Navy to strip gay rights activist Harvey Milk's name from oil tanker
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Hegseth calls for 20% cut in four-star generals and admirals
Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth announced a plan to cut 20% of active duty senior generals and admirals.
WASHINGTON − The Navy will rename an oil tanker that named after slain gay rights activist Harvey Milk, U.S. officials told Reuters on Tuesday, the latest move in the military under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to root out diversity, equity and inclusion.
In 2016, the U.S. Navy said it would name one of its new class of oil tankers after Milk, a Navy veteran who later became one of the first openly gay people elected to public office in the United States.
The USNS Harvey Milk was christened in 2021, as part of the John Lewis class of tankers.
More: Stonewall veterans sound alarm over Trump's attempt to erase trans history
A U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the directive for the change came from Hegseth's office.
In a statement, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said Hegseth was committed to ensuring names of military installations and equipment "are reflective of the Commander-in-Chief's priorities, our nation's history, and the warrior ethos.
"Any potential renaming(s) will be announced after internal reviews are complete," Parnell said.
The Pentagon and the U.S. Navy did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The official said it was unclear when the renaming would actually take place, but noted that June is Pride Month, observed annually to honor the LGBTQ rights movement.
More: Military schools threaten pro-DEI student protesters with disciplinary action
Another official said it would not be surprising if additional ships in the John Lewis class were renamed, since other tankers honored civil rights and human rights leaders.
The planned name change was first reported by military news website Military.com.
Milk served in the U.S. Navy in 1951 as a diving officer during the Korean War. Elected to the San Francisco board of supervisors as the first openly gay California politician, he was killed in office in 1978.
Since taking office in January, Hegseth, a former Fox News host, has eliminated diversity initiatives at the Pentagon and ended observances of identity celebrations such as Black History Month.
DEI programs seek to promote opportunities for women, ethnic minorities and other traditionally underrepresented groups. Civil rights advocates argue that such programs, generally backed by Democrats, are needed to address longstanding inequities and structural racism.
They have come under attack from conservatives, who say race- and gender-focused initiatives are inherently discriminatory and fail to prioritize merit.
In February, Hegseth chided past celebrations of the U.S. military's diversity in a broad address to Pentagon staff, saying: "I think the single dumbest phrase in military history is 'our diversity is our strength.'"
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC Sports
18 minutes ago
- NBC Sports
NFL will continue to put social justice message in end zones
Whether the league will admit it or not, it's currently engaged in a high-wire regarding diversity initiatives, with a desire to do the objectively right thing on one hand and an urgency to placate certain political forces on the other. As it relates to the messages that have been painted on the back lines of end zones since 2020, those will continue. Via the Associated Press, all 32 teams will have one of four messages at the back of one end zone: End Racism, Stop Hate, Choose Love, or Inspire Change. At the back of the other other end one will be the message, 'It Takes All of Us.' Here's the reality. Some messages will invite less scrutiny from anti-DEI types than others. Choose Love, Inspire Change? Fine. End Racism, Stop Hate? Tread lightly. That said, 'End Racism' will be the message for each of the four international games. And the Eagles will rotate through all four messages. Kudos for the NFL to not suspending or postponing or pausing the end-zone messages. Especially if the gesture at some point triggers a social-media attack and/or a suggestion that the effort to acquire 10 percent of ESPN could be scrapped unless the messages are erased.
Politico
18 minutes ago
- Politico
Pentagon belatedly defends Driscoll against Loomer attacks
He also 'stands by every single Medal of Honor recipient,' Wilson said. 'They are all heroes in our eyes and that includes Flo Groberg.' Hegseth, who is prolific on both his personal and official X accounts, has not commented about Loomer's posts. Loomer, in an interview this week before the Pentagon comments, said she and Hegseth had spoken, but would not say whether the conversation involved Driscoll. 'I'm not telling Pete Hegseth how to do his job,' Loomer said. 'He's a good leader in the sense that he's not just ignoring [issues I raise] and saying, 'Oh, well, it doesn't matter.'' The conservative activist, in her rant against Driscoll, also complained that he hired former Biden cyber policy official Jen Easterly for a part-time teaching position. Easterly is a West Point graduate who served in uniform for two decades. The Army secretary isn't normally consulted on hiring decisions at West Point, but Driscoll ordered the offer rescinded after a previous Loomer post and called for a review of how appointments at the academy are made. She also lashed out at Groberg — who was honored by the Army's social media account for his heroism — for being 'an immigrant who voted for Hillary Clinton.' Loomer didn't back down from her criticism of Driscoll, an Army combat vet and longtime Republican. 'When is this guy going to realize that he doesn't have the political acumen or the political knowledge of the MAGA movement?' she said in the interview, adding she wasn't trying to get him fired. She also suggested Driscoll's close friendship with Vice President JD Vance, who know each other from their time at Yale Law School, has helped deflect some criticism. 'Is being friends with the vice president a qualification in today's world?' she said. 'I personally thought that there would be a higher bar aside from just being really good friends with the vice president.' The Defense Department's support came too late from some in the Pentagon, who were frustrated that leaders didn't defend the combat heroes more quickly. 'A medal of honor recipient shouldn't need defending, but leadership has let this slide,' said a defense official, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. The Pentagon, when asked for comment, wouldn't say whether Hegseth agreed with Loomer's criticisms. 'Secretary Hegseth appreciates Ms. Loomer's outside public advocacy,' Pentagon spokesperson Joel Valdez said. 'He has total confidence in Army Secretary Driscoll.'
Forbes
18 minutes ago
- Forbes
To Survive A China Fight, U.S. Navy Must Boost West Coast Shipbuilding
The Navy's dream of using small, autonomous ships to deter China's massive conventional naval force is inspiring. The only problem is these Navy strategies depend upon the operational status of the Panama Canal. Without the canal—a shortcut between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans—the Navy's high-tech dreams quickly become a logistical nightmare. If Navy battle plans depend on fielding lots and lots of expendable craft throughout the Pacific, then the Navy had better get serious about building small craft on the west coast, at scale. After years of drumming small craft from the fleet, it is good to see the Navy begin to change course. Dispatching lots of small, expendable ships into the Pacific is not a new concept. Take the tiny World War II-era Patrol Torpedo (PT) Boat. Between 77 and 80 feet long, fleets of these small, lightweight PT Boats fought all over the world. In the Pacific, by the end of World War II, at least 212 PT boats had gotten into the fight. To forward-deploy these vessels, the little ships had to wind their way from shipyards on the eastern side of America, transit the Panama Canal, and fan out into the Pacific. For small craft, America's game plan for the Pacific is the same today as it was 85 years ago. Virtually every surface combatant and Coast Guard Cutter counts on the Panama Canal to pivot between the Atlantic and the Pacific. As an always-reliable asset, few Navy operators alive today waste time mulling canal contingencies. As an unquestioned component of American battle plans since 1914, far too many of America's high-tech warfighters take this global choke point for granted. That is a mistake. Logistics and infrastructure defense specialists know that Panama's strategic short-cut between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean is under threat. The Navy must address the ugly fact that, despite all the security America can provide, a diverse array of enemies, rivals and criminals can shut the Panama Canal down at virtually any time. In modern 'hybrid' conflict, no complex piece of infrastructure is totally secure. The only way to fully mitigate the risk of a strategically significant Panama Canal closure is for the Navy to quickly mobilize America's few remaining shipbuilding-ready sites on the West Coast. If America's national security strategy is based upon a safe and secure Pacific, then America had better prepare to build lots of ships—particularly expendable ones—on the West Coast. U.S. Navy Must Boost West Coast Shipbuilding Real warfighters know that any fight in the Pacific is about managing distance. Without the Panama Canal, the 4,500 nautical mile transit from the Gulf Coast to the Navy's West Coast headquarters in San Diego gets a whole lot longer. Aside from adding 10,000 nautical miles to the trip, the detour south forces ships to travel around Cape Horn and through some of the roughest waters in the world. America's Navy is unready for this kind of grinding logistical endeavor. U.S. Southern Command logisticians know that supporting destroyers and Littoral Combat Ships in the southern hemisphere is hard enough. Managing fleets of America's next-generation autonomous ships, and getting them fuel and maintenance support during a forced months-long detour around South America is a far harder task. Given America's withered afloat support capabilities, shepherding fleets of small craft around Cape Horn is an almost insurmountable logistical challenge. To limit logistical burdens and reduce wear and tear on transiting small craft, the Navy could take a page from World War II-era tactics, and put their small autonomous ships aboard larger shuttle vessels. In World War II, freighters and tankers often ferried PT boats into action, but still, even with a functional Panama Canal, the Navy needed to allocate a month and a half for larger ships to shuttle PT boats from Panama to the contested waters off Guadalcanal. And, even then, the transit wasn't entirely risk free. Cranes would drop boats, or the sea would damage vessels sitting topside. The ferrying cargo ships became high-value targets themselves. In 1943, a submarine sank the SS Stanvac Manila as it was ferrying six PT boats to Noumea, at the South Pacific island of New Caledonia. Modern Naval planners forget that, for small ships, the transit to the World War II battle line was usually an awkward and often grinding mix of travel. Aleutian-bound PT boats, sailing on their own bottoms, needed about twenty days to get from New Orleans to the Panama Canal. After that, they'd be loaded aboard ships for a month-long transit to Seattle, and then, traveling on their own again, they took another month to travel to Adak, Alaska, where they were needed for battle. The strain of the journey took a toll, and, of the first PT Boats in the region, only 75% arrived on time, ready for battle. America's Navy is not ready for this. Put bluntly, the Navy has no plan to manage a long-term closure of the Panama Canal, nor does it have a plan to manage the logistics of getting small ships into the fight. All the tankers, maintainers and escorts needed to support a large-scale autonomous small-ship transit around Cape Horn, are absent. Few heavy lift ships are available to ferry autonomous craft into battle. And nobody in the Navy is anticipating the need to build upwards of 125% of the minimum small ship 'requirement' just to mitigate transit-related losses. The only real solution is to build the smaller craft we will need for a Pacific fight on the West Coast—and prepare to build them at scale. The math works. In the months it would take to get small autonomous ships from East and Gulf Coast shipyards and into a Pacific fight, a modern West Coast shipyard could simply build several of them. Rather than wonder how to manage a three month transit, the Navy must follow Henry Kaiser's example and focus on managing all the new ships a modern West Coast shipyard could build in three months. The Navy may forget, but, in the toughest days of World War II, west coast shipyards could produce a Liberty Ship in ten days. The logistics of pushing autonomous vessels out into the deep Pacific is tough. Helping deter China from preying on Taiwan, the Philippines and beyond is even harder. If the Navy fails to move quickly and boost ship production capabilities along the West Coast, Pacific security will be tied to the operational status of the Panama Canal--and that is simply no longer an acceptable Navy strategy.
