Changing political administrations significantly influence military base naming conventions and diversity initiatives, often reflecting their differing ideological priorities. The sources highlight a clear shift in policy between the Biden administration and the current administration led by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, which aligns with former President Trump's agenda.
Here's how these influences manifest:
Biden Administration's Approach (2023):
Initial Renaming:
In 2023, during a national reckoning on race, the Biden administration changed the names of seven U.S. Army bases that had honored Confederate leaders. This was aimed at removing associations with figures who fought to preserve slavery.
Emphasis on Diversity:
Many of the new names chosen by the Biden administration honored women or minority service members.
Current Administration's Approach (Hegseth/Trump Alignment, 2025):
Reversion to Original Names:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has initiated a process to revert these seven Army bases back to their original names. This includes Fort Bragg (restored in February 2025) and Fort Benning (reversed in March 2025), along with Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Pickett, Fort Robert E. Lee, Fort Gordon, Fort Hood, and Fort Rucker.
"Same Surname, Different Namesake" Strategy:
While reverting to original names, federal law explicitly bars the military from returning to honoring Confederates. To comply with the letter of the law, the current administration is finding new namesakes who were American service members but not Confederates, despite sharing the same last names as the original Confederate honorees. For example, the restored Fort Bragg is now named after World War II soldier Private Roland Bragg, not the Confederate general Braxton Bragg. Similarly, Fort Benning is now named after World War I figure Fred Benning.
Purging DEI Initiatives:
This latest renaming effort is explicitly described as a move by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to align with former President Trump's policy of "purging" references to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from government programs, policies, books, and social media. The wiping away of names that honored women or minorities by the Biden administration is part of this broader ideological shift.
"Anti-Wokeism" Stance:
Republican Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry's decision to restore the name of his state's largest National Guard training site reinforces this political alignment, with him making social media posts against "Wokeism" and in favor of honoring history.
Broader Impact:
The renaming trend extends beyond Army bases. Defense Secretary Hegseth also announced that the USNS Harvey Milk would be renamed after a World War II sailor who received the Medal of Honor, effectively stripping the ship of the name of the killed gay rights activist and first openly gay elected official.
Criticisms and Perspectives:
"Difference Without a Distinction":
Critics like Marc Morial, President and CEO of the National Urban League, view this strategy as a "difference without a distinction" and accuse the military of "trying to be slick" to undermine previous efforts and violate the spirit of the law against honoring Confederates. Morial questions why the U.S. would hold onto names associated with those who tried to overthrow the government.
"Cynical Maneuver":
Democratic Senator Jack Reed called Secretary Hegseth's actions a "cynical maneuver" that violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.
Inefficiency and Cost:
Stacy Rosenberg, an associate teaching professor at Carnegie Mellon University, expresses concern about the inefficiency and potential waste of taxpayer money in changing signs across multiple bases, suggesting it's primarily a political move to appeal to Trump's base.
Branding and Legacy:
Angela Betancourt, a public relations strategist and Air Force Reservist, views the ongoing renaming as "a form of branding for what each administration views the military should represent". While acknowledging the upset over Confederate associations, she believes it shouldn't diminish the legacy of the new, non-Confederate namesakes and can still be a way to honor diverse heroes.
The recent decision to revert U.S. military base names to their original designations, while assigning new, non-Confederate namesakes who share the same surnames, carries significant legal, ethical, and symbolic implications:
Legal Implications
Compliance with Federal Law:
Federal law explicitly bars the military from returning to honoring Confederates. The current strategy adheres to the letter of this law by selecting new American service members as namesakes who were not Confederates, despite sharing the same last name. For instance, Fort Bragg is now named after World War II soldier Private Roland Bragg, not the Confederate general. Similarly, Fort Benning honors World War I figure Fred Benning, not Confederate General Henry L. Benning.
Violation of "Spirit of the Law":
Critics argue that while the letter of the law may be followed, the move violates its spirit. Democratic Senator Jack Reed called Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's actions a "cynical maneuver" that disregards the intent of moving away from Confederate associations.
Ethical Implications
"Difference Without a Distinction":
Marc Morial, President and CEO of the National Urban League, describes the renaming strategy as a "difference without a distinction," suggesting it undermines the intent of moving away from Confederate associations established during a period of national reckoning on race. He questions why the military would hold onto names associated with figures who attempted to overthrow the government, stating that "no country on Earth would name its military based after people that tried to overthrow the government".
Political Motivation and Inefficiency:
Stacy Rosenberg, an associate teaching professor at Carnegie Mellon University, expresses concern over the inefficiency and potential waste of taxpayer money involved in changing signs across multiple bases, suggesting these costs could be better utilized elsewhere. She views the latest renaming effort as a political move to "appeal to Trump’s political base" and aligns with former President Trump's policy to purge references to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from government programs.
Honoring Diverse Heroes:
Angela Betancourt, a public relations strategist and U.S. Air Force Reservist, acknowledges the upset surrounding the reversion to names previously associated with the Confederacy. However, she suggests that the decision should not diminish the heritage and legacy of the new, non-Confederate namesakes, particularly diverse heroes, believing it can still be a positive way to honor them.
Symbolic Implications
Restoring Familiarity vs. Erasure:
One stated reasoning for the reversion is to restore names "known by generations of soldiers". This aims to re-establish a sense of historical continuity and familiarity with the bases.
Undermining Previous Efforts:
The Biden administration's initial renaming of seven Army bases in 2023 was part of a "national reckoning on issues of race" and often honored women or minorities, seeking to remove associations with figures who fought to preserve slavery. The current administration's actions are seen as "wiping away" these names and reversing a broader ideological shift within the Defense Department.
"Branding" of the Military:
Angela Betancourt views the ongoing renaming as a "form of branding" that reflects what each administration believes the military should represent. This highlights how naming conventions serve as symbols of national identity and values.
Anti-Wokeism Stance:
The actions are explicitly linked to a broader political stance against "Wokeism" and in favor of honoring history, as demonstrated by Republican Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry's announcement to restore a National Guard training site's name and his social media post.
Broader Impact on Military Assets:
The renaming trend extends beyond Army bases, impacting other military assets such as the USNS Harvey Milk, which was named after the first openly gay elected official but is slated to be renamed after a World War II sailor. This demonstrates a broader symbolic shift in what types of figures are deemed worthy of honor within the military.Diverse stakeholders hold varied perceptions regarding the recent military base renaming decisions and their effectiveness, often reflecting different political, historical, and practical concerns.
Here's a breakdown of how various stakeholders perceive these decisions:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the current administration:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is initiating the latest renamings, which involve reverting seven U.S. Army bases back to their original names but with new namesakes who share the same surnames as the original Confederate honorees.
This move is seen as aligning with former President Trump's efforts to remove references to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from government programs and policies. The names originally changed by the Biden administration often honored women or minorities, and Hegseth's actions are described as "wiping away" these names.
The stated reasoning behind restoring the original names is to honor other American service members with those last names while restoring names known by generations of soldiers. This approach aims to comply with the federal law that explicitly bars the military from returning to honoring Confederates.
Biden Administration:
In 2023, the Biden administration had changed the names of seven Army bases because they honored Confederate leaders, often choosing new names that celebrated women or minority service members. Their intent was to remove associations with figures who fought to preserve slavery amid a national reckoning on race. The current renamings are directly reversing these changes.
Marc Morial (President and CEO of the National Urban League):
Morial is highly critical of the latest renaming strategy, calling it a "difference without a distinction" and accusing the military of trying to be "slick".
He believes the move violates the spirit of the law against honoring Confederates, even if not the letter.
Morial argues that no other country would name military bases after people who tried to overthrow the government, questioning why the U.S. is holding onto these names. He suggests there are other ways to recognize unsung heroes.
Jack Reed (Democratic Senator from Rhode Island, Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member):
Senator Reed opposes Defense Secretary Hegseth's actions, calling the move a "cynical maneuver
He states that by invoking names like Private Roland Bragg, Hegseth has not violated the letter of the law but has violated its spirit.
Jeff Landry (Republican Governor of Louisiana):
Governor Landry announced the restoration of the name of Louisiana's largest National Guard training site, aligning with the broader trend.
He explicitly stated his opposition to "Wokeism" and in favor of honoring history, sharing a social media post with an image of a headstone with "Wokeism" on it. He expressed that "we should always give reverence to history and not be quick to so easily condemn or erase the dead".
Stacy Rosenberg (Associate Teaching Professor at Carnegie Mellon University):
Rosenberg expresses significant concern about the inefficiency and potential waste of taxpayer money involved in the renaming process. She questions the cost of changing signage across multiple bases, suggesting the funds could be used for more impactful initiatives.
She views the latest move as primarily a political move designed to appeal to Trump's political base.
While acknowledging it made sense to move away from Confederate heroes as namesakes, she emphasizes that the individual honored should have a service record that warrants the honor.
Angela Betancourt (Public Relations Strategist and United States Air Force Reservist):
Betancourt views the ongoing renaming as a form of branding that reflects what each administration believes the military should represent.
While acknowledging that people may be upset about the association with Confederate-era names, she believes it should not diminish the legacy of the new, non-Confederate namesakes, especially diverse heroes. She suggests it "is a good way" to honor diverse heroes.
In summary, the perception of effectiveness is highly divided. Critics like Marc Morial and Jack Reed argue that the "different namesake, same surname" strategy is ineffective at truly moving away from Confederate associations and subverts the original intent of the law. They see it as a "slick" political maneuver. Conversely, the current administration and its supporters, like Governor Landry, frame it as restoring historical names while legally complying with the ban on honoring Confederates, asserting it as a way to "honor courage, not cancel it". Angela Betancourt offers a more nuanced view, acknowledging the controversy but also highlighting the potential for honoring new diverse heroes through this process.
Post a Comment