Latest news with #SECDEF
The Independent
6 days ago
- General
- The Independent
Pete Hegseth orders Navy to strip name of gay rights icon Harvey Milk from ship in time for Pride Month
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered that the ship bearing the name of gay rights icon and Navy veteran Harvey Milk be renamed, according to The Office of the Secretary of the Navy issued a memo revealing the plans to change the name of the replenishment oiler ship USNS Harvey Milk, which was christened in 2021. They're also considering renaming several naval ships named after civil rights leaders and other distinguished Americans, CBS News noted. An official noted that the Navy was taking steps to change the name of the ship, but added that the Navy Secretary, John Phelan, was ordered to make the name change by Hegseth. The official added that the announcement timing, coming during Pride Month, was intentional, according to Washington D.C. is hosting WorldPride celebrations this year. Documents obtained by CBS News reveal that other ships under consideration for renaming are the USNS Thurgood Marshall, USNS Ruth Bader Ginsburg, USNS Harriet Tubman, USNS Dolores Huerta, USNS Lucy Stone, USNS Cesar Chavez, and USNS Medgar Evers. The memo seen by stated that the name change was done for there to be "alignment with president and SECDEF objectives and SECNAV priorities of reestablishing the warrior culture," in a seeming reference to President Donald Trump, Hegseth, and Phelan. Milk became the first openly gay man elected to public office in California when he became a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1978 after winning an election the previous year. He was assassinated in November 1978 following the passage of a bill prohibiting housing and employment discrimination because of sexual orientation. The renaming of the ship was set to become public on June 13, the memo said. While a new name for the Milk has not been announced, the memo said Hegseth and Phelan are set to make the announcement aboard the oldest commissioned ship in the Navy, the USS Constitution. The Harvey Milk is an oiler ship in the John Lewis -class. It's part of a group of ships named after civil rights activists. Lewis was a congressman and civil rights icon who passed away in 2020. Instances of renaming Navy ships are rare, and the process is taboo according to Navy traditions, noted. The Navy most recently renamed two ships in 2023 with connections to the Confederacy, the USS Chancellorsville and the research ship USNS Maury, to USS Robert Smalls and USNS Marie Tharp. Smalls was a slave who took charge of a Confederate ship and surrendered it to the Union, while Tharp was an oceanographer. However, these name changes were done following the recommendation of a commission established by Congress to review names with connections to the Confederacy in the entire military. The USNS Harvey Milk received its name in 2016 from the Navy secretary at the time, Ray Mabus. USNI News noted that Milk came from a family with a history of service in the Navy. Milk was commissioned in 1951. During the Korean War, he was an operations and diving officer on the submarines USS Kittiwake and USS Chanticleer. However, in 1954, Milk was facing a court-martial for previously having taken part in a 'homosexual act.' Instead of a trial, Milk left the armed forces, similarly to many other gay service members at that time. He resigned his commission and accepted an 'Other Than Honorable' discharge, CBS News noted. Becoming an icon and martyr in the LGBT+ community, he posthumously received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009. The USNS Harvey Milk is currently undergoing maintenance work at a shipyard in Alabama. Speaker Emerita and San Francisco Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi told CBS: '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.' "Our military is the most powerful in the world – but this spiteful move does not strengthen our national security or the 'warrior' ethos. Instead, it is a surrender of a fundamental American value: to honor the legacy of those who worked to build a better country,' she added. Hegseth was confirmed in January, and he was quick to issue a directive ordering the Pentagon and the various branches of the military to stop having events connected to heritage and awareness months, such as Pride Month, Black History Month, and Women's History Month, arguing that it could damage unity. The documents seen by CBS News say that Phelan should select a new name for the USNS Harvey Milk on Tuesday and that notifications of the new name would be sent to other Navy officials later in the week following a legal review.
Forbes
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Prioritize Warfighting In Senior U.S. Military Rank Reductions
Four Star General Insignia The recent announcement by Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) Pete Hegseth of a 20 percent reduction in the number of four-star general officers in the U.S. military has sent ripples throughout the defense establishment. His intent is clear: streamline senior ranks, flatten bureaucracy, and improve efficiency. As the Department of Defense (DOD) deliberates on which positions to reduce, it should prioritize warfighting effectiveness. The United States military assigns its four-star general and flag officers to roles where their rank, authority, and strategic leadership are essential to national security and global command responsibilities. Over the years several reviews, proposals, and recommendations have been made to adjust (usually lower) the general/flag officer numbers. What is not widely known is that promotion boards stop at the grade of 'O8,' or Major General/Rear Admiral (two-star). For three and four star generals, the rank is associated with the position, and the individual acquires the rank by being selected for the position. While recommendations for these positions are initiated by the respective armed service Chiefs and Secretaries, along with concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, Section 601 of Title 10 U.S. Code, stipulates that '[t]he President may designate positions of importance and responsibility to carry the grade of general or admiral or lieutenant general or vice admiral.... An officer assigned to any such position has the grade specified for that position if he [or she] is appointed to that grade by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.' Congress has specified the grade for certain positions. For example, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, commanders of the unified commands, and the armed service Chiefs and Vice Chiefs. The SECDEF, under authority delegated from the President, has the discretion to designate which other specific billets should carry four-star rank. Currently, the U.S. military has 42 four-star generals and admirals. Accordingly, the recent SECDEF direction would result in a reduction in rank of eight four-star generals/admirals. Which of those positions are targeted for reduction will have a significant impact on the strength and impact of the role of America's influence around the world. Dana Priest's book, "The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace with America's Military" explores the reality of America's reliance on its military for managing global affairs. Which four-star positions are retained, and which are reduced go well beyond internal U.S. Department of Defense dynamics. In each of the services, four-star assignments are allocated among some major commands that are components to the combatant commands—the organizations that fight our nation's wars—and leadership positions that oversee significant functions such as acquisition, training, future plans, nuclear propulsion of ships, and others. With a declared focus on lethality and warfighting, the SECDEF would be wise to retain four-star leadership in the respective service components to the combatant commands and shift other major organization leadership to three-star positions. The rationale for this approach is not simply based on a subjective assessment of relative importance of the military's major enterprises, but also to the second and third order effects such moves may have to U.S. influence and leadership around the world. As an example, look at the position of the Commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe–Air Forces Africa (USAFE-AFAFRICA). This position also is assigned the responsibility as the Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)'s Allied Air Command. In other words, this U.S. Air Force four-star general is not only a commander of U.S. forces. He is responsible to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) for the air and missile defense of all NATO member nations. In the event of armed conflict, this commander would lead all NATO air operations—a role that cannot be executed effectively without both the authority and perception of a four-star leader. Should this position be downgraded to a three-star rank, the implications would be severe for U.S. leadership. Not only would the U.S. cede this critical warfighting role to another NATO nation's four-star officer, but it would also place American air forces in Europe under the command of a foreign military leader. That shift would mark a dramatic departure from decades of American leadership within the Alliance, would have operational consequences far beyond the European theater, and would not put America first. This is not an isolated case. Similar multi-hatted and globally significant roles are embedded throughout the U.S. military's command architecture. U.S. service component commanders—such as those aligned to Indo-Pacific Command—must be led by officers with appropriate authority, experience, and command presence. These leaders are preparing for, and in some cases actively engaging in operations that defend the American homeland, ensure global stability, and deter and if necessary, defeat our most significant adversaries. Strategic leadership requires more than competence; it requires credibility in the eyes of both allies and adversaries. A reduction in rank, regardless of the capabilities of the individual, sends a message—intentional or not—that the U.S. may no longer prioritize leadership in that realm. In multifaceted military alliance and partner structures everywhere the U.S. has traditionally led—where perception and trust are as important as capability—a reduction in grade would undercut U.S. security interests, not enhance them. There are legitimate areas where four-star billets could be responsibly reduced. Service commands or positions that are largely support, managerial, or unlikely to be involved in combat may warrant reevaluation. Joint positions with minimal operational scope, or legacy roles created in a different era of warfare, could be transitioned to three star leadership without harming U.S. readiness or global posture. But four star service component commanders to combatant commands, especially in contested regions, are not the places to trim. To understand the stakes, consider the strategic environment of 2025. Europe is facing the most precarious security challenge since World War II as Russia continues its aggression in Ukraine and threatens NATO's eastern flank. In the Indo-Pacific, China's military buildup and aggressive actions around Taiwan require constant attention, rapid decision-making, and integrated joint-force planning. In space and cyberspace, these domains of warfare demand strategic guidance from senior leaders with direct access to the highest levels of U.S. command. These roles cannot be delegated to lower ranks without risking operational cohesion and deterrence credibility. Critics of the current four-star structure argue that the U.S. military has become too top-heavy. That is not an unreasonable concern, particularly as the force itself has shrunk since the Cold War's end. But any serious assessment of 'top heaviness' must differentiate between support roles and those requiring warfighting leadership. Moreover, it is worth remembering that a reduction in senior leadership—if not smartly executed—can lead to a loss of operational continuity and strategic depth. Succession planning, mentorship pipelines, and international coalition coordination all rely on consistent and appropriately ranked leadership. Reducing these positions without a coherent framework will create instability and uncertainty at a time when neither is affordable. In this context, 'putting America first' is not just a slogan—it is a strategic imperative. It means retaining U.S. leadership where it counts most: in the commands that provide warfighting capabilities, enable allied operations, and deter adversaries from testing the resolve of the United States and its partners. In an era where great power competition is no longer theoretical, and where deterrence relies on visible strength and competent leadership, the U.S. must avoid moves that may indicate a lessoning in regional leadership, engagement, and/or concern. America's military strength has always rested not just on its weapons and technology, but on the leadership of the men and women entrusted to employ them wisely. As decisions are made in the coming weeks about which four-star positions will be retained and which will be eliminated, we must ask the fundamental question: Will this change improve or impair our ability to fight and win America's wars? If it is the latter, then we would be weakening our combat capability, and no efficiency gain is worth that cost. Peace does not come from efficiency—it comes through strength, and senior U.S. military leadership in critical alliance positions are vital to that proposition.
