Ft. Liberty is now Ft. Bragg. What's the history behind the name and Hegseth's decision?
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Pete Hegseth pledges to support President Trump's immigration policy
Secretary Pete Hegseth said the Defense Department will support "mass deportations in support of the president's objective."
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's move to rename Fort Bragg appears to be his latest effort to roll back Biden-administration diversity policies for the military.
On Monday, a memo from Hegseth appeared in federal court that prohibits the armed services from accepting recruits who are transgender. He also ordered a pause in medical treatment for service members who have gender dysphoria.
Later that day, Hegseth announced that Fort Liberty's name would be changed back to Fort Bragg – in honor of a World War II hero, not the Confederate general who had been its original namesake.
"Bragg is back," Hegseth told reporters while on a trip to Germany on Tuesday. "It's about that legacy. It's about the connection to the community, to those who served."
"We're not done there," he said of other bases and roads that have been similarly renamed.
More: Pentagon revives ban on transgender troops joining U.S. military
Why did the Biden administration change the name in the first place?
A commission created by Congress during the Biden administration recommended changing the names of bases and other monuments honoring Confederate soldiers who had waged the Civil War against the United States. Under the law that led to the commission's creation, Hegseth has the authority to change base names if he chooses to honor a person who did not serve in the Confederacy.
The action "violates the spirit of the law but not the law itself," Ty Seidule, a retired Army general and the former vice chair of the naming commission, said in an email. Seidule said he was "surprised" Hegseth "did not stick with the name the local community united around," including a military Gold Star mother who led the effort.
A congressional source who was not authorized to speak publicly confirmed that Hegseth has the ability to change the name because the law prohibits the Defense secretary from naming a military asset after a Confederate soldier.
Why is Hegseth changing the names back to Fort Bragg and Fort Benning?
Through the National Defense Authorization Act of 2021, the annual defense policy bill, Congress appointed a commission to recommend new names for bases, streets and other monuments that bore the names of Confederate soldiers who committed treason and fought against U.S. soldiers in the Civil War.
Trump, in his first term, vetoed the must-pass Defense bill that sets defense policy because of the commission. Bi-partisan majorities in the House and Senate overrode his veto.
The base was officially renamed in 2023. Costs to update its name were estimated at $8 million at the time. It's unclear how much it might cost the military to change the name again.
Hegseth already signaled his intention to revert the original, Confederate names of two bases.
In some of his first remarks as Defense secretary, Hegseth referred to Fort Bragg and Fort Benning, a Georgia base renamed Fort Moore, pointedly using their original Confederate namesakes.
More: Erasing the Confederacy: Army changes names of iconic Fort Hood and Fort Benning bases
In a podcast interview last year, Hegseth said, "there's also a generational link that breaks when you rename Benning and Bragg," calling the new names "garbage."
Trump also promised during the campaign that he would rename the bases, vowing at a rally in Fayeteville, North Carolina, home to Fort Liberty, that "we're going to do everything we can, we're going to get it back."
His plans to revert the bases' names have drawn criticism from lawmakers across the aisle. Republican Rep. Don Bacon, of Nebraska, told POLITICO, 'The law was passed, it's not going to go backward."
Who were the bases originally named after?
Fort Moore was renamed in honor of Lt. Gen. Hal Moore and his wife, Julia Moore. Lt. Gen. Moore was highly decorated for his heroism during the battle of Ia Drang, the first major battle of the Vietnam War, as depicted in the book and film, 'We Were Soldiers Once…and Young."
Julia Moore's support of families of troops killed in action prompted the Army to change the way it makes death notifications.
Like Bragg, Camp Benning was built in 1918. Its mission was to provide basic training for soldiers deploying in World War I. The Army named the base in honor of Henry Benning, a lawyer and senior Confederate officer whom the commission, on the Army's web site, labeled an 'ardent secessionist.'
'He is on record as saying that he would rather be stricken with illness and starvation than see slaves liberated and given equality as citizens,' the commission report said. 'As the commander of the Benning Brigade, he fought in many of the battles throughout the war. Heartbroken over the Confederacy's defeat, he was one of the last officers to lead his men to the surrender ceremony in 1865.'
Some Army posts in the South, as well as streets and buildings on installations like West Point in the North, bore the names of Confederate officers like Gen. Robert E. Lee.
In the South, several forts sprung up during the massive mobilization for World War I. Many were given names honoring Confederate generals in apparent effort at post-Civil War reconciliation.
'It was also the height of the Jim Crow Laws in the South, so there was no consideration for the feelings of African Americans who had to serve at bases named after men who fought to defend slavery,' according to the Pentagon's web site.
Nothing to Bragg about
Fort Liberty began as Camp Bragg in 1918 as an Army artillery training ground. It was named after Braxton Bragg, who, according to the commission charged with changing base names, was 'a slave owning plantation owner and senior Confederate Army officer."
Bragg is 'considered one of the worst generals of the Civil War," according to the commission. "Most of the battles he was involved in ended in defeat and resulted in tremendous losses for the Confederate Army" and were "highly consequential to the ultimate defeat of the Confederacy."
"Bragg was temperamental, a harsh disciplinarian, and widely disliked in the pre-Civil War U.S. Army and within the Confederate Army by peers and subordinates alike throughout his career," according to the commission.
Hegseth's decision to name the base after Roland Bragg, not for the Confederate general, could be seen as an admission that Braxton Bragg was undeserving, said Peter Feaver, a Duke University professor and expert on civil-military relations.
Hegseth has made clear that 'he understands the Department of Defense faces a daunting array of challenges and I doubt that he thinks those problems will be fixed merely by changing names and pronouns,' Feaver said. 'The hard work of defense reform is still ahead.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has been getting his way on trade, strong-arming the European Union, Japan and other partners to accept once unthinkably high taxes on their exports to the United States. But his radical overhaul of American trade policy, in which he's bypassed Congress to slam big tariffs on most of the world's economies, has not gone unchallenged. He's facing at least seven lawsuits charging that he's overstepped his authority. The plaintiffs want his biggest, boldest tariffs thrown out. And they won Round One. In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes — tariffs — on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case. Now it goes on to Round Two. On Thursday, the 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty — involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad — that the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to impose taxes — including tariffs — to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the U.S. border to slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Then on April 2 — 'Liberation Day,'' Trump called it — he invoked IEEPA to announce 'reciprocal'' tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10% 'baseline'' tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorize the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an 'unusual and extraordinary'' threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's Liberation Day tariffs 'exceed any authority granted to the President'' under the emergency powers law. 'The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,'' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they 'deal with'' the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries. Paul Wiseman, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
We're Lying to Ourselves About Taxes, Spending, and the Debt
Having extended most of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and added even more tax breaks, Congress is once again punting on the central fiscal question of our time: What kind of government do Americans want seriously enough to pay for? Yes, the "Big Beautiful Bill" avoided a massive tax increase and includes pro-growth reforms. It also adds to the debt—by how much is debatable—and that's before we get to the budgetary reckoning of Social Security and Medicare's impending insolvency. Against that backdrop, it's infuriating to see a $9 billion rescission package—one drop in the deficit bucket—met with cries of bloody murder. The same can be said of the apocalyptic discourse surrounding the Big Beautiful Bill's reduction in Medicaid spending. In spite of the cuts, the program is projected to grow drastically over the next 10 years. In fact, the reforms barely scratch the surface considering its enormous growth under former President Joe Biden. Maybe we wouldn't keep operating this way—pretending like minor trims are major reforms while refusing to tackle demographic and entitlement time bombs ticking beneath our feet—if we stayed focused on the question of what, considering the cost, we're willing to pay for. Otherwise, it's too easy to continue committing a generational injustice toward our children and grandchildren. That's because all the benefits and subsidies that we're unwilling to pay for will eventually have to be paid for in the future with higher taxes, inflation, or both. That's morally and economically reprehensible. Admitting we have a problem is hard. Fixing it is even harder, especially when politicians obscure costs and fail to recognize the following realities. First, growing the economy can, of course, be part of the solution. It creates more and better opportunities, raising incomes and tax revenue without raising tax rates—the rising tide that can lift many fiscal boats. But when we're this far underwater, short of a miracle produced by an energy and artificial intelligence revolution, growth alone simply won't be enough. Raising taxes on the rich will fall short too. Despite another round of loud calls to do so, like those now emanating from the New York City mayoral campaign, remember: The federal tax code is already highly progressive. Here's something else that should be common knowledge: Higher tax rates do not automatically translate to more tax revenue. Not even close. Federal revenues have consistently hovered around 17 percent to 18 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) for more than 50 years—through periods of high tax rates, low tax rates, and every combination of deductions, exemptions, and credits in between. This remarkable stability is no fluke. It reflects a basic reality of human behavior: When tax rates go up, people don't simply continue what they've been doing and hand over more money. They work less, take compensation in nontaxable forms, delay selling assets, move to lower-tax jurisdictions, or increase tax-avoidance strategies. Meanwhile, higher rates reduce incentives to invest, hire, and create or expand businesses, slowing growth and undermining the very revenue gains legislators expect. It's why economic literature shows that fiscal-adjustment packages made mostly of tax increases usually fail to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio. Real-world responses mean that higher tax rates rarely generate what static models predict as we bear the costs of less work, less innovation, and less productivity leading to fewer opportunities for everyone, rich or poor. If the underlying structure of the system doesn't change, no amount of rate fiddling will sustainably result in more than 17-18 percent in tax collections. Political dynamics guarantee further disappointment. When Congress raises taxes on one group, it often turns around and cuts taxes elsewhere to offset the backlash. Then, when the government does manage to collect extra revenue—through windfall-profits taxes, inflation causing taxpayers to creep into higher brackets, or a booming economy—that money rarely goes toward deficit reduction. It gets spent, and then some. It's long past time to shift the conversation away from whether tax cuts should be "paid for." Instead, ask what level of spending we truly want with the money we truly have. I suspect that most people aren't willing to pay the taxes required to fund everything our current government does, and that more would feel this way if they understood our tax-collection limitations. That points toward the need to cut spending on, among other things, corporate welfare, economically distorting subsidies, flashy infrastructure gimmicks, and Social Security and Medicare. Until we align Congress' promises with what we're willing and able to fund, we'll continue down this dangerous path of illusion, denial, and intergenerational theft—as we cope with economic decline. COPYRIGHT 2025 The post We're Lying to Ourselves About Taxes, Spending, and the Debt appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court
In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes — tariffs — on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Now it goes on to Round Two. Advertisement On Thursday, the 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty — involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad — that the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. Advertisement Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to impose taxes — including tariffs — to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the U.S. border to slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Then on April 2 — 'Liberation Day,'' Trump called it — he invoked IEEPA to announce 'reciprocal'' tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10% 'baseline'' tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. Advertisement The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorize the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an 'unusual and extraordinary'' threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's Liberation Day tariffs 'exceed any authority granted to the President'' under the emergency powers law. 'The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,'' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they 'deal with'' the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries. Advertisement
