logo
'Deeply Negative Message': Relatives of Fort Gregg-Adams' Namesakes React to Trump Renaming

'Deeply Negative Message': Relatives of Fort Gregg-Adams' Namesakes React to Trump Renaming

Yahooa day ago

Relatives of the late Lt. Gen. Arthur Gregg and Lt. Col. Charity Adams-Earley anticipated it, but when President Donald Trump announced their parents' names would be stripped from the Virginia base, they were still surprised.
Trump, in front of a crowd of Army soldiers Tuesday at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, said "for a little breaking news" that his administration would be removing the name Fort Gregg-Adams, which was bestowed on the base in 2023, and returning it to Fort Lee, originally named in honor of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, who commanded troops of the slave-holding South during the Civil War.
In a follow-up statement from the Army, it became clear that the base would not be explicitly named for the leader of the Confederate troops but instead for Pvt. Fitz Lee, a Buffalo soldier awarded the Medal of Honor for bravery in combat during the Spanish-American War.
Read Next: Bragg Soldiers Who Cheered Trump's Political Attacks While in Uniform Were Checked for Allegiance, Appearance
In all, the Trump administration is restoring the names of nine Army bases that shed Confederate namesakes in 2023 following an independent commission review directed by Congress. In each case, the administration found service members to use as namesakes who shared the names of the Confederate Civil War-era figures that were removed.
The latest renaming was designed to sidestep the law passed by Congress ordering the removal of names honoring Confederates who fought to secede from the U.S. However, in Trump's speech at Fort Bragg, he specifically mentioned "Robert E. Lee."
It was seen as a slight to the descendants of Gregg and Adams-Earley. Stanley Earley, the son of the soldier who served as the highest-ranking Black female officer in World War II, told Military.com that while he wasn't shocked at the change, he was "surprised" as well as "disappointed and upset" by the sudden announcement.
"The naming of Fort Gregg-Adams sent a powerful positive message to the future," Earley told Military.com in an interview Wednesday. "Undoing it sends an even stronger, deeply negative message."
Just two years ago, Fort Lee was renamed for Gregg -- the first Black brigadier general in the U.S. Army Quartermaster Corps and the first Black lieutenant general in the Army -- as well as Adams-Earley, who was the first Black officer in what would later become the Women's Army Corps prior to her death in 2002.
It was a particularly powerful moment for Alicia Collier, Gregg's daughter. He was one of the first service members in recent history to have a base named after him while he was still alive. He died in August at the age of 96.
"It's very disheartening," Collier told Military.com on Wednesday. "My father worked his entire life trying to move the Army and, as a result, the nation forward, and now we're watching it slip backwards."
Collier and Earley both first spoke to Military.com in February, expressing worries that their parents' names could be removed from the Virginia base under Trump's Department of Defense. Both previously praised the intensive review process of the Naming Commission, which was created by Congress to make recommendations on base names and ultimately landed on their parents' histories to honor.
Notably, neither said anything negative regarding Pvt. Lee, whose name will now adorn the Virginia base. The Spanish-American War hero was born just 25 miles away from the base in Dinwiddie County, Virginia, according to the Congressional Medal of Honor Society's database.
"During a coastal assault in Cuba, Lee voluntarily disembarked under direct enemy fire to rescue wounded comrades from the battlefield," the Army's statement said.
Ultimately, it's the legal technicalities that are concerning to the relatives of Gregg and Adams, as well as Trump's own admission during the speech that it was to honor "Robert E. Lee."
"I think that the intent is that we're still honoring the original Robert E. Lee," Collier said. "It's a very interesting way to work around."
Neither Collier nor Earley said they had been contacted by government or military officials prior to Tuesday's announcement by Trump.
Earley said he was caught off guard, in part, because in late April, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson honored the 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion, known as the Six Triple Eight commanded by Adams, with a Congressional Gold Medal.
Johnson praised "the incomparable Lt. Col. Charity Adams-Earley who guided her unit" and commended her "unshakable grace and resolve," according to a copy of his remarks.
In a few weeks, Earley was surprised that sentiment seemed to change.
"They just had the Congressional Gold Medal session for the Six Triple Eight, and there were so many positive statements about the unit and my mother and what they did," Earley said. "It's a little bit surprising."
The renaming of the bases is just the latest in a wide range of Trump administration actions removing historical ties. Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the Navy to rename a ship that honored Harvey Milk, a gay rights icon, and other ship names are reportedly under review.
Given the cultural shift by the administration, both of the descendants said it's not clear what the next steps forward would be.
"There isn't really any recourse that's likely to be successful, so I guess we'll just have to move forward and hope that maybe, at the very least the original decision to rename, and that Charity Adams' and Arthur Gregg's names, will still be a part of our history and that we won't erase it," Collier said.
Related: Their Relatives Were Black Heroes. They Fear the Military Won't Celebrate Their Stories Anymore.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'Afraid' for court: Trump DOJ sues NY over immigration enforcement in state courthouses
'Afraid' for court: Trump DOJ sues NY over immigration enforcement in state courthouses

USA Today

time33 minutes ago

  • USA Today

'Afraid' for court: Trump DOJ sues NY over immigration enforcement in state courthouses

'Afraid' for court: Trump DOJ sues NY over immigration enforcement in state courthouses Show Caption Hide Caption Three Democratic governors testify in House hearing over immigration New York Governor Kathy Hochul, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, testify on Capitol Hill over immigration policies. NEW YORK − The Trump administration on June 12 sued New York state for its law restricting federal immigration enforcement inside state courthouses. The lawsuit challenges a New York state law that blocks immigration officials from arresting people at or near New York courthouses. The complaint, filed in federal court in Albany, New York, alleges the law frustrates federal immigration enforcement at a venue - state courthouses - where authorities can safely make arrests. U.S. Justice Department lawyers said New York's law and policies restricting cooperation with federal immigration officers violated the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which gives federal law precedence over state law. The lawsuit filed in federal court in Albany comes after the administration has increased immigration enforcement at workplaces and while people appeared for immigration court hearings. People have protested against the federal actions in cities across the country. Attorney General Pam Bondi blamed so-called 'sanctuary city policies' for violence seen in California. Sanctuary policies generally refers to those limiting local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. The Justice Department has also sued four New Jersey cities for their laws. New York state had similar policies preventing agents from apprehending migrants, Bondi said in a statement. 'This latest lawsuit in a series of sanctuary city litigation underscores the Department of Justice's commitment to keeping Americans safe and aggressively enforcing the law,' she said. Justice Department lawyers challenged the 2020 state law preventing federal officials from arresting people for civil immigration violations at state courthouses without a signed judicial warrant. New York's 2020 law doesn't apply to federal courthouses or immigration court, according to the legislation's author, state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Manhattan Democrat who called the lawsuit 'baseless and frivolous." The Justice Department said in a news release that enforcement at courthouses reduces risk of people fleeing or dangerous situations, especially since there is enhanced screening inside court buildings. 'Ongoing assault' on rule of law in NY, state officials say State officials said federal agents entering local courthouses make communities unsafe by preventing people from accessing the judicial system. The law ensures New Yorkers can pursue justice without fear, Geoff Burgan, a spokesperson for state Attorney General Letitia James, said in a statement. 'Due process means nothing if people are too afraid to appear in court,' he said. James would defend the law and 'all of New York's laws, just as she will continue to defend the rights and dignity of all who call New York home,' Burgan said. Hoylman-Sigal, who authored the law, said the lawsuit was part of the administration's 'ongoing assault on the rule of law in New York.' To avoid conflicting with federal law or federal immigration authority, the law doesn't apply to federal courts or immigration courts, he said in a statement. Meanwhile, it allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest people in local courthouses when they have 'actual, valid judicial warrants.' 'At a time when masked ICE officials are roaming the state and lawlessly detaining New Yorkers without any due process, the law preserves access to justice and participation in the judicial process,' he said. 'Sensitive' areas targets of immigration enforcement A contentious issue has been federal agents targeting people in 'sensitive" areas. Prior Department of Homeland Security guidelines banned enforcement in areas such as schools, places of worship and hospitals. When President Donald Trump took office in January, DHS overturned the longstanding policy to give agents discretion on such actions. The administration enacted another policy permitting enforcement at or near courthouses. Justice Department lawyers also challenged two New York executive orders restricting civil immigration arrests at state facilities, and a separate policy preventing state employees from sharing information to federal officers related to civil immigration enforcement. 'Through these enactments, New York obstructs federal law enforcement and facilitates the evasion of federal law by dangerous criminals, notwithstanding federal agents' statutory mandate to detain and remove illegal aliens,' the complaint said. The same day as the lawsuit, Gov. Kathy Hochul was one of three Democratic governors testifying before Congress about "sanctuary" policies and immigration enforcement. Hochul said her state has cooperated with ICE since she's taken office. "But we have to draw a line somewhere,' Hochul said. 'New York cannot deputize our state officers to enforce civil immigration violations, such as overstaying a visa.' The administration's attack on the 2020 law would turn courthouses 'into traps,' Donna Liberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. It would further force immigrant communities into the shadows. An initial conference date for the lawsuit was scheduled for Sept. 10, court records showed. Contributing: Bart Jansen, USA TODAY Eduardo Cuevas is based in New York City. Reach him by email at emcuevas1@ or on Signal at emcuevas.01.

Gavin Newsom Brutally Mocks Trump's ‘This Is Not Good' Understatement
Gavin Newsom Brutally Mocks Trump's ‘This Is Not Good' Understatement

Yahoo

time34 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Gavin Newsom Brutally Mocks Trump's ‘This Is Not Good' Understatement

Donald Trump finally admitted there have been negative consequences to his immigration crackdown ― and California Gov. Gavin Newsom was ready to pounce. On his Truth Social platform Thursday, Trump saidhe'd been hearing complaints from 'our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business' about his mass deportation agenda. 'Our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,' Trump acknowledged before claiming that 'Criminals' are now 'applying for those jobs.' 'This is not good,' he wrote, promising, 'Changes are coming!' Newsom ― who has been railing against the president since Trump called in the military to suppress immigrant rights protests in Los Angeles ― immediately shot back: 'Turns out, chasing hard working people through ranches and farms and snatching women and children off the streets is not good policy.' Turns out, chasing hard working people through ranches and farms and snatching women and children off the streets is not good policy. — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 12, 2025 A short time later, Newsom posted a video saying that Trump had once again reversed course on policy, a pattern that has inspired the phrase 'Trump Always Chickens Out,' or TACO. 'MAJOR WIN: Trump just reversed course on immigration. We're watching closely — and we'll hold him to it,' Newsom posted. 'This happened because you spoke up. Keep it going. Keep it peaceful. It's working.' MAJOR WIN: Trump just reversed course on watching closely — and we'll hold him to it. This happened because you spoke up. Keep it going. Keep it peaceful. It's working. — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 12, 2025 It's not clear that Trump, despite promising 'changes,' has actually reversed course on any of his policies toward immigrants. In the meantime, people on social media weren't exactly celebrating the president's epiphany. To be fair, Trump always seems surprised when something he does backfires. His budget, his tariffs, his deportations have all backfired for the same reason: incompetent execution. He just never has the discipline to do anything right — Patrick Strother (@PatrickStrother) June 12, 2025 Trump just realized how his terrible policy is hurting the American people. He caved just like he always do. — Ron Smith (@Ronxyz00) June 12, 2025 Immigration TACO. — Paul Graham (@paulg) June 12, 2025 Finally, someone had to spell it out for Trump and his MAGA minions—chasing hardworking people off farms and snatching families off streets isn't 'great policy,' it's a disgrace! The irony of Trump needing a reality check on what the rest of us have known for years is laughable.… — Peter (@_e_tto_) June 12, 2025 Trump is having a really hard time finding the criminals he so dearly longs to deport. So, he's going after the soft targets. People who can't afford to miss a single day's work, even if it means getting dragged from the fields they work in. — Deborah, My Friends Call Me Slayer🔥🐉⚔️🔥 (@drodvik52) June 12, 2025 You can't call them *criminals* one day and *essential workers* the they pick your food, clean your rooms, raise your children— they're not the threat. They're the kind of kingdom arrests the servants but pardons the kings who exploit them? — Digital Jesus (@0xDigital_Jesus) June 12, 2025 Gavin Newsom Savagely Corrects Sarah Huckabee Sanders Gavin Newsom Delivers Grim Predictions About Trump's Next Move Gavin Newsom Offers Blunt Reality Check On Who's Really 'Defending Insurrectionists' Gov. Newsom Files Restraining Order To Block Trump's Militarization Of LA

A G.O.P. Plan to Sell Public Land Is Back. This Time, It's Millions of Acres.
A G.O.P. Plan to Sell Public Land Is Back. This Time, It's Millions of Acres.

New York Times

time34 minutes ago

  • New York Times

A G.O.P. Plan to Sell Public Land Is Back. This Time, It's Millions of Acres.

Senate Republicans are resurrecting a plan to sell millions of acres of federal lands as part of President Trump's giant tax and spending bill, setting up a fight within the party. The proposal would require the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to identify and sell between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of public lands across 11 Western states to build housing. Past efforts to auction off public land have enraged conservationists and have also proved contentious with some Republicans. A smaller proposal to sell around 500,000 acres of federal land in Utah and Nevada was stripped from the House version of the tax bill last month after opposition from Representative Ryan Zinke, Republican of Montana and a former interior secretary. 'This was my San Juan Hill; I do not support the widespread sale or transfer of public lands,' Mr. Zinke said last month. 'Once the land is sold, we will never get it back.' The new plan to sell public lands was included in draft legislation issued on Wednesday by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that is part of Mr. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' The draft envisions raising as much as $10 billion by selling land for housing in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming over the next five years. Notably, Mr. Zinke's home state of Montana was left off the list. Senator Mike Lee, the Utah Republican who leads the energy committee, said that the move would turn 'federal liabilities into taxpayer value, while making housing more affordable for hardworking American families.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store