Hegseth: USNS Havey Milk to be renamed USNS Oscar V. Peterson
1 of 5 | Secretary Pete Hegseth said Friday, the USNS Harvey Milk will be re-named the USNS Oscar V. Peterson, adding the Defense Department is "taking the politics out of ship naming.' File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
June 27 (UPI) -- The USNS Harvey Milk is being renamed after Oscar V. Peterson, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced Friday.
"I am pleased to announce that the United States Navy is renaming the USNS Harvey Milk to the USNS Oscar V. Peterson," Hegseth said on X, in a post accompanied by a video.
"We are taking the politics out of ship naming. We're not renaming the ship to anything political. This is not about political activists, unlike the previous administration," Hegseth said in the video Friday.
Peterson received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service in World War II, after the Navy chief petty officer was wounded in battle.
"During the Battle of the Coral Sea in May of 1942, Chief Watertender Peterson led a repair party on the USS Neosho. The ship was severely damaged by Japanese dive bombers, and the entire repair party was either killed or severely wounded," Hegseth said Friday.
"Peterson himself was gravely wounded, yet he managed to single-handedly close the bulkhead stop valves, thereby helping to keep the ship operational."
Hegseth previously confirmed he had ordered the U.S. Navy to rename the replenishment oiler, which bears the name of Milk, a gay rights activist assassinated in 1978. The Defense Secretary at the time said the move was being made to align "with president and SECDEF objectives and SECNAV priorities of re-establishing the warrior culture."
A Defense Department official said at the time the renaming was intentionally done during Pride month.
Milk won a San Francisco supervisor seat in 1977. The U.S. Navy veteran served in the Korean War and became the first openly gay person in the country to be elected to public office. His name has remained synonymous with the LGBTQ movement.
Milk was assassinated the year after taking office and was in 2009 posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Barack Obama.
The decision to remove his name from one of the six John Lewis Class ships was met with protest from Democrats. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., at the time called the decision "shameful." Pelosi's Congressional District includes San Francisco.
The ship was first named after Milk in 2016, becoming the first naval vessel named after an openly-gay person. It was launched in 2021.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
5 minutes ago
- UPI
G-7 agrees to exclude U.S. companies from 15% minimum tax
Leaders of the G-7 nations pose for a photo in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada, on Monday: (from left) Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, U.S. President Donald Trump, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. The G-7 announced the U.S. would be excluded from the 15% minimum tax on American companies. Photo via G7/UPI | License Photo June 29 (UPI) -- Group of Seven nations agreed to exempt U.S. companies from a 15% minimum corporate tax rate, the countries said in a joint statement. The nonbinding deal was announced Saturday but still requires approval from the 38-member Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that established the 2021 agreement on taxing companies. G-7 nations are part of the OECED. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had proposed a "side-by-side solution" for American-headquartered companies that would be exempt from the Income Inclusion Rule and Undertaxed Profits Rule "in recognition of the existing U.S. minimum tax rules to which they are subject." The massive spending bill now being considered in Congress originally included a "revenge tax" that would have imposed a levy of up to 20% on investments from countries that taxed U.S. companies. "I have asked the Senate and House to remove the Section 899 protective measure from consideration in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill," Bessent wrote in a multi-post thread on X on Thursday. The House has approved the massive legislation and the Senate is considering it. "It is an honorable compromise as it spares us from the automatic retaliations of Section 899 of the Big, Beautiful Bill," Italian Finance Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti told local media. "We are not claiming victory, but we obtained some concessions as the U.S. pledged to engage in OECD negotiations on fair taxation," an unnamed French official told Politico Europe. The official called the "revenge tax" a potentially "huge burden for French companies." Trump has criticized this provision because he said it would limit sovereignty and send U.S. tax revenues to other countries. "The Trump administration remains vigilant against all discriminatory and extraterritorial foreign taxes applied against Americans," Bessent wrote Thursday. Trump has imposed a July 9 deadline for U.S. trading partners to lower taxes on foreign goods, threatening high duties on the worst offenders, including 50% on goods from the 27 European Union members. In April, a baseline tariff was imposed on most U.S. trading partners, with higher rates on certain companies and products. In 2021, nearly 140 countries agreed to tax multinational companies at the 15% minimum, regardless of where they were headquartered. In late April, the European Union, Britain, Japan and Canada agreed to exempt the United States from the 15% minimum tax on companies. "Delivery of a side-by-side system will facilitate further progress to stabilize the international tax system, including a constructive dialogue on the taxation of the digital economy and on preserving the tax sovereignty of all countries," the joint statement read. The agreement, according to the statement, would ensure that any substantial risks identified "with respect to the level playing field, or risks of base erosion and profit shifting, are addressed to preserve the common policy objectives of the side-by-side system." The G-7 includes Britain, France, Germany, Italy in Europe, as well as Canada, Japan and U.S. Before 2014, the group was known as the G-8 until Russia was expelled after annexing the Crimea region of Ukraine. The chairs of the House and Senate committees responsible for tax policy cheered the agreement. "We applaud President Trump and his team for protecting the interests of American workers and businesses after years of congressional Republicans sounding the alarm on the Biden Administration's unilateral global tax surrender under Pillar 2," Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and Missouri Rep. Jason Smith, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a press release. The agreement also, however, has its critics. "The U.S. is trying to exempt itself by arm-twisting others, which would make the tax deal entirely useless," Markus Meinzer, director of policy at the Tax Justice Network, told Politico Europe. "A ship with a U.S.-sized hole in its hull won't float."
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
With Supreme Court ruling, another check on Trump's power fades
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Advertisement Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. Advertisement But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the 'imperial presidency.' Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors general and sidelining the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits, and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorized and appropriated. Advertisement Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorization from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, recently told her constituents that 'we are all afraid' of Trump. While the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing the president's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. Advertisement Still, in concurring opinions, two other key members of the conservative bloc, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned lower-court judges not to lower standards for using alternative means to issue sweeping orders in an effort to circumvent the ruling. Alito wrote that 'district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors' of legal rules. Thomas added that if judges do not 'carefully heed this court's guidance' and act within limits, 'this court will continue to be 'duty bound' to intervene.' In a rare move that signaled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship,' she wrote. 'Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.' Sotomayor also said the administration did not ask to entirely halt the multiple injunctions against its order because it knew the directive was patently illegal, and accused the majority of playing along with that open gamesmanship. She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. Advertisement All six of the justices who voted to end universal injunctions were Republican appointees, including three Trump installed on the bench in his first term. The same supermajority has ruled in ways that have enhanced his power in other avenues. Last year, the bloc granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts as president. The ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, asserted that presidents have absolute immunity for anything they do with the Justice Department and their supervision of federal law enforcement power. Emboldened, Trump this year has built on his approach from his first term, when he informally pressured prosecutors to investigate his political foes. He has issued formal orders to scrutinize specific people he does not like, shattering the post-Watergate norm of a Justice Department case independent from White House political control. The supermajority also has blessed Trump's gambit in firing Democratic members of independent agency commissions before their terms were up. The conservative justices have made clear that they are prepared to overturn a long-standing precedent allowing Congress to establish specialized agencies to be run by panels whose members cannot be arbitrarily fired by presidents. In a separate concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a realpolitik take. The majority's exegesis of what powers Congress understood itself to be granting lower courts when it created them in 1789 was a smokescreen of mind-numbing 'legalese,' she wrote, obscuring the question of whether a court can order the executive branch to follow the law. 'In a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law — and it must,' she wrote before striking a cautionary note. Advertisement 'Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by law,' she added. 'By duty and nature, federal courts say what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute), and require those who are subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law.' But Barrett accused her of forgetting that courts, too, must obey legal limits. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary,' Barrett wrote. 'No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law. But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so.' This article originally appeared in
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
What the Supreme Court's latest decision on LGBTQ inclusion means for California
Parents with religious objections to schoolbooks that favorably refer to lesbians, gays or transgender people have a right to be notified and remove their young children from class, the Supreme Court has ruled in the latest of a series of cases condemned by LGBT advocates. But it may not be the last word in California. Friday's 6-3 decision in a case from Maryland came a week after the same Supreme Court majority upheld laws in Tennessee and 26 other states denying puberty blockers and other gender-affirming care for transgender minors. A month earlier, the justices allowed President Donald Trump to expel thousands of transgender troops from the U.S. military while it considers his request to ban them from service. Together, the decisions mark a broad shift that California is fighting. Two years ago, Gov. Gavin Newsom imposed a $1.5 million fine on the Temecula Valley Unified School District in Riverside County for rejecting the state's social studies curriculum because it briefly discussed Harvey Milk, the gay-rights leader and San Francisco supervisor. Milk was assassinated in 1978 by former Supervisor Dan White, who also fatally shot Mayor George Moscone. After imposing the fine and shipping a supply of Milk-inclusive textbooks to the Temecula district, Newsom signed a law, Assembly Bill 1078 by Corey Jackson, D-Perris (Riverside County), that prohibits school boards from banning instructional materials because they contain discussions of a particular 'individual or group,' such as Milk and his advocates. The debate — inclusion and trans rights on one side, freedom of speech and religion on the other — was addressed Friday by a different set of referees, the Supreme Court's conservative majority. One of its most outspoken members, Justice Samuel Alito, said the Maryland school district's use of elementary-school textbooks with LGBT characters or themes violated the rights of religious parents to oversee their children's education. 'A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,' Alito wrote. He described one storybook for grades kindergarten through five that showed Kate, apparently a transgender girl, in what Alito described as a 'sex-neutral or sex-ambiguous bathroom,' telling her friends that a bathroom 'should be a safe space.' Another book, titled 'Prince & Knight,' showed two men battling a dragon, then falling in love and marrying with applause from 'the whole kingdom,' Alito said. Even if those books do not expressly endorse LGBT rights, Alito wrote, 'they are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated' and are being presented to 'young, impressionable children' without notification to their parents. He cited the court's 1972 ruling that allowed Amish parents to remove their children from school after the eighth grade, in accordance with their religion, despite a Wisconsin law requiring attendance until age 16. Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling 'invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure' to subjects that displease students' parents. Giving children 'of all faiths and backgrounds … an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society ... is critical to our Nation's civic vitality,' said Sotomayor, joined by the court's other two Democratic appointees, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious faiths.' California, unlike Maryland, has a law allowing parents with religious objections to their children's schoolbooks to remove their children from class — but only for classes related to health care. And last month a federal judge in San Diego barred a school district from assigning a book about a transgender child to a fifth-grader in a non-health care class without notifying his parents or allowing them to object. The book, 'My Shadow Is Pink,' tells the story of a boy who likes to wear dresses and is criticized at first by his father, who eventually comes to accept him. It was part of the Encinitas Union School District's 'buddy program' in which fifth-graders use school materials to mentor kindergarteners. Although state law serves 'an admirable purpose' by requiring schools to teach students about the contributions of 'historically marginalized groups,' the district appears to have violated the fifth-grader's constitutional rights by not allowing him or his parents to object, said U.S. District Judge M. James Lorenz, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton. The district has appealed Lorenz's order to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which now can rely on the Supreme Court's analysis in assessing the state law. 'I am very concerned about the practical implications' of Friday's ruling, said Jonathan Glater, a professor of educational law at UC Berkeley. 'If I am a teacher, I might share with all parents a detailed explanation of all materials students might be exposed to, so that they can pull their students out of particular segments. The burden on a school of administrating those opt-outs is clear. And of course, a parental opt-out is highly unlikely to stop kids from talking with each other about the disfavored material; that is not how kids work.' The Supreme Court's ruling drew praise and criticism. Attorney Eric Baxter of the Becket Fund, which represented the Maryland youth's parents, said the court had reaffirmed that 'parents — not government — have the final say in how their children are raised.' But Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, a union representing 2.8 million teachers, said the ruling 'could have a chilling effect on students for generations to come.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who filed arguments with the court supporting the Maryland district, seemed unperturbed. 'By ensuring our curriculum reflects the full diversity of our student population, we foster an environment where every student feels seen, supported, and empowered to succeed,' he said in a statement after the ruling. 'In California, we will continue to remain a beacon of inclusivity, diversity, and belonging.' The case is Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-297.
