For Pride Month, homophobe Hegseth orders Navy to strip Harvey Milk's name from ship
The Department of Defense is observing LGBTQ+ Pride Month by stripping the name of gay rights leader Harvey Milk from a Navy ship.
Keep up with the latest in + news and politics.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the name change, Military.com reports. The timing during Pride Month is intentional, an official with the department told the outlet. The official announcement is set for June 13, but Military.com obtained a memo from the Office of the Secretary of the Navy that outlined plans to rename the ship. The Defense Department source said Hegseth instructed Navy Secretary John Phelan to implement the renaming in keeping with the restoration of so-called warrior culture.
The USNS Harvey Milk was launched in November 2021, when Joe Biden was president. It was the first military ship named after an out gay person. It is a replenishment oiler, bringing fuel to other ships at sea. It was the second in a group of oilers named after civil rights icons, the first being the late U.S. Rep. John Lewis. Milk's name was selected in 2016 by then-Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, and the oiler was built by General Dynamics.
The Navy is also recommending the renaming of other ships in this group, CBS News reports. They include USNS Thurgood Marshall, USNS Ruth Bader Ginsburg, USNS Harriet Tubman, USNS Dolores Huerta, USNS Lucy Stone, USNS Cesar Chavez, and USNS Medgar Evers. Renaming of ships is rare, and the documents reviewed by the news outlets don't say what the new names will be.
Milk, a gay man, was the first out member of the LGBTQ+ community to be elected to public office in California and one of the first in the nation. He was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977 and had an extensive career in activism, including a successful fight against a California ballot measure that would have barred gays and lesbians from teaching in the state's public schools. He and San Francisco Mayor George Moscone were assassinated in 1978 by a disgruntled former city supervisor, Dan White.
Milk had joined the Navy in 1951 after graduating from college. He attended Officer Candidate School in Newport, Rhode Island, and later was a diving instructor in San Diego. In 1954, he was threatened with a court-martial for committing a 'homosexual act,' but he decided to resign rather than face trial. He received an 'other than honorable' discharge and left the Navy with the rank of lieutenant junior grade. In 2021, the Navy asked his nephew Stuart Milk, who has carried on his uncle's legacy as an LGBTQ+ rights activist, if he wanted the discharge upgraded, but Stuart Milk said it should stand as a reminder of the unfair treatment gay service members and others received.
The renaming of the USNS Harvey Milk and other ships reflects the hostility of Hegseth and Donald Trump to the LGBTQ+ community and diversity in general. For instance, shortly after being confirmed as Defense secretary, Hegseth issued a directive banning staff from spending work time or resources on identity celebrations such as Pride Month, Black History Month, and Women's History Month. Plus the Defense Department is expelling transgender people from the military.
"This is absolutely shameful. Harvey Milk was a hero. He was a veteran who served our country. He died for our community," gay California state Sen. Scott Weiner said on social media. "Brave LGBTQ veterans worked for years to achieve the naming of a ship for Harvey. Now Trump & Hegseth are wiping it away due to straight up bigotry. They're determined to erase LGBTQ people from all aspects of public life."
U.S. Rep. and House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi issued a statement to CBS News denouncing the renaming plans. 'The reported decision by the Trump Administration to change the names of the USNS Harvey Milk and other ships in the John Lewis-class is a shameful, vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers for all to chase the American Dream,' said Pelosi, who represents a San Francisco district.
'Our military is the most powerful in the world — but this spiteful move does not strengthen our national security or the 'warrior' ethos,' she continued. 'Instead, it is a surrender of a fundamental American value: to honor the legacy of those who worked to build a better country.'
While the Navy may be erasing Milk, his legacy will endure elsewhere. The Harvey Milk Foundation, established by Stuart Milk, works for LGBTQ+ rights around the world. May 22, Harvey Milk's birthday, is observed as Harvey Milk Day in California. And there are plans to honor him and other LGBTQ+ leaders with improvements to Harvey Milk Plaza in San Francisco.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
33 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Supreme Court makes it easier to claim ‘reverse discrimination' in employment, in a case from Ohio
WASHINGTON — A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. The justices' decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups. 'By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' — without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' Jackson wrote. The court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years. Though he joined Jackson's opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a separate opinion that some of the country's 'largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups.' Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, cited a brief filed by America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, to assert that 'American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans.' Two years ago, the court's conservative majority outlawed consideration of race in university admissions. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has ordered an end to DEI policies in the federal government and has sought to end government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of the new administration's anti-DEI initiatives have been temporarily blocked in federal court. Jackson's opinion makes no mention of DEI. Instead, she focused on Ames' contention that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames. The 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing 'background circumstances' that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group. The appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such circumstances. But Jackson wrote that 'this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute.'
The Verge
44 minutes ago
- The Verge
Anthropic launches new Claude service for military and intelligence use
Anthropic on Thursday announced Claude Gov, its product designed specifically for U.S. defense and intelligence agencies. The AI models have looser guardrails for government use and are trained to better analyze classified information. The company said the models it's announcing 'are already deployed by agencies at the highest level of U.S. national security,' and that access to those models will be limited to government agencies handling classified information. The company did not confirm how long they had been in use. Claude Gov models are specifically designed to uniquely handle government needs, like threat assessment and intelligence analysis, per Anthropic's blog post. And although the company said they 'underwent the same rigorous safety testing as all of our Claude models,' the models have certain specifications for national security work. For example, they 'refuse less when engaging with classified information' that's fed into them, something consumer-facing Claude is trained to flag and avoid. Claude Gov's models also have greater understanding of documents and context within defense and intelligence, according to Anthropic, and better proficiency in languages and dialects relevant to national security. Use of AI by government agencies has long been scrutinized because of its potential harms and ripple effects for minorities and vulnerable communities. There's been a long list of wrongful arrests across multiple U.S. states due to police use of facial recognition, documented evidence of bias in predictive policing, and discrimination in government algorithms that assess welfare aid. For years, there's also been an industry-wide controversy over large tech companies like Microsoft, Google and Amazon allowing the military — particularly in Israel — to use their AI products, with campaigns and public protests under the No Tech for Apartheid movement. Anthropic's usage policy specifically dictates that any user must 'Not Create or Facilitate the Exchange of Illegal or Highly Regulated Weapons or Goods,' including using Anthropic's products or services to 'produce, modify, design, market, or distribute weapons, explosives, dangerous materials or other systems designed to cause harm to or loss of human life.' At least eleven months ago, the company said it created a set of contractual exceptions to its usage policy that are 'carefully calibrated to enable beneficial uses by carefully selected government agencies.' Certain restrictions — such as disinformation campaigns, the design or use of weapons, the construction of censorship systems, and malicious cyber operations — would remain prohibited. But Anthropic can decide to 'tailor use restrictions to the mission and legal authorities of a government entity,' although it will aim to 'balance enabling beneficial uses of our products and services with mitigating potential harms.' Claude Gov is Anthropic's answer to ChatGPT Gov, OpenAI's product for U.S. government agencies, which it launched in January. It's also part of a broader trend of AI giants and startups alike looking to bolster their businesses with government agencies, especially in an uncertain regulatory landscape. When OpenAI announced ChatGPT Gov, the company said that within the past year, more than 90,000 employees of federal, state, and local governments had used its technology to translate documents, generate summaries, draft policy memos, write code, build applications, and more. Anthropic declined to share numbers or use cases of the same sort, but the company is part of Palantir's FedStart program, a SaaS offering for companies who want to deploy federal government-facing software. Scale AI, the AI giant that provides training data to industry leaders like OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, and Meta, signed a deal with the Department of Defense in March for a first-of-its-kind AI agent program for U.S. military planning. And since then, it's expanded its business to world governments, recently inking a five-year deal with Qatar to provide automation tools for civil service, healthcare, transportation, and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
UK looks to military gap years to boost recruitment in the face of growing geopolitical tension
The UK government recently endorsed proposals in its strategic defence review to consider the creation of military gap years for young people in the UK. It would potentially be similar to a scheme offered by the Australian Defence Force. Young Australian citizens can spend 12 months doing paid work in a variety of roles in the Navy, Army or Air Force. In Australia in 2023, 664 young people enlisted in the gap year programme, and 374 of these transferred on to a role in the permanent Australian Defence Force. Like in Australia, the gap year model in the UK would be optional and for over 18s to get a 'taste' of military life. These gap years would be a part of recruitment strategy. The proposal comes at a time of global geopolitical crisis, national youth unemployment and a shortage of soldiers (a global problem). Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Another key reason for the introduction of these gap years, highlighted in defence secretary John Healey's oral statement on the review, is to 'reconnect the nation with those who defend us'. Keir Starmer, in his speech, spoke of 'a new spirit of service, flowing from every part of society … everyone benefiting, everyone playing their role'. Young people are seen as a key part of building these connections. Another avenue raised in the review is to increase the number of cadet forces, a voluntary uniformed national youth organisation for teenagers that can also be linked to schools. An evaluation of cadet forces in the UK has outlined significant positive outcomes for young people, including for their employment and career prospects. The strategic defence review also proposed 'working with the Department for Education to develop understanding of the armed forces among young people in schools', but details of this are still unclear. These suggestions form part of a trend towards increasing military presence in children and young people's lives. My research has found that, over the last decade, successive UK governments have encouraged programmes with a military ethos within schools and character education to foster grit and gumption. My research shows that calls to reintroduce some form of military service appear at times of political, social or economic crisis. It's not surprising then, that in the last few years we have seen several proposals in this area. Most notable is previous prime minister Rishi Sunak's election pledge in 2024 that school leavers would have to do a year of compulsory military or voluntary service. A voluntary gap year – national service 'lite' – would be a more palatable approach compared to formal conscription, which is still active in several countries. Starmer has been keen to distance himself from the language of national service, especially as he has also committed to introducing votes at 16: compulsory national service doesn't poll well with young people. The UK has also recently scrapped its voluntary National Citizen Service, a non-military, short-term youth programme centred on local community action that has cost over £1.5 billion since 2010. But the fact that two successive prime ministers in the space of one year have pitched some form of military experience for school leavers tells us that this is not necessarily about benefits for youth, but about the concerning geopolitical landscape and the urgent need to boost recruits. In 2025 compared to the last few decades, the state's concern is less about youth crime, apathy or patriotism, but rather growing international security threats and the nation's preparedness. It is important to remember that the debate about national service in the UK is fuelled by generational nostalgia. In the UK, formal national service ran from the late 1940s to early 1960s for men aged between 17 and 21. Ever since those final troops were discharged in 1963, there has been a debate about 'returning' to national service. Research shows that those who were actually part of compulsory national service after the second world war generally don't think we should bring it back. This debate is cyclical, and each time it happens, it reveals what the state and adults think about young people more generally, usually shaped by moral panics. Given the current economic climate, it could be that a paid short-term year of military service is more attractive to UK teenagers and their CVs than ever before. However, we must reflect on why it might be so attractive in the present moment and understand the wider, structural issues shaping the lives of children and young people today. The costs of austerity and inequality in the UK run deep for children and young people. These issues cannot be solved by a defence focused gap year and there are other pressing demands to support young people in this country. For example, youth sector representatives are urging the UK government to reverse the long-term decline in funding on youth services. The impetus for a military gap year in the report is strategic defence, not unemployment. But there is no guarantee the defence sector itself will be keen to embrace this idea. When Sunak proposed national service last year, defence experts and ministers raised concerns about the British Army and Navy's current capacity and resources to deliver such a programme. They also highlighted the potential impact of such a scheme on the morale of professional, dedicated and highly-skilled force personnel. The actual feasibility of any new programme is uncertain, especially with the current fiscal situation. One thing my research suggests is certain though, is that this national debate will circle back around again and again. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Sarah Mills has received research funding from UKRI (ESRC), the British Academy and the Royal Geographical Society. She is currently an unpaid member of the advisory 'College of Experts' group of researchers for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (UK Government)
