Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

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

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

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals
Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker/ProPublica

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals

Veterans hospitals are struggling to replace hundreds of doctors and nurses who have left the health care system this year as the Trump administration pursues its pledge to simultaneously slash Department of Veterans Affairs staff and improve care.

Many job applicants are turning down offers, worried that the positions are not stable and uneasy with the overall direction of the agency, according to internal documents examined by ProPublica. The records show nearly 4 in 10 of the roughly 2,000 doctors offered jobs from January through March of this year turned them down. That is quadruple the rate of doctors rejecting offers during the same time period last year.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression (PRESS) Act aims to fill the national shield law gap by providing two protections for journalists.

Getty Images, Manu Vega

Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The First Amendment protects journalists during the news-gathering and publication processes. For example, under the First Amendment, reporters cannot be forced to report on an issue. However, the press is not entitled to different legal protections compared to a general member of the public under the First Amendment.

In the United States, there are protections for journalists beyond the First Amendment, including shield laws that protect journalists from pressure to reveal sources or information during news-gathering. 48 states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, but protections vary widely. There is currently no federal shield law. As of 2019, at least 22 journalists have been jailed in the U.S. for refusing to comply with requests to reveal sources of information. Seven other journalists have been jailed and fined for the same reason.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrat Donkey is winning arm wrestling match against Republican elephant

AI generated image

Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrats are quietly building momentum in the 2025 election cycle, notching two key legislative flips in special elections and gaining ground in early polling ahead of the 2026 midterms. While the victories are modest in number, they signal a potential shift in voter sentiment — and a brewing backlash against Republican-led redistricting efforts.

Out of 40 special elections held across the United States so far in 2025, only two seats have changed party control — both flipping from Republican to Democrat.

Keep ReadingShow less
Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

A DC Metropolitan Police Department car is parked near a rally against the Trump Administration's federal takeover of the District of Columbia, outside of the AFL-CIO on August 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

President Trump announced the activation of hundreds of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., along with the deployment of federal agents—including more than 100 from the FBI. This comes despite Justice Department data showing that violent crime in D.C. fell 35% from 2023 to 2024, reaching its lowest point in over three decades. These aren’t abstract numbers—they paint a picture of a city safer than it has been in a generation, with fewer homicides, assaults, and robberies than at any point since the early 1990s.

The contradiction could not be more glaring: the same president who, on January 6, 2021, stalled for hours as a violent uprising engulfed the Capitol is now rushing to “liberate” a city that—based on federal data—hasn’t been this safe in more than thirty years. Then, when democracy itself was under siege, urgency gave way to dithering; today, with no comparable emergency—only vague claims of lawlessness—he mobilizes troops for a mission that looks less like public safety and more like political theater. The disparity between those two moments is more than irony; it is a blueprint for how power can be selectively applied, depending on whose power is threatened.

Keep ReadingShow less