Hegseth announces new name of US navy ship that honored gay rights icon Harvey Milk
US defense secretary Pete Hegseth has formally announced that the US navy supply vessel named in honor of gay rights activist Harvey Milk is to be renamed after Oscar V Peterson, a chief petty officer who received the congressional Medal of Honor for his actions in the battle of the Coral Sea in the second world war.
'We are taking the politics out of ship naming,' Hegseth announced on Friday on X.
In an accompanying video-statement, Hegseth added: 'we are not renaming the ship to anything political. This is not about political activists, unlike the previous administration. Instead, we are renaming the ship after a congressional Medal of Honor recipient.'
'People want to be proud of the ship they are sailing in,' Hegseth added.
The move comes amid a widespread backlash against LGBTQ+ rights and issues in the US under the Trump administration, ranging from banning books associated with LGBTQ+ causes to reducing the rights of transgender people.
The oil-supply vessel had been named after the San Francisco gay rights activist, who was murdered 1978 after serving as a city supervisor, dubbing himself the 'Mayor of Castro Street'. He had served in the navy as a diving officer on a submarine rescue ship but resigned with an 'other than honorable' discharge rather than be court-martialed for homosexuality.
Peterson served on the USS Neosho, a ship that was heavily damaged by Japanese dive bombers on 7 May 1942, during the battle of the Coral Sea. In one bombing raid, Peterson and members of the repair party he led were severely wounded. But despite his injuries, he managed to close four steam line valves, suffering third-degree burns to his face, shoulders, arms and hands in the process.
But by closing the bulkhead valves, Peterson isolated the steam to the engine room and helped keep the ship operational.
In an announcement that appeared timed for the start of Pride month, Hegseth announced that the Milk's name was to be stripped from ship in early June. It had been named after the gay icon in 2016 by then-navy secretary Ray Mabus, who said at the time that the John Lewis-class of oilers would be named after leaders who fought for civil and human rights.
The move to strip Milk's name from the ship triggered a backlash from the activist's friends when it was first reported. 'Yes, this is cruel and petty and stupid, and yes, it's an insult to my community,' Cleve Jones, Milk's close friend and an LGBTQ+ activist, previously told the Associated Press.
'I would be willing to wager a considerable sum that American families sitting around that proverbial kitchen table this evening are not going to be talking about how much safer they feel now that Harvey's name is going to be taken off that ship,' he added to the news agency.
Milk's nephew, Stuart Milk, told the AP that renaming the ship would become 'a rallying cry not just for our community but for all minority communities'. He added: 'I don't think he'd be surprised, but he'd be calling on us to remain vigilant, to stay active.'
Elected officials, including the former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and California's governor, Gavin Newsom, described the change as and attempt to erase the contributions of LGBTQ+ people and an insult to fundamental American values of honoring veterans.
'The right's cancel culture is at it again. A cowardly act from a man desperate to distract us from his inability to lead the Pentagon,' Newsom said of Hegseth on the social media platform X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
42 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
ANDREW NEIL: Labour's hollow drivel can't conceal that the defence of the realm is not safe in their hands
Daddy did it! Donald Trump, designated 'Daddy' by Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte for knocking and Iranian heads together when they were behaving like 'two kids in a schoolyard', pulled off his second triumph of the week when Nato countries committed themselves to massive increases in defence spending. 'You are now flying to another great success in The Hague,' Rutte told Trump, ramping up the sycophancy while the US President was en route to the Nato summit, hard on the heels of the Israeli-Iranian ceasefire he'd engineered.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Trump's 'giant win' frees him up to push on with his agenda with fewer blocks and barriers
As the president himself said, this was a "giant" of a decision - a significant moment to end a week of whiplash-inducing news. The decision by the US Supreme Court is a big win for President Donald Trump. By a majority of 6-3, the highest court in the land has ruled that federal judges have been overreaching in their authority by blocking or freezing the executive orders issued by the president. Over the last few months, a series of presidential actions by Trump have been blocked by injunctions issued by federal district judges. The federal judges, branded "radical leftist lunatics" by the president, have ruled on numerous individual cases, most involving immigration. They have then applied their rulings as nationwide injunctions - thus blocking the Trump administration's policies. "It was a grave threat to democracy frankly," the president said at a hastily arranged news conference in the White House briefing room. "Instead of merely ruling on the immediate case before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," he said. In simple terms, this ruling, from a Supreme Court weighted towards conservative judges, frees up the president to push on with his agenda, less opposed by the courts. "This is such a big day…," the president said. "It gives power back to people that should have it, including Congress, including the presidency, and it only takes bad power away from judges. It takes bad power, sick power and unfair power. "And it's really going to be... a very monumental decision." The country's most senior member of the Democratic Party was to the point with his reaction to the ruling. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called it "an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court". In a statement, Schumer wrote: "By weakening the power of district courts to check the presidency, the Court is not defending the Constitution - it's defacing it. "This ruling hands Donald Trump yet another green light in his crusade to unravel the foundations of American democracy." 2:57 Federal power in the US is, constitutionally, split equally between the three branches of government - the executive branch (the presidency), the legislative branch (Congress) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court and other federal courts). They are designed to ensure a separation of power and to ensure that no single branch becomes too powerful. This ruling was prompted by a case brought over an executive order issued by President Trump on his inauguration day to end birthright citizenship - that constitutional right to be an American citizen if born here. A federal judge froze the decision, ruling it to be in defiance of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has deferred its judgement on this particular case, instead ruling more broadly on the powers of the federal judges. The court was divided along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent. 👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 In her dissent, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote: "As I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of Government, the majority sees a power grab - but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. "Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are... (wait for it)... the district courts." Another liberal Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, described the majority ruling by her fellow justices as: "Nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution." Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed during his first term, shifting the balance of left-right power in the court, led this particular ruling. Writing for the majority, she said: "When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." The focus now for those who deplore this decision will be to apply 'class action' - to file lawsuits on behalf of a large group of people rather than applying a single case to the whole nation. There is no question though that the president and his team will feel significantly emboldened to push through their policy agenda with fewer blocks and barriers. The ruling ends a giddy week for the president. 0:51 Last Saturday he ordered the US military to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Within two days he had forced both Israel and Iran to a ceasefire. By mid-week he was in The Hague for the NATO summit where the alliance members had agreed to his defence spending demands. At an Oval Office event late on Friday, where he presided over the signing of a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, he also hinted at a possible ceasefire "within a week" in Gaza.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
New Hampshire lawsuit seeks to stop politicization of youth center abuse victims' fund
Lawyers representing hundreds of men and woman who claim they were abused at New Hampshire's youth detention center filed a class action lawsuit Friday seeking to prevent the independent administrator of the state's settlement fund for victims from being replaced with a political appointee. Lawmakers created the settlement fund in 2022, pitching it as a 'victim-centered' and 'trauma-informed' alternative to litigation that would be run by a neutral administrator appointed by the state Supreme Court. But the Republican-led Legislature changed that process through last-minute additions to the state budget approved Thursday and signed into law by Gov. Kelly Ayotte on Friday. Under the new provisions taking effect July 1, the governor will have the authority to hire and fire the fund's administrator, and the attorney general — also a political appointee — would have veto power over settlement awards. In affidavits filed with their complaint, the lead plaintiffs said the change amounts to a bait and switch that reignited the skepticism they initially felt about the settlement process but tried to put aside. 'I never would have shared the full story of what happened to me if I did not think I would be heard by someone impartial,' said a woman identified only as Jane Doe, who said she ran away from home to escape sexual abuse only to be further abused in state custody. 'I feel incredibly betrayed by the state's actions, but this is just the latest in a long list of betrayals by the state, so maybe I should not be surprised,' she said. 'This also makes me wonder whether the state will next betray the promise of confidentiality, because it seems like their word does not mean anything to them.' Another plaintiff, Andrew Foley, described being diagnosed with PTSD, not from his time as a combat soldier in Iraq but from the physical and sexual abuse he suffered as a child. 'As I understand it, the State will now decide for itself how much my claim is worth. That is the opposite of a fair process,' his affidavit said. 'As I always believed, the state cannot be trusted.' Neither Ayotte nor Attorney General John Formella responded to requests for comment Friday. More than 1,300 people have sued since 2020 alleging that they were physically or sexually abused in state custody as children, most of them at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester. Only one case has gone to trial, resulting in a $38 million verdict, though the state is trying to slash it to $475,000. Two other cases have been settled for $10 million and $4.5 million. The state also has brought criminal charges against former workers, with two convictions and two mistrials so far. Many of the alleged victims put their lawsuits on hold and applied to the settlement fund, which caps payouts at $2.5 million. As of March 31, 296 cases had been settled, with an average award of $543,000, according to the most recently available statistics. The lawsuit filed Friday seeks a temporary restraining order to prevent the governor from firing the current administrator, former state Supreme Court Chief Justice John Broderick.
