Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress Bill Spotlight: Banning Trump Administration From Renaming Naval Ship Harvey Milk

News

Congress Bill Spotlight: Banning Trump Administration From Renaming Naval Ship Harvey Milk

View of the United States Navy's amphibious warfare command ship "USS Mount Whitney" in the Rostock Port on June 3, 2025 in Rostock, Germany.

Getty Images, Frank Soellner

Sean Penn won the Best Actor Academy Award for 2008’s film Milk, even beating out Brad Pitt.

Context


In 2016, President Obama’s Navy Secretary Ray Mabus named a ship after Harvey Milk, the openly gay San Francisco politician assassinated in 1978. Milk served in the Navy himself, in the 1950s, but resigned after questions arose about his sexual orientation.

(Openly gay people couldn’t serve in the U.S. military until Congress enacted the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010.)

In June 2025, President Trump’s Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered Navy Secretary John Phelan to rename the ship.

A few weeks later, Hegseth unveiled the new namesake: Oscar V. Peterson, a Navy chief petty officer posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor after he was killed in action during World War II. Peterson was married to a woman.

CBS News reported that the Navy is also considering potentially renaming Obama-era and Biden-era ships named after liberal icons, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Harriet Tubman, Thurgood Marshall, Dolores Huerta, Lucy Stone, Cesar Chavez, and Medgar Evers.

What the bill does

Current U.S. law allows the Navy secretary to rename any Navy ship. But the Preserving Great Americans’ Legacies Act would ban renaming any ship named after those eight people: Milk, Ginsburg, Tubman, Marshall, Huerta, Stone, Chavez, and Evers.

The House bill was introduced on June 12 by Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA50).

Although there doesn’t appear to be a Senate bill on the subject, which would actually change public policy, Senate Democrats introduced a symbolic resolution “supporting” the current ship names. That was introduced on June 5 by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA).

What supporters say

Supporters argue the Milk-to-Peterson alteration is yet another example of the Trump administration whitewashing history to highlight certain preferred demographics.

“While Hegseth works to erase the names of these important civic leaders from the fleet, the president also publicly commits to renaming military bases for Confederate leaders,” Rep. Peters said in a press release. “That is a clear values statement by the administration about the America it envisions and asks our servicemembers and their families to serve. It is unacceptable and unreflective of our country.”

“Every sailor deserves to serve on and fight from a ship named after an American who embodies those values we wish to see in our military,” Rep. Peters continued. “That is why the Navy named these ships after such important leaders.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that the ship would be better named after someone primarily recognized and awarded for their actual military heroism, rather than for their left-wing governance.

“We are taking the politics out of ship naming. We are not renaming the ship to anything political. This is not about political activists, unlike the previous administration,” Hegseth said in a video announcing the change.

“People want to be proud of the ship they’re sailing in,” Hegseth continued. “[Peterson’s] spirit of self-sacrifice and concern for his crewmates was in keeping with the finest traditions of the Navy.”

Odds of passage

The House bill has attracted 17 Democratic cosponsors. It awaits a potential vote in the House Armed Services Committee, unlikely under Republican control.

In the Senate, Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) blocked that chamber’s symbolic resolution from coming up for a floor vote.

“It’s no secret that the last administration took a top-down approach to the naming of our newest class of [ships],” Sen. Budd said in a Senate floor speech. “In doing so, they broke with important naval customs and traditions, and they robbed the plank owners [a ship’s original crew members] of the chance to name these vessels after what mattered most to them.”

Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his report, Congress Bill Spotlight, on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.

SUGGESTIONS:

Congress Bill Spotlight: Making Trump Assassination Attempt a July 13 National Holiday

Congress Bill Spotlight: Requiring Public Schools Start the Day With the Pledge of Allegiance

Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: Congress Meeting in Philadelphia on Declaration of Independence 250th Anniversary


Read More

An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less
Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.

(Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)

Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”

In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.

Keep ReadingShow less
DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less