
US Army to bring back names of 7 bases that once honored Confederate leaders
The US Army said Tuesday it will restore the names of seven Army bases that previously honored Confederate leaders.
'We are also going to be restoring the names to Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort A.P. Hill, and Fort Robert E. Lee,' President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday at Fort Bragg, which was briefly known as Fort Liberty until the administration changed it back earlier this year. 'We won a lot of battles out of those forts. It's no time to change.'
The Army plans to give the bases new namesakes honoring 'heroic Soldiers who served in conflicts ranging from the Civil War to the Battle of Mogadishu,' according to a news release, as it rolls back the Biden-era name changes. Reverting the base names to the original Confederate namesakes would require congressional approval.
The move comes after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a National Guard veteran and former longtime Fox News host, moved quickly to roll back name changes at other Army bases, such as Fort Bragg and Fort Benning.
Hegseth also ordered the secretary of the Navy to rename the oiler ship USNS Harvey Milk, which had honored the gay rights activist and Navy veteran who was made to resign from the force because of his sexual orientation.
Removing Confederate monikers from US military bases became a contentious political issue in the final months of Trump's first term. While Trump vetoed the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act that included a naming commission to study and recommend new titles for bases named after Confederate leaders, Congress voted to override his veto with overwhelming bipartisan support.
The Department of Defense began implementing the naming commission's recommendations in 2023.
Here are the names that are being brought back.
According to the Army's Tuesday announcement, Fort Barfoot, a Virginia base previously named after Confederate General George Pickett, will be named in honor of 1st Lt. Vernon W. Pickett, a soldier who received the Distinguished Service Cross for his heroism during World War II.
While pinned down by enemy machine gun fire, Pickett crawled forward and destroyed two enemy positions with grenades, the Army said. He escaped from a transport train after being captured, rejoined his unit and was later killed in action.
Fort Cavazos in Texas will be renamed Fort Hood in honor of Distinguished Service Cross recipient Col. Robert B. Hood, who fought in World War I.
In 2023, it was named after Gen. Richard Cavazos, who served in both the Korean War and Vietnam War. He was the first Hispanic four-star general in US history.
Georgia's Fort Eisenhower will revert back to Fort Gordon, this time honoring Medal of Honor recipient Master Sgt. Gary I. Gordon, who during the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu, Somalia, defended wounded crew members at a helicopter crash site.
The base, which was previously named after Confederate General John Gordon, was renamed Fort Eisenhower after General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower, who went on to serve as the nation's 34th president.
A Virginia fort once named for Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee will carry the namesake of Pvt. Fitz Lee, who received the Medal of Honor for his service during the Spanish-American War.
The fort was renamed Fort Gregg-Adams after Lt. Gen. Arthur Gregg and Lt. Col Charity Adams in 2023. Gregg helped desegregate the Army, including at Fort Lee, while Adams, in 1944, 'was selected to command the first unit of African-American women to serve overseas,' according to the congressional naming commission. Her service was chronicled in the 2024 film 'The Six Triple Eight.'
Gen. James H. Polk, a Silver Star recipient and commanding officer of the 3rd Cavalry Group in operations across Europe during World War II, will become the new namesake for Louisiana's Fort Johnson, according to the release.
The fort had been renamed in honor of Sgt. William Henry Johnson, a Black soldier who was considered one of the first heroes of World War I after he fought off about two dozen Germans alone, killing at least four.
Fort Novosel will be redesignated as Fort Rucker, in honor of Capt. Edward W. Rucker, a Distinguished Service Cross recipient and aviator that flew behind enemy lines in World War I 'in a daring aerial battle over France, disrupting enemy movements and completing their mission against overwhelming odds,' according to the release.
It was previously renamed after Chief Warrant Officer 4 Michael J. Novosel Sr., who served in World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, where he flew 2,543 medical evacuation missions.
The Army will bring back the Fort A.P. Hill name to Fort Walker, this time honoring Lt. Col. Edward Hill, 1st Sgt. Robert A. Pinn and Pvt. Bruce Anderson, three soldiers who fought for the Union during the Civil War.
The Virginia fort previously was named in honor of Lt. Gen. Ambrose Powell (A.P.) Hill, a Confederate commander. It was renamed Fort Walker in 2023, after Dr. Mary Walker, the Army's first female surgeon who was ultimately awarded the Medal of Honor for her service during the Civil War.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Column: Will Tesla suffer if Musk alienates both political wings?
Donald Trump and Elon Musk — two epic disrupters of U.S. politics and the automotive industry, respectively and vice versa. Over the past year, they united over the election and efforts to cut government spending. They parted ways amicably … and then started trashing each other. It escalated quickly with Musk suggesting that the president be impeached and that he is implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein child-prostitution scandal. Musk later reportedly called the president before posting that he regretted some of his words: 'They went too far.' It was a remarkable breakup — incredible drama between the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man, who had been the closest of allies for hundreds of days of campaigning and governing. To the extent that it was a reality TV train wreck, I'd just as soon leave it be. But since the primary business in Musk's remarkable portfolio is nominally an automaker, it actually matters in this industry we cover. Sign up for Automotive Views, Automotive News' weekly showcase of opinions, insights, ideas and thought leadership. Love it or hate it, this disruptive era in which we live is providing us all with some real-life experiments in economics — the likes of which we probably thought we would never see. For decades, basically everyone who went to college was taught in an economics or history class that widespread tariffs would do more harm than good. Trump argues for a different approach, and he's pursuing it. Or he's pursuing it to negotiate for something else. In either case, we're now seeing how that works: So far, there's been a lot of paralysis, especially among suppliers and foreign automakers, but also a big investment announced recently by General Motors. His political strategy has been unorthodox, yet he's won two electoral colleges and one popular vote. He's only the 21st president to win two elections. So he's had success, whether some people like it or not. Same for Musk, of course: He approached the auto industry unlike anyone else — with an expensive electric car — had a couple of near-total collapses, and came out as the world's richest man and CEO of the world's most valuable automaker. That success helped propel his rocket business SpaceX and other ventures such as Starlink satellites and Twitter, which he bought and renamed X. But the disruptive move I'm watching was his decision to be an automaker CEO who got personally and financially involved in partisan politics. While new-vehicle sales skew to the affluent, when you sell something in the millions or tens of millions, a brand or model has to connect with a broad swath of people. And while there can be success with, say, a polarizing design, mass-market brands generally try to avoid alienating large chunks of their potential customer base. I've cited here before the story about Michael Jordan saying he didn't speak out on politics because 'Republicans buy sneakers, too.' In retrospect, he said it was just a funny line among friends. But the thing is that he wasn't wrong, and every business school graduate knows it. Musk, however, is not your typical MBA type. So out of his frustration with former President Joe Biden — who habitually sided with the UAW and its automakers against the U.S.-based global leader in EVs, even as he advocated for a carbon-neutral future — Musk threw an estimated quarter of a billion dollars behind the Trump campaign. That's an unbelievable sum of money to many of us, but when Trump won, it looked like the greatest bet ever. From late October to late December, Tesla stock more than doubled and its market cap approached $1.5 trillion. While Musk's political activism may have upset many of his loyal, environmentally motivated customers, there were a lot of reasons to be bullish on Tesla under Trump. It seemed likely that NHTSA and the SEC would take a more sympathetic view of the company's issues. Beyond that, Musk has refocused the company's future on artificial intelligence, humanoid robots and robotaxis. (Tesla said it plans to launch its service in Austin, Texas, on June 22.) A new administration with a deregulatory inclination toward self-driving cars was a significant tailwind. Now, those advantages for Tesla are gone or at least seemingly diminished. Structures that have legacy automakers paying to buy Tesla's credits for selling emission-free, fuel-efficient vehicles could be eliminated. (And let's not forget that Trump hinted at ending federal contracts with other Musk-affiliated companies.) Turning back to the auto business: The conventional wisdom is that Musk has now alienated all but the most apolitical consumers. Environmentally minded liberals might like EVs, but Musk's support of Trump (and the far-right Alternative for Deutschland party in Germany) has them seeking out other brands' offerings. There might have been an opportunity to become the preferred electric brand of the president's Make America Great Again movement — especially the tech-forward, high-income types and those motivated by the president's endorsement of the brand on the White House grounds. But after this month's blowup — with longtime Trump adviser Steve Bannon arguing to deport Musk — that notion seemed ever more remote. No fans on the left, no fans on the right. Is Elon out in deep water in an electric boat surrounded by sharks with no friends to bail him out? Maybe not. There is significant animus against Musk on the EV-inclined left, especially in the wake of his DOGE team's deep and sometimes chaotic cuts to government entities and programs. Certainly, protests at auto retail outlets are rare. The damage to stores is not acceptable, but it shows the intensity of the situation. But I still have to wonder how far consumers will follow those kinds of feelings. Michiganders, for instance, often assume that Americans prefer to buy American cars made by American (union) workers. But I've been to America, and most of them don't care. They want the best car for their money, whether it's American, German, Japanese or Korean. Some are clamoring for cheap Chinese cars: If Xi Jinping wants to pay for half of their EV, they ask, why not let him? So maybe they won't care about Elon's politics. Tesla sales are down a little this year, but some of that might be attributable to production hiccups. If the Model Y — the bestselling model in the world last year — provides a great value, they'll probably buy it regardless of what they think of the CEO. And now we get to find out. Have an opinion about this story? Tell us about it and we may publish it in print. Click here to submit a letter to the editor. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump signs resolutions killing California's zero-emissions rules
This story was originally published on Trucking Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Trucking Dive newsletter. President Donald Trump moved to sever California's EPA waivers by signing a series of joint resolutions Thursday, rolling back the Golden State's strict truck and auto emissions policies. The president's signing of joint resolutions under the Congressional Review Act reverses the Biden administration's approval of California's Advanced Clean Trucks rule. That earlier rule called for requiring 75% of Class 8 trucks sold in the state to be zero-emissions vehicles by 2035. Another resolution also prevents the state's low-nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions rule for heavy-duty trucks from being implemented, per a statement by the president. The NOx rule intended to regulate emissions from manufacturers by cutting heavy-duty NOx emissions by 90% and overhaul engine testing procedures. The Trump administration has described his predecessor's environmental policies as overreach and unjustified mandates. Trump said the congressional moves he signed further restrict California from implementing a similar policy in the future. "Under the Congressional Review Act, the EPA cannot approve any future waivers that are 'substantially the same' as those disapproved in the joint resolutions," Trump said in a statement. "Accordingly, the joint resolutions prohibit the EPA from approving future waivers for California that would impose California's policy goals across the entire country and violate fundamental constitutional principles of federalism, ending the electric vehicle mandate for good," the statement said. In response, California Gov. Gavin Newsom declared the federal measures illegal and moved to sue the federal government, seeking to pursue the state's zero-emission vehicle policy. Newsom signed an executive order on Thursday for the state to continue regulation requiring that 100% of sales of new vehicles be zero emission by 2035 for cars, pickup trucks and drayage trucks and by 2045 for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Trucking leaders applauded Trump for the measures. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association said the news was a big win for both men and women behind the wheel. 'Our 150,000 small-business members have been saying it all along—electric trucks just aren't a realistic option right now. They're too expensive, the charging infrastructure isn't there,' OOIDA President Todd Spencer said in an emailed press release to Trucking Dive. Industry advocates, including the American Trucking Associations and the Washington Trucking Associations, also warned that electric truck technology and charging infrastructure were not caught up to accommodate California's ambitious EV policies. 'We've done our part to reduce carbon emissions while keeping America's economy moving,' ATA President and CEO Chris Spear said in a press release. 'But what we need is federal leadership to set realistic and achievable national emissions standards. And today brings us one step closer toward that goal,' he added. Werner Enterprises truck driver Gina Jones shared a similar sentiment, speaking as part of the signing ceremony at the White House. 'We cannot allow one state's regulations to disrupt our entire nation's supply chain,' Jones said. 'Allowing California to do so would have [negatively] impacted the hundreds of thousands of truck drivers who deliver critical goods across the country each and every day.' Recommended Reading Congress revokes Advanced Clean Trucks waiver, creating ambiguity for refuse fleets Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio


CNN
35 minutes ago
- CNN
Voice of America brings back Farsi-speaking staff amid Israel-Iran conflict
Several dozen sidelined Voice of America staffers have suddenly been called back to work as the Israel-Iran conflict escalates. It is a dramatic turn of events for the American government-funded broadcasting system that was shut down by the Trump administration in March. Steve Herman, who has been VOA's chief national correspondent since 2022, said the broadcaster specifically brought back Farsi language speakers who have been on paid administrative leave. The move suggests that the US government wants to bolster its programming into Iran. Before the cutbacks were instituted in March, VOA said that it produced four-plus hours a day of 'Persian-language programming to Iran.' The VOA website said the content 'confronts the disinformation and censorship efforts of the Iranian regime and enhances U.S. efforts to speak directly to the Iranian people and the global Persian-speaking diaspora.' It is unclear how much content VOA has been beaming into Iran in recent weeks. The broadcaster's VOA Farsi channel on YouTube showed eight new videos since Israel struck inside Iran early Friday. Staffers from some other VOA language services have also been called back to work. Brett Bruen, president of the consulting firm Global Situation Room, reacted to Herman's X post about the news by tweeting to Kari Lake, the Trump loyalist who has been tasked with gutting VOA. 'Turns out not having a channel to communicate with the Iranian people was a pretty bad idea, @KariLake,' Bruen wrote. A spokesperson for Lake did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment. Patsy Widakuswara, one of the sidelined journalists who is suing the Trump administration to salvage the broadcaster, told CNN on Friday that 'VOA's role in providing independent, factual and authoritative news has been proven throughout countless times of crisis. But after months off the air, we've already lost a lot of audience and credibility. They should bring us all back so we can respond to breaking news in all parts of the world.'