Pete Hegseth removed Harvey Milk's name from a U.S. Navy ship to send a message
June is nationally recognized as Pride Month — a yearly celebration of the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals to the rich tapestry of American history.
The Pentagon, however, under the leadership of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, is marking Pride Month by offering a one-finger salute to the LGBTQ community. It's part of a larger effort to whitewash the accomplishments and, arguably, the humanity, of women and minorities in the U.S. military.
Earlier this week, Military.com reported that Hegseth ordered the renaming of the USNS Harvey Milk. Milk was a gay rights trailblazer, the first openly gay man to win elected office in the United States. A year after winning a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977, Milk and the city's mayor, George Moscone, were murdered in City Hall by a disgruntled ex-supervisor.
Milk had previously served in the U.S. Navy and was commissioned as an officer in 1951, before receiving a 'less than honorable' discharge in 1955 after questions were raised about his sexual orientation.
The timing of the announcement, during Pride Month, reports Military.com, was intentional — a punitive and mean-spirited slight at the estimated 80,000 LGBTQ+ service members in the U.S. military.
While refusing to confirm the renaming, Department of Defense spokesperson Sean Parnell issued a statement saying, 'Secretary Hegseth is committed to ensuring that the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the Commander-in-Chief's priorities, our nation's history, and the warrior ethos.'
It's not hard to read between the lines here: 'Gay service members can't be warriors and aren't tough enough to serve in the military.' It's a broadside so juvenile and homophobic it's something one might expect to hear in a fraternity house rather than the halls of the nation's military.
Hegseth's assaults on diversity are not limited to just the LGBTQ+ community. The USNS Harvey Milk is part of the Navy's John Lewis-class of oiler ships, which are named for civil rights leaders and activists (Lewis, a former member of Congress, was, of course, a prominent civil rights activist).
According to CBS News, the Navy is also considering renaming other Lewis-class oilers — including the USNS Thurgood Marshall, USNS Ruth Bader Ginsburg and USNS Harriet Tubman. Marshall and Ginsburg were Supreme Court justices (Marshall was the first Black man to serve on the Supreme Court) and Tubman was a legendary Black abolitionist. There's no word on whether two other Lewis-class ships, the USNS Earl Warren and USNS Robert F. Kennedy, will be renamed. But both men are white, so it seems unlikely.
Hegseth's move to erase the contributions of nonwhite, female members of the armed forces has been a recurrent theme since he took office. Before Trump nominated the former 'Fox & Friends Weekend' host to become the head of the Department of Defense, Hegseth waged rhetorical war against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and what he termed military 'wokeness.'
In his 2024 book, 'The War on Warriors,' Hegseth railed against 'feminism, genderism, safetyism, climate worship, manufactured 'violent extremism,' straight-up weirdo s---, and a grab bag of social justice causes that infect today's fighting force.' They are, he argues, 'anathema to everything the American military stands for.'
After taking office, Hegseth said, 'The single dumbest phrase in military history is our diversity is our strength.'
Since then, he has reinstated a ban on transgender service members. He ended a program, signed into law by President Trump in 2017, to increase leadership roles for women in the military. He fired a host of female military leaders, including Admiral Linda Fagan, the first woman to lead the U.S. Coast Guard. His tenure also saw the dismissal of Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the second Black man to hold the job. Considering Hegseth's criticisms of DEI, the implication of these firings is that women and minorities who rose up the ranks did so because of racial preferences, not because of their accomplishments or years of service.
Another of Hegseth's first moves as secretary was an order to remove any mention of diversity from the Pentagon's website, which led to the embarrassing deletion of a webpage honoring former Army veteran Jackie Robinson, among others (the page was restored after a public backlash). In all, more than 26,000 images have been flagged for removal from the department's website, and the total could reach as high as 100,000. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of those removed detail the accomplishments of women and minorities.
Hegseth has also ordered the nation's prestigious military academies to stop taking into account race, gender and ethnicity in their admissions practices, and has ordered the academies to purge educational materials focused on what he calls 'divisive concepts.'
Unless one believes that only white men are capable of serving with distinction, it's difficult to see how any of this makes the military stronger or more lethal. In an era when America's military advantages lie in information technology and virtual control of the modern battlefield, America needs a broad array of individuals to make up the military of the 21st century, not just Hegseth's retrograde vision of interchangeable white male trigger-pullers. Hegseth's message to a generation of future military leaders is that if you're a woman (who make up 18% of active service members) or Black (also around 18% of the active force) or gay or a member of some other minority group, you are not welcome.
Hegseth's moves, while strategically misguided, also run counter to the core values of the institution he runs.
For the past 75 years, the military has been a catalyst for racial equality in American society. In 1948, President Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military, well before the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the discriminatory legal doctrine of 'separate but equal.'
Parnell, the spokesperson, has said that Hegseth's goal is to create 'a colorblind, merit-based culture' at the Pentagon. But acknowledging only the accomplishments of white, male service members and removing the names of gay, women and Black civil rights activists suggests that the Pentagon under Hegseth's leadership only sees those who look like him.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new approach to Russia's war in Ukraine might be his worst yet
Donald Trump and his team have spent a fair amount of time recently trying to convince the public that the president's policy toward Russia's war in Ukraine is having a positive impact. In mid-March, for example, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt boasted, 'I can say we are on the 10th yard line of peace, and we've never been closer to a peace deal than we are in this moment.' Two months later, Trump participated in a two-hour phone meeting with Vladimir Putin, and the Republican touted the discussion as a possible breakthrough. 'The tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent,' the American president declared, adding that his chat would 'immediately' lead to new diplomatic negotiations. Soon after, Kyiv came under a large-scale Russian drone and missile attack, described by Ukrainian officials as the largest aerial assault on the country since the war began. It was soon followed by Ukraine's surprise drone attack that proved disastrous for Russia, and that jolted global perceptions. This in turn led Russia to launch one of the largest barrages of missiles and drones of the war at targets across Ukraine. This does not look like 'the 10th yard line of peace.' It was against this backdrop that Trump has apparently come up with a new metaphor. The New York Times reported: As Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz, sat beside him watching in silence, President Trump compared Russia and Ukraine to two fighting children who needed to work out their differences for a while before anyone could intervene. 'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled. Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.' 'And I gave that analogy to Putin yesterday,' the Republican added. 'I said, 'President, maybe you have to keep fighting and suffering a lot, because both sides are suffering, before you pull them apart, before they're able to be pulled apart.'' So, a few things. First, comparing this conflict to a dispute among children on a playground is unhelpful, and Trump complaining about anyone engaging in juvenile behavior is unwise, given everything we know about his temperament and frequent tantrums. Second, the idea that the White House is prepared to let Russia and Ukraine 'fight for a while' overlooks the inconvenient fact that they've already been fighting for a while. Indeed, Russia invaded Ukraine back in February 2022 — more than three years ago — which Trump described at the time as 'genius' and part of a 'wonderful' strategy. But let's also not lose sight of the evolution of the American president's thinking. Trump's Plan A for the war in Ukraine was ending the conflict within 24 hours by way of a secret strategy he assured voters was real. When it became obvious that this strategy didn't actually exist, Trump moved on to Plan B: He told Russia that if it failed to end the conflict quickly, the White House 'would have no other choice' but to impose new economic sanctions. When Putin ignored those threats and Trump failed to follow through, the American president floated Plan C (international economic penalties designed to force a ceasefire), Plan D (Trump-backed bilateral talks between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy) and Plan E (bilateral talks between Trump and Putin). Plan F — White House passivity — is now increasingly coming into focus. Trump's latest plan to end the conflict is apparently to stop trying to end the conflict. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The AI lobby plants its flag in Washington
Top artificial intelligence companies are rapidly expanding their lobbying footprint in Washington — and so far, Washington is turning out to be a very soft target. Two privately held AI companies, OpenAI and Anthropic — which once positioned themselves as cautious, research-driven counterweights to aggressive Big Tech firms — are now adding Washington staff, ramping up their lobbying spending and chasing contracts from the estimated $75 billion federal IT budget, a significant portion of which now focuses on AI. They have company. Scale AI, a specialist contractor with the Pentagon and other agencies, is also planning to expand its government relations and lobbying teams, a spokesperson told POLITICO. In late March, the AI-focused chipmaking giant Nvidia registered its first in-house lobbyists. AI lobbyists are 'very visible' and 'very present on the hill,' said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) in an interview at the Special Competitive Studies Project AI+ Expo this week. 'They're nurturing relationships with lots of senators and a handful of members [of the House] in Congress. It's really important for their ambitions, their expectations of the future of AI, to have Congress involved, even if it's only to stop us from doing anything.' This lobbying push aims to capitalize on a wave of support from both the Trump administration and the Republican Congress, both of which have pumped up the AI industry as a linchpin of American competitiveness and a means for shrinking the federal workforce. They don't all present a unified front — Anthropic, in particular, has found itself at odds with conservatives, and on Thursday its CEO Dario Amodei broke with other companies by urging Congress to pass a national transparency standard for AI companies — but so far the AI lobby is broadly getting what it wants. 'The overarching ask is for no regulation or for light-touch regulation, and so far, they've gotten that," said Doug Calidas, senior vice president of government affairs for the AI policy nonprofit Americans for Responsible Innovation. In a sign of lawmakers' deference to industry, the House passed a ten-year freeze on enforcing state and local AI regulation as part of its megabill that is currently working through the Senate. Critics, however, worry that the AI conversation in Washington has become an overly tight loop between companies and their GOP supporters — muting important concerns about the growth of a powerful but hard-to-control technology. 'There's been a huge pivot for [AI companies] as the money has gotten closer,' Gary Marcus, an AI and cognitive science expert, said of the leading AI firms. 'The Trump administration is too chummy with the big tech companies, and basically ignoring what the American people want, which is protection from the many risks of AI.' Anthropic declined to comment for this story, referring POLITICO to its March submission to the AI Action Plan that the White House is crafting after President Donald Trump repealed a sprawling AI executive order issued by the Biden administration. OpenAI, too, declined to comment. This week several AI firms, including OpenAI, co-sponsored the Special Competitive Studies Project's AI+ Expo, an annual Washington trade show that has quickly emerged as a kind of bazaar for companies trying to sell services to the government. (Disclosure: POLITICO was a media partner of the conference.) They're jostling for influence against more established government contractors like Palantir, which has been steadily building up its lobbying presence in D.C. for years, while Meta, Google, Amazon and Microsoft — major tech platforms with AI as part of their pitch — already have dozens of lobbyists in their employ. What the AI lobby wants is a classic Washington twofer: fewer regulations to limit its growth, and more government contracts. The government budget for AI has been growing. Federal agencies across the board — from the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to the IRS and the Department of Veterans Affairs — are looking to build AI capacity. The Trump administration's staff cuts and automation push is expected to accelerate the demand for private firms to fill the gap with AI. For AI, 'growth' also demands energy and, on the policy front, AI companies have been a key driver of the recent push in Congress and the White House to open up new energy sources, streamline permitting for building new data centers and funnel private investment into the construction of these sites. Late last year, OpenAI released an infrastructure blueprint for the U.S. urging the federal government to prepare for a massive spike in demand for computational infrastructure and energy supply. Among its recommendations: creating special AI zones to fast-track permits for energy and data centers, expanding the national power grid and boosting government support for private investment in major energy projects. Those recommendations are now being very closely echoed by Trump administration figures. Last month, at the Bitcoin 2025 Conference in Las Vegas, David Sacks — Trump's AI and crypto czar — laid out a sweeping vision that mirrored the AI industry's lobbying goals. Speaking to a crowd of 35,000, Sacks stressed the foundational role of energy for both AI and cryptocurrency, saying bluntly: 'You need power.' He applauded President Donald Trump's push to expand domestic oil and gas production, framing it as essential to keeping the U.S. ahead in the global AI and crypto race. This is a huge turnaround from a year ago, when AI companies faced a very different landscape in Washington. The Biden administration, and many congressional Democrats, wanted to regulate the industry to guard against bias, job loss and existential risk. No longer. Since Trump's election, AI has become central to the conversation about global competition with China, with Silicon Valley venture capitalists like Sacks and Marc Andreessen now in positions of influence within the Trump orbit. Trump's director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy is Michael Kratsios, former managing director at Scale AI. Trump himself has proudly announced a series of massive Gulf investment deals in AI. Sacks, in his Las Vegas speech, pointed to those recent deal announcements as evidence of what he called a 'total comprehensive shift' in Washington's approach to emerging technologies. But as the U.S. throws its weight behind AI as a strategic asset, critics warn that the enthusiasm is muffling one of the most important conversations about AI: its ability to wreak unforeseen harm on the populace, from fairness to existential risk concerns. Among those concerns: bias embedded in algorithmic decisions that affect housing, policing, and hiring; surveillance that could threaten civil liberties; the erosion of copyright protections, as AI models hoover up data and labor protections as automation replaces human work. Kevin De Liban, founder of TechTonic Justice, a nonprofit that focuses on the impact of AI on low income communities, worries that Washington has abandoned its concerns for AI's impact on citizens. 'Big Tech gets fat government contracts, a testing ground for their technologies, and a liability-free regulatory environment,' he said, of Washington's current AI policy environment. 'Everyday people are left behind to deal with the fallout.' There's a much larger question, too, which dominated the early AI debate: whether cutting-edge AI systems can be controlled at all. These risks, long documented by researchers, are now taking a back seat in Washington as the conversation turns to economic advantage and global competition. There's also the very real concern that if an AI company does bring up the technology's worst-case scenarios, it may find itself at odds with the White House itself. Anthropic CEO Amodei said in a May interview that labor force disruptions due to AI would be severe — which triggered a direct attack from Sacks, Trump's AI czar, on his podcast, who said that line of thinking led to 'woke AI.' Still, both Anthropic and OpenAI are going full steam ahead. Anthropic hired nearly a dozen policy staffers in the last two months, while OpenAI similarly grew its policy office over the past year. They're also pushing to become more important federal contractors by getting critical FedRAMP authorizations — a federal program that certifies cloud services for use across government — which could unlock billions of dollars in contracts. As tech companies grow increasingly cozy with the government, the political will to regulate them is fading — and in fact, Congress appears hostile to any efforts to regulate them at all. In a public comment in March, OpenAI specifically asked the Trump administration for a voluntary federal framework that overrides state AI laws, seeking 'private sector relief' from a patchwork of state AI bills. Two months later, the House added language to its reconciliation bill that would have done exactly that — and more. The provision to impose a 10 year moratorium on state AI regulations passed the House but is expected to be knocked out by the Senate parliamentarian. (Breaking ranks again, Anthropic is lobbying against the moratorium.) Still, the provision has widespread support amongst Republicans and is likely to make a comeback.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Scapegoating entire nations.' Trump's travel ban hurts innocent Columbus families
Farxaan Jeyte is a seasoned political strategist, entrepreneur and advocate with over 20 years of experience in U.S. presidential, gubernatorial and Senate campaigns. He is active in U.S.–Africa policy and supports minority-owned businesses through his work in trade, governance and grassroots advocacy. Donald Trump's administration argues that banning citizens of 12 countries — Somalia included — from entering the United States will fill gaps in foreign vetting and prevent dangerous individuals from slipping through. The move came after an Egyptian national was arrested on charges that he firebombed a pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado. Trump said the attack 'underscored the extreme dangers posed by foreign nationals who are not properly vetted.' White House officials call the move 'commonsense' and say it targets countries with weak screening and high visa overstay rates to 'protect Americans from dangerous foreign actors.' Yet for all the focus on security, the human costs of a blanket ban are impossible to ignore. The policy casts a wide net, halting travel for entire populations because of the actions of a few. It sweeps up people who pose no threat: students, grandparents and refugees. More: Habiba Soliman wanted to be a doctor. Then, her father firebombed Jewish marchers in Boulder Punishing whole nations for the crimes of individuals also raises basic fairness issues. Notably, the Boulder suspect's country of origin, Egypt, isn't even on the ban list, calling into question how effective banning other countries really is. From the administration's view, the Boulder attack was a wake-up call revealing flaws in the immigration system. Officials note the suspect was an Egyptian visitor who overstayed his visa — a failure of enforcement they cite as proof of lax vetting. Supporters of the ban point out that many listed nations are unstable, potentially allowing extremists to slip through. By halting entry from countries such as Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia — all grappling with terrorism — the administration contends it is closing dangerous loopholes to prevent another tragedy. Critics argue the collateral damage — broken families and lost trust — far outweighs any security benefit. Human rights groups have decried the renewed policy as 'discriminatory' and cruel, saying it 'sows division and vilifies communities' seeking safety. The consequences for innocent families will be devastating. Ohio has roughly 60,000 Somali-American residents in the Columbus area. This vibrant community has contributed enormously — immigrants from Somalia have opened hundreds of local businesses and enriched the city's culture. More: 'Nobody told us about the neighborhood': Somali Americans experiences with youth violence A ban on Somalia strikes at the heart of these families. Grandparents may miss the birth of a grandchild, and students could see siblings barred from graduations. In Columbus, conversations are filled with concern for relatives stranded abroad. People who once fled terror and found refuge in America now worry they're seen as threats. It's a painful irony that has left many feeling alienated in the only country they call home. Trump's 2017 travel ban on Muslim-majority countries like Somalia caused chaos at airports and tore families apart — a history now poised to repeat. One Somali refugee in Ohio was separated from his wife and children for nearly seven years due to that ban. We can protect America without scapegoating entire nations. Rather than broad bans, officials should pursue targeted, intelligence-based measures — stronger background checks, better visa enforcement and vetting individuals based on real red flags, not blanket nationality. U.S. agencies are capable of pinpointing threats without closing the door on innocent travelers. Blanket travel bans offer a false sense of security while breeding resentment. A wiser approach balances vigilance with fairness, preserving goodwill with immigrant communities. Somali-Americans have proven their commitment to this country and should be treated as partners in safety, not suspects. Focusing on genuine threats — instead of scapegoating entire populations — is more just and more effective at keeping America safe. Farxaan Jeyte is a seasoned political strategist, entrepreneur and advocate with over 20 years of experience in U.S. presidential, gubernatorial and Senate campaigns. He is active in U.S.–Africa policy and supports minority-owned businesses through his work in trade, governance and grassroots advocacy. This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Trump's travel ban lists countries with strong Ohio ties | Opinion
