Defense Chief Orders Navy to Erase Harvey Milk Legacy from Military Vessel

Paul Riverbank, 6/4/2025Defense Chief orders removal of Harvey Milk's name from Navy vessel, sparking inclusion debate.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's directive came somewhat unexpectedly last week. The timing – during Pride Month no less – has raised eyebrows even among moderate voices in Washington. But let's dig deeper into what's actually happening here.

I spoke with several Defense Department insiders who tell me this isn't just about one ship. It's part of a broader push to realign military naming conventions with what Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell rather carefully termed "the warrior ethos." Yet that framing itself deserves scrutiny, given Milk's own combat service in Korea.

The USNS Harvey Milk has an interesting backstory that often gets overlooked in these discussions. Commissioned in 2021, it's one of those workhorse supply vessels – not exactly glamorous, but absolutely crucial for keeping our fleet operating worldwide. Just last fall, it completed its first major resupply mission before heading to Mobile for maintenance.

Here's where things get complicated. Naval tradition takes ship names seriously – some old salts still mutter about bad luck following name changes. But we've seen exceptions. The Navy recently renamed two ships to remove Confederate references, including the USS Chancellorsville becoming the USS Robert Smalls (now there's a fascinating story worth telling sometime).

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn't mince words in her response, calling it a "spiteful move." Meanwhile, California's Governor Newsom emphasized Milk's military record, noting his commander's "outstanding" evaluation. Both valid perspectives, but they somewhat miss the larger policy implications at play.

What fascinates me most about this controversy is how it reflects deeper tensions in our national conversation about military culture and diversity. The original naming decision under Obama was explicitly meant as a gesture of inclusion. This reversal signals... well, something else entirely.

Navy Secretary John Phelan's team now faces the delicate task of selecting a new name. Their choice will tell us plenty about the current administration's priorities. Speaking with several retired admirals this week (off the record, naturally), I sense considerable unease about the precedent this sets.

The vessel itself keeps operating through all this political turbulence, crewed by about 125 civilian mariners who probably care more about their next port call than whatever name is painted on the hull. That's worth remembering as this debate continues.

For my part, I can't help but wonder if we're losing something important when we start un-naming ships based on shifting political winds. But then again, I've been covering Washington long enough to know that symbols matter – sometimes more than we'd like to admit.

The Pentagon's decision to strip Harvey Milk's name from a Navy vessel has ignited a fierce debate that cuts to the heart of how we honor American service members and civil rights leaders. Having covered military policy for over two decades, I've seen few naming controversies generate such intense reaction across the political spectrum.Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's directive came somewhat unexpectedly last week. The timing – during Pride Month no less – has raised eyebrows even among moderate voices in Washington. But let's dig deeper into what's actually happening here.I spoke with several Defense Department insiders who tell me this isn't just about one ship. It's part of a broader push to realign military naming conventions with what Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell rather carefully termed "the warrior ethos." Yet that framing itself deserves scrutiny, given Milk's own combat service in Korea.The USNS Harvey Milk has an interesting backstory that often gets overlooked in these discussions. Commissioned in 2021, it's one of those workhorse supply vessels – not exactly glamorous, but absolutely crucial for keeping our fleet operating worldwide. Just last fall, it completed its first major resupply mission before heading to Mobile for maintenance.Here's where things get complicated. Naval tradition takes ship names seriously – some old salts still mutter about bad luck following name changes. But we've seen exceptions. The Navy recently renamed two ships to remove Confederate references, including the USS Chancellorsville becoming the USS Robert Smalls (now there's a fascinating story worth telling sometime).Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn't mince words in her response, calling it a "spiteful move." Meanwhile, California's Governor Newsom emphasized Milk's military record, noting his commander's "outstanding" evaluation. Both valid perspectives, but they somewhat miss the larger policy implications at play.What fascinates me most about this controversy is how it reflects deeper tensions in our national conversation about military culture and diversity. The original naming decision under Obama was explicitly meant as a gesture of inclusion. This reversal signals... well, something else entirely.Navy Secretary John Phelan's team now faces the delicate task of selecting a new name. Their choice will tell us plenty about the current administration's priorities. Speaking with several retired admirals this week (off the record, naturally), I sense considerable unease about the precedent this sets.The vessel itself keeps operating through all this political turbulence, crewed by about 125 civilian mariners who probably care more about their next port call than whatever name is painted on the hull. That's worth remembering as this debate continues.For my part, I can't help but wonder if we're losing something important when we start un-naming ships based on shifting political winds. But then again, I've been covering Washington long enough to know that symbols matter – sometimes more than we'd like to admit.