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

 Medical Vial Vaccine on Shelf Table

Peptides like BPC-157, MOTS-c and Semax are surging in popularity despite limited human evidence. Here’s why FDA regulation, research and safety matter.

skaman306/Getty Images

Millions Using Unapproved Peptides as FDA Debates Regulation

Peptides, the short chains of amino acids that help regulate biological functions, have become the latest obsession in health, fitness, and longevity.

Online clinics and wellness influencers promote them as ways to heal injuries, reduce inflammation, improve metabolism, sharpen thinking, and slow aging.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of the U.S. flag on the shape of the U.S. with blue and red figures of people across it.

Every state has its own constitution.

How State Constitutions Became the Battleground for American Rights and Liberties – on Both the Left and Right

Beyond picking governors, state legislators, local officials and representatives to serve in Congress, voters in almost every state this year will have the opportunity to amend the language of their state constitution. In one state, they could potentially rewrite the constitution altogether.

Though the U.S. Constitution is rarely amended, voters frequently amend their state constitutions. In every election cycle, voters are asked to ratify constitutional amendments.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center March 6, 2018 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

After AIPAC failed to defeat El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary—after spending $32 million—it said that it remains committed to defeating El-Sayed and his "radical, anti-Israel" agenda in the general election. Which means it is poised to sink tens of millions of dollars in supporting Republican Mike Rogers. It also said that Haley Stevens, his opponent, had presented "an authentic Democratic agenda." Meaning that El-Sayed did not? And they think that Mike Rogers, a MAGA Trump supporter, does compared with El-Sayed?

How can AIPAC say that El-Sayed does not present an authentic Democratic agenda when his socialist stance is much more in line with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence than most centrist Democrats'? And making it sound like AIPAC cares about an authentic Democratic agenda is deceitful, when in the same breath they make clear that they will support Mike Rogers, a Trump lackey, in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research
silhouette of person using microscope

Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research

Scientists and the federal government have been close partners since World War II. A landmark report by President Truman’s chief science advisor laid out a vision for government research that shaped eight decades of federally funded science. That vision is now at risk. In principle, the Trump administration has supported scientific research with its own vision for a new “golden age of science.” But in practice, the administration has upended the relationship between the government, researchers, and their institutions. The changes have alarmed working scientists and their allies, who have protested in record numbers.

In July, I moderated a webinar on “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?” (read the transcript here). The webinar was co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with Dr. Aaron Carroll of AcademyHealth, Dr. Chris Marcum of the Federation of American Scientists, Dr. Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Maryam Zaringhalam of the Center for Open Science. I also interviewed Cole Donovan of the Stand Up for Science Foundation by email.

Keep ReadingShow less