Why Navy Ships Should Not Be Named for Gay Rights Icons

As the United States approaches Pride month this year, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made headlines with his firm stance against progressive efforts to inject social activism into the military.

In particular, his decision to reject the renaming of a Navy ship in honor of gay rights icon Harvey Milk has set off a firestorm of debate. The ship in question, the USNS Harvey Milk, was intended to commemorate the life and legacy of one of the first openly gay elected officials in the U.S.

However, Hegseth’s bold move to reject the name and suggest renaming the vessel has reignited the discussion about the role of social activism in the military and the appropriateness of honoring historical figures based on their sexual orientation.

Harvey Milk’s legacy is undeniable. A prominent activist and politician in San Francisco, Milk was tragically murdered in 1978, just one year after being elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

He became a martyr to the cause of gay rights, and his contributions to the LGBTQ+ movement are still remembered today. However, while his activism was crucial in the fight for equal rights, Hegseth argues that naming a military vessel after Milk, specifically because of his sexual orientation, is not appropriate.

This stance raises an important question: Should the military—an institution whose sole focus is national defense—celebrate social activism by naming its warships after gay rights icons or any other cause-based figure?

The Pentagon’s decision to name a Navy ship after Harvey Milk came under scrutiny from many quarters, particularly those who see the name as emblematic of the growing trend to inject “wokeness” into every aspect of American life.

While Hegseth’s comments on the subject may be controversial, they reflect a broader sentiment that the military should not become a platform for social justice issues, but instead focus on its primary mission: to defend the country and defeat its enemies.

Pete Hegseth, a prominent conservative voice and former military officer, has long been an outspoken critic of the rise of "wokeness" within military ranks.

In the case of the USNS Harvey Milk, he is not simply rejecting the idea of celebrating a gay rights icon; he is resisting the growing trend to merge activism with military service. 

According to Hegseth, the military’s primary responsibility is to remain apolitical, focused on readiness, national defense, and the mission of protecting American citizens. A military ship, he argues, should not be named after a figure who is celebrated primarily for his role in advancing social justice causes.

His opposition to the renaming of the ship underscores a larger concern about the direction of American military culture. The integration of political ideology into military operations—particularly the push to embrace social justice issues like LGBTQ+ rights—has sparked heated debates about the role of the military in societal change.

Critics argue that the military’s role is not to promote social justice but to ensure that the nation remains safe and strong. By renaming warships and military assets after figures like Harvey Milk, the military risks losing focus on its core mission, which is to win wars and safeguard national security.

Hegseth is not alone in this sentiment. Many veterans and active-duty service members share concerns that the militarization of social issues distracts from the primary goals of defense and combat readiness.

As the military becomes increasingly involved in issues like LGBTQ+ rights, gender identity, and racial equity, some worry that the focus on these causes may dilute the core values of service members and undermine the military’s ability to function as an effective fighting force.

A military vessel, by its very nature, is meant to serve as a symbol of power, strength, and readiness. It is designed to carry out vital missions, protect American interests, and project force on a global scale.

By naming a warship after a figure like Harvey Milk, the message sent is that the military is elevating a social issue to the same level of importance as national defense.

Hegseth argues that such a decision sends the wrong message, particularly to the young men and women who enlist in the military to serve their country and protect its interests.

A warship should embody the ideals of sacrifice, duty, and the pursuit of victory, not be associated with a political agenda. For many in the military, the idea of serving on a vessel named after a gay rights activist is uncomfortable and out of sync with the values they hold dear.

While they may support equal rights, they do not believe that military assets should be used as platforms to promote a specific cause.

Furthermore, the primary function of the military is to prepare for and engage in combat operations. The name on the side of a warship should inspire pride and focus on the mission, not be a vehicle for social activism.

Hegseth’s decision to push back against the renaming of the ship reflects his belief that military culture should remain separate from the politicization of social issues.

As he rightly points out, the military’s focus must remain on its operational effectiveness and the preparation of troops to confront national security threats—not on advancing social agendas that are better suited for civilian institutions.

The push to rename military ships after gay rights icons is just one example of how progressives are increasingly attempting to inject their social activism into every aspect of American life.

The desire to transform the military into a vehicle for promoting social justice is rooted in a broader cultural movement that seeks to reshape societal norms according to progressive ideals.

However, Hegseth’s resistance to this movement highlights the tension between those who believe that activism has no place in the military and those who see it as a vital aspect of progress.

Progressives often argue that celebrating the achievements of marginalized groups, including the LGBTQ+ community, is essential for creating a more inclusive and equitable society.

However, Hegseth and other critics contend that this agenda should not extend to the military, where the focus should be on competence, readiness, and victory.

The notion that military personnel should be forced to celebrate a figure like Harvey Milk—who is celebrated primarily for his advocacy of gay rights—feels out of place for many in the armed forces.

While most service members likely support equal rights for all, they believe the military’s role should be limited to ensuring national defense, not advancing social causes.

The decision to name a warship after Harvey Milk is laden with symbolism, and it is important to understand the implications of this symbolism in the context of military service.

A Navy ship is not just a vessel; it is a powerful symbol of American strength and resolve. Naming a ship after a figure who is primarily known for his advocacy of gay rights sends a message that the military is willing to embrace progressive social values, regardless of whether these values align with the priorities of the men and women who serve.

While Harvey Milk’s contributions to the LGBTQ+ movement cannot be denied, his legacy is not one that resonates with all Americans. Many citizens—particularly those in the military—see his prominence as part of a broader cultural shift that places too much emphasis on identity politics and social justice causes.

For these individuals, the idea of a Navy ship being named after Milk is a symbol of the growing influence of “wokeness” in American life, and they view it as a step too far.

Hegseth’s decision to challenge the renaming of the ship is, in many ways, a call for a return to a more focused, mission-driven military culture. Rather than embracing social justice causes, the military should be dedicated to its primary role: ensuring the security and defense of the nation.

By rejecting the renaming of the USNS Harvey Milk, Hegseth is reinforcing the idea that the military should remain an institution focused on defending the country, not on advancing social causes.

The military’s role in society is a subject of ongoing debate. For some, the military is not just a tool of national defense; it is a reflection of the country’s values and ideals.

However, for others—particularly those who serve in the military—the primary purpose of the armed forces is to defend the nation, protect its interests, and engage in combat when necessary.

These service members understand that their role is not to promote social causes or political agendas but to ensure the safety and security of the nation.

Hegseth’s stance on the USNS Harvey Milk and the broader issue of “wokeness” in the military reflects this view. He believes that the military should remain focused on its mission and that social issues should be handled outside of the defense apparatus.

While progressives may argue that the military should be more inclusive and representative of societal values, Hegseth’s resistance to this push is rooted in the belief that the military’s focus should be on defeating enemies, not on social justice activism.

Pete Hegseth’s opposition to renaming a Navy ship after Harvey Milk serves as a reminder that the military’s purpose is to safeguard the nation, not to advance social agendas.

While progressives may continue to push for a more inclusive and socially aware military, Hegseth’s resistance reflects a broader desire to maintain a strong, mission-focused military culture.

The military should be an institution that prioritizes readiness, discipline, and strength, not one that serves as a platform for social justice activism. By rejecting the renaming of the USNS Harvey Milk, Hegseth is ensuring that the military remains dedicated to its primary mission: protecting America and its interests.