.S. Postal Service worker who requested a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays. And two years earlier, the court in a unanimous judgment ruled Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to refer children to a Catholic adoption agency because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. 'People thought that was a very narrow decision at the time, but the way it has sort of been applied since then, it has really reshaped a lot of the way that we think about Free Exercise cases,' said Gardner. It's not always kumbaya, however. Last month, the Supreme Court split evenly on a highly anticipated religious case that concerned whether Oklahoma could establish the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. The 4-4 deadlock meant the effort fizzled. Released just three weeks after the justices' initial vote behind closed doors, the decision spanned one sentence. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' it reads. Though the deadlock means supporters of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School are left without a green light, they are hoping they will prevail soon enough. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's third appointee to the court, recused from the St. Isidore case, which many court watchers believe stemmed from her friendship with a professor at Notre Dame, whose religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore. But Barrett could participate in a future case — providing the crucial fifth vote — that presents the same legal question, which poses consequential implications for public education. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has one major religion case left this term. The justices are reviewing whether Montgomery County, Md., must provide parents an option to opt-out their elementary-aged children from instruction with books that include LGBTQ themes. The group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents suing say it substantially burdens their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. At oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic with the parent's plea as the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line. 'Probably, it will be a split decision,' said Gardner, whose group has filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of parents in California. But he cautioned, 'you never know where some of the justices will line up.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
USA Today
41 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump travel ban includes 12 nations, partially restricts entry from seven others
Trump travel ban includes 12 nations, partially restricts entry from seven others Show Caption Hide Caption President Trump bans travel from several countries around the world President Donald Trump signed a proclamation that bans travel from 12 countries and restricts seven others. WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump has issued a full travel ban blocking the entry of foreign nationals from 12 countries into the United States, reviving a controversial policy from his first term that is likely to be challenged in court. Trump cited "national security risks" posed by citizens of the targeted nations, which include several Middle Eastern and African countries, in a June 4 proclamation he signed imposing the ban. He also partially restricted the entry of foreign nationals from seven other nations. The restrictions are scheduled to go into effect on June 9. The ban prohibits entry into the U.S. of foreign nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Trump issued partial travel suspensions for foreign nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Trump presidency: Marco Rubio says US will revoke visas from Chinese students, add new restrictions In videotaped remarks from the Oval Office, Trump pointed to last weekend's fiery assault on pro-Jewish demonstrators in Boulder, Colorado, carried out by suspect Mohamed Sabry Soliman, a native of Egypt who came to the U.S. on a tourist visa in late 2022 and stayed after the visa expired. "The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstayed their visas," Trump said. "We don't want them." Egypt is not among the countries facing new restrictions despite Trump invoking the attack, which the White House has blamed on the Biden administration's immigration policies. Trump's travel ban: A timeline look throughout his first presidency Who faces a travel ban? The move comes after the Trump administration has worked aggressively to deport immigrants who are in the United States unlawfully, halted the government's refugee resettlement program, and last week announced plans to "aggressively" revoke visas of Chinese students. The ban resembles similar actions Trump took during his first term to bar the entry of foreign nationals from several predominantly Muslim countries. The restrictions do not apply to visas that have already been granted, lawful permanent residents, certain athletes, immediate family members of current visa holders, and other classes of individuals for whom the administration granted exceptions. Travelers react to the latest travel ban from President Trump "Pros and cons." Travelers in Los Angeles responded to the news of President Donald Trump's travel ban impacting nearly 20 countries. "In the 21st century, we've seen one terror attack after another carried out by foreign-visa overstayers from dangerous places. They should not be in our country," Trump said. "We will not let what happened in Europe happen to America." Council on American-Islamic Relations Executive Director Nihad Awad said the government already vets visa applicants extensively. The new order risks separating families, depriving students of educational opportunities and blocking patients from unique medical treatment, he said. "President Trump's new travel ban targeting mostly Muslim and African nations and raising the specter of more vague free speech restrictions is overbroad, unnecessary and ideologically motivated,' Awad said. "Automatically banning students, workers, tourists, and other citizens of these targeted nations from coming to the United States will not make our nation safer." Amy Spitalnick, CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, said in a post on social media that the antisemitic attack in Boulder shouldn't be used to justify a ban on travel from primarily Muslim-majority countries. 'We'll keep saying it: the Jewish community's legitimate fears and concerns should not (be) exploited to undermine core democratic norms, or otherwise advance discriminatory & unconstitutional policies,' Spitalnick said. 'Doing so only makes Jews – and all communities – less safe.' Rep. Judy Chu, a California Democrat who introduced legislation in February that sought to prevent the Trump administration from banning travel to the U.S. by people of any religious group, lashed out at Trump on X. "Just now, Trump has re-issued his disgusting, bigoted, and Islamophobic travel ban. This goes against our core American values while doing nothing to make us safer. We can do better, we must do better," she said. What travelers need to know: Trump issues new travel ban affecting nearly 20 countries Trump revisits travel bans Trump's first-term travel bans were overturned repeatedly in the courts for apparent religious or racial motivations before being upheld by the Supreme Court. Within hours of the new ban, the International Refugee Assistance Project, a group that sued Trump in 2017, slammed the ban as arbitrary for making exceptions for athletes traveling to the United States for sporting events such as the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, "while closing the door to ordinary people who've gone through extensive legal processes to enter the United States." "It is yet another shameful attempt by the Trump administration to sow division, fear, and chaos," Stephanie Gee, senior director of U.S. Legal Services, said in a statement. Trump's latest ban follows through on a day-one executive order directing his administration to identify countries throughout the world "for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the entry or admission of nationals from those countries." Trump said he evaluated recommendations from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Attorney General Pam Bondi based on foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism goals and largely accepted their recommendations. Factors included whether a county "has a significant terrorist presence within its territory" or a high rate of people overstaying their visas, Trump's order said. The president said the administration also considered a country's "cooperation with accepting back its removable nationals." At one point, the administration looked at slapping as many as 43 countries with restrictions. Egypt was not on either of the draft lists that circulated in March. The president said in the order that Rubio and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller provided him a list on April 9 of countries to consider. The White House did not immediately explain why it took Trump nearly two months after he received the report to take action. The State Department did not respond to a request for comment. "Very simply," Trump said, "we cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States." Contributing: Bart Jansen, USA TODAY Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison.
