Hubbry Logo
Naming CommissionNaming CommissionMain
Open search
Naming Commission
Community hub
Naming Commission
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Naming Commission
Naming Commission
Naming Commission
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Naming Commission
Commission wordmark
Commission overview
FormedMarch 2, 2021; 4 years ago (2021-03-02)
DissolvedOctober 1, 2022; 3 years ago (2022-10-01)
TypeFederal commission
JurisdictionDepartment of Defense
Annual budget$2 million (total for life of commission)
Commission executives
Key document
WebsiteArchived website
The commission considered and provided recommendations on U.S. bases named for Confederate soldiers, such as Fort Bragg, one of the largest military installations in the world, which was named for Confederate General Braxton Bragg

The Commission on the Naming of Items of the Department of Defense that Commemorate the Confederate States of America or Any Person Who Served Voluntarily with the Confederate States of America, more commonly referred to as the Naming Commission, was a United States government commission created by the United States Congress in 2021 to create a list of military assets with names associated with the Confederate States of America and recommendations for their removal.[1]

In the summer of 2020, the George Floyd protests and resulting removal of Confederate monuments drew attention to the U.S. Army installations named for Confederate soldiers. These installations and other defense property were generally named in the early to mid-20th century at the height of the Jim Crow era to court support from Southerners.[2][3]

In response, lawmakers added a provision for a renaming commission to the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA). Enacted on January 1, 2021, the law was passed over President Donald Trump's veto.[4] The law required the commission to develop a list that could be used to "remove all names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America from all assets of the Department of Defense."[5] The law required the Secretary of Defense to implement the plan within three years of its enactment.

In summer and fall 2022, the commission delivered its report and recommendations to Congress in three parts. It disbanded on October 1, 2022, after fulfilling its duties to Congress.[1]

On October 6, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin declared in a memo that he concurred with all the commission's recommendations and was committed to implementing them as soon as possible, within legal constraints.[6] On January 5, 2023, William A. LaPlante, U.S. under secretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment (USD (A&S)), directed the Department to implement all of the commission's recommendations.[7]

In June 2025, the Army announced that all of the bases that were formerly named after Confederate officers will be reverted to their original names, except with new namesakes being used.[8][9] The Defense Secretary claimed that the change was “important for morale".[10] The process of restoring the original names of all nine US Army posts was completed on June 11, 2025.[11][12]

Legislative history

[edit]

On June 9, 2020, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) announced that she had "filed an amendment to the annual defense bill last week to rename all bases named for Confederate generals."[13] On June 11, 2020, Reps. Anthony Brown (D-MD) and Don Bacon (R-NE) introduced H.R.7155, National Commission on Modernizing Military Installation Designations Act.[14][15] The bill received support from 30 total co-sponsors, including 3 Republicans.

The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) completed its markup of the FY2021 NDAA on June 11, 2020, and the bill reported out by committee included Warren's provision.[16] Warren's provision to direct the renaming of the bases was altered to an approach that used a commission after Sen. Martha McSally (R-AZ) indicated her support to remove the names.[17] Sens. Mike Rounds (R-SD) and Joni Ernst (R-IA) publicly said that they supported the amendment to change base names.

During consideration of the FY2021 NDAA by the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) on July 1, 2020, Brown offered an amendment, which was co-led with Bacon, to directly require the Secretary of Defense to rename any defense property that is named after any person who served in the political or military leadership of any armed rebellion against the United States.[18][19] The amendment offered by Brown passed by a vote of 33–23, with Republicans Bacon and Paul Mitchell (R-MI) joining in support.[20] The committee unanimously voted to report the NDAA favorably to the House.[21]

At a July 9, 2020, hearing in HASC, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley said, "I personally think that the original decisions to name those bases after Confederate bases were political decisions back in the 1910s and '20s....The American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion. It was an act of treason at the time against the Union. Against the stars and stripes. Against the U.S. Constitution. And those officers turned their backs on their oath."[22]

On November 18, 2020, Speaker Nancy Pelosi named the House Democratic members of the conference committee for the NDAA and in doing so stated that "this summer, the House and Senate on a bipartisan basis passed NDAAs with provisions to begin the process of changing the names of military bases and infrastructure named after individuals who served in the Confederacy. It is imperative that the conference report include provisions that secure this essential priority. Our bases should reflect our highest ideals as Americans."[23]

Conference negotiations over the provisions were tense and threatened a failure to pass the NDAA for the first time in its 60-year history.[24][25] On November 20, 2020, the Congressional Black Caucus adopted a formal position that the final conference report for the NDAA "must include a provision mandating the redesignation of Department of Defense property honoring the Confederacy."[26]

On December 2, 2020, the conference committee reported out the conference report, which receded to the Senate language without amendment and incorporated the text as section 370 in the final bill.[27] The House of Representatives agreed to the conference report by a vote of 335–78 on December 8, 2020, and the Senate followed suit on December 11, 2020, passing it 84–13.[28] On December 23, 2020, President Trump vetoed the legislation, saying, "These locations have taken on significance to the American story and those who have helped write it that far transcends their namesakes...I have been clear in my opposition to politically motivated attempts like this to wash away history and to dishonor the immense progress our country has fought for in realizing our founding principles."[29]

On December 28, 2020, in the last vote of the 116th Congress in the House of Representatives, the House voted to override President Trump's veto by 322–87, including 109 Republicans and 1 Independent who voted yea.[30] On January 1, 2021, in the last vote of the 116th Congress, the Senate voted to override President Trump's veto by 81–13, passing the commission into law.[31] The passage of the FY2021 NDAA was the 60th consecutive time that such legislation[clarification needed] had been passed and is the only instance in which it was enacted over the objection of the president.[citation needed]

Activities of the commission

[edit]

The commission was chartered with five primary activities:

  1. Assessing the cost of renaming or removing names, symbols, displays, monuments, or paraphernalia that commemorate the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America.
  2. Developing procedures and criteria to assess whether an existing name, symbol, monument, display, or paraphernalia commemorates the Confederate States of America or person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America.
  3. Recommending procedures for renaming assets of the Department of Defense to prevent commemoration of the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America.
  4. Developing a plan to remove names, symbols, displays, monuments, or paraphernalia that commemorate the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America from assets of the Department of Defense, within the timeline established by this Act.
  5. Including in the plan procedures and criteria for collecting and incorporating local sensitivities associated with naming or renaming of assets of the Department of Defense.

The commission was authorized $2 million to conduct its work,[32] and had to brief the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on its progress by October 1, 2021, and then present a final briefing and written report to the armed services committees by October 1, 2022, which it accomplished while spending less than half the funding it was authorized.[33] The commission met biweekly and briefed the Secretary of Defense on its progress and recommendations. The commission's focus throughout the summer and fall of 2021 consisted of visiting the nine Army installations named for those who voluntarily served in the Confederacy.[34] The commission met with installation leadership to gauge their level of planning and their local assessments.

The commission expanded their investigation of military assets to include assets with names that commemorate other Civil War era events or places to see if the name has a connection to the Confederacy. Examples given are USS Antietam (CG-54) and Fort Belvoir.[35][33]

Until December 1, 2021, the commission had collected suggestions from the general public for possible replacement names for the military assets that the Department of Defense may finally decide to rename.[36] After receiving thousands of suggestions, the commission posted a list of 90 names in March 2022 that it plans to consider as possible replacement names for the nine Army installations before the list is further narrowed to produce the list of finalists.[37]

In March 2022, the commission determined that Fort Belvoir does not meet the criteria provided in the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act for a renaming recommendation but the commission recommends that the Department of Defense conduct its own naming review of the post, based on results of the commission's historical research.[38] At end of the same month, the commission posted a list of 758 Defense Department items at U.S. military installations in the United States, Germany and Japan with ties to the Confederacy. Many of the items on the list are streets, signs, paintings and buildings.[39][40] Included on the list, Arlington National Cemetery has a memorial dedicated to Confederate war dead which includes "highly sanitized depictions of slavery".[41][39]

Members

[edit]

The eight-person commission was composed of four representatives appointed by the United States Secretary of Defense and one appointee each by the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed Services.[32]

On January 8, 2021, Christopher C. Miller—the acting Defense Secretary for the outgoing Trump administration—appointed the four DoD representatives: "Sean McLean, a White House associate director; Joshua Whitehouse, the White House liaison to the Defense Department who was involved in some of the post-election purges at the Pentagon; Ann T. Johnston, acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs; and Earl G. Matthews, an Army National Guard colonel who previously served as principal deputy general counsel for the Army and on Trump's National Security Council."[4]

On January 29, 2021, following the January 20 inauguration of Joe Biden, the new administration halted all appointments that had not yet completed paperwork, including the four Secretary of Defense appointments to the commission.[42] On February 12, 2021, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced new appointments to the position,[43] followed immediately after by the Democratic chairmen and ranking Republicans on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.[44]

On March 2, it was announced that Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch had to withdraw from the commission for personal reasons prior to the swearing-in ceremony.[45] Eight days later, Congressman Smith replaced Bunch with former Obama administration official Lawrence Romo.[46]

Michelle Howard was the chair of the committee with Ty Seidule serving as the vice-chair.[35] U.S. Army Major General Deborah Kotulich served as the chief of staff of the Army Support Team to the Naming Commission starting in November 2021 until it was dissolved.[47]

Photo Member Title Appointed by Notes
Michelle Howard Admiral, U.S. Navy, retired Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin Committee chair. Before retirement from active service in 2017, Howard became the highest ranking woman in United States Armed Forces history and the third African-American to achieve the rank of four-star admiral.
Ty Seidule Brigadier General, U.S. Army, retired Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin Committee vice-chair. Emeritus Professor of History at the United States Military Academy, and author of the 2021 book Robert E. Lee and Me: A Southerner's Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause (ISBN 978-1-250-23926-6)
Robert Neller General, U.S. Marine Corps, retired Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin Retired as the 37th Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Kori Schake Director of Foreign & Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin Has held senior positions in both the Defense and State Departments and advised the 2008 presidential campaign of John McCain.
Thomas P. Bostick Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, retired Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Jack Reed (D-RI) The first African American graduate of West Point to serve as Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jerry Buchanan Oklahoma businessman, Sergeant, U.S. Army, retired Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee James Inhofe (R-OK) An alternate member of the Oklahoma State Election Board, former chairman of the Tulsa County Republican Party, and retired U.S. Army drill sergeant[48]
Lawrence Romo Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force, retired Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Adam Smith (D-WA) Former director of the Selective Service System during the Obama Administration. Currently national commander of the American GI Forum.
Austin Scott Congressman (R-GA-8) Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee Mike Rogers (R-AL) A member of the House Armed Services Committee from a district with several military installations in a state with two bases named after Confederate generals: Fort Benning and Fort Gordon.[49] In 2001, Scott was the first Republican in the Georgia House of Representatives to work with Democrats to remove the Confederate battle emblem from the state's flag.

Items with Confederate names

[edit]
USS Chancellorsville was named after a victory by the Confederate Army over the U.S. Army

Below is a list of U.S. military assets that may be affected by the NDAA:

Army

[edit]
  • List of U.S. Army installations named for Confederate soldiers
  • The United States Military Academy has a dormitory, a road, and an entrance gate that honor alumni who served in the Confederate Army.[50]
  • Army National Guard units that can trace their lineage to state militia units that had served as a part of the Confederate Army, such as the 116th Infantry Regiment of the Virginia Army National Guard and the 118th Infantry Regiment of the South Carolina Army National Guard, were allowed under U.S. Army regulations from 1949 until 2023 to carry campaign streamers that commemorate Confederate victories over the United States.[51][52][53] In its final report, the Naming Commission recommended that the Secretary of Defense to have the Secretary of the Army revoke the 1949 exemption that allowed the display of campaign streamers not associated with U.S. Army service.[54] The Department of the Army implemented this recommendation the following year.[55]
  • Fort Belvoir was added to the list in May 2021 by the commission since the current name of the base commemorates a slave plantation that previously occupied the site. The base opened in 1917 as Camp A. A. Humphreys, named in honor of Union general Andrew A. Humphreys.[35] The fort was renamed in 1935 at the request of Congressman Howard W. Smith (D-VA), an "avowed white supremacist".[56] In March 2022, the commission determined that the fort did not meet the criteria provided in the 2021 NDAA but recommends that the DoD conduct its own naming review of the post.[38]
  • Arlington National Cemetery has streets named after Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and the Confederate Memorial[39] which includes "highly sanitized depictions of slavery" (dedicated by President Woodrow Wilson on June 4, 1914, the 106th anniversary of the birth of Jefferson Davis).[41] Recommendation for the removal of the Confederate Memorial was included in the final report and must be complete by the end of 2023. The current plan is to remove of all bronze elements from the statue while leaving the granite base and foundation in place to avoid disturbing surrounding graves.[57]
  • Redstone Arsenal has a laboratory named after CSA general Josiah Gorgas.[39]
[edit]
  • List of United States Navy ships commemorating the Confederate States of America
  • USS Chancellorsville, a ship named for a battle in which a larger Union army was defeated by a much smaller Confederate force. As recently as 2016, the ship's wardroom had a painting of Confederate generals Lee and Jackson.[58] In February 2023, the Secretary of the Navy announced that the Chancellorsville will be renamed USS Robert Smalls sometime later in 2023 in commemoration of Robert Smalls, a slave who had commandeered a Confederate transport ship, CSS Planter, and had later served in Congress.[59]
  • USNS Maury, a ship named for an officer in the Confederate navy.[60] In March 2023, the Secretary of the Navy announced that the USNS Maury be renamed USNS Marie Tharp in honor of geologist and oceanographic cartographer Marie Tharp who had helped to produce the scientific map of the Atlantic Ocean floor.[61]
  • USS Antietam, a ship named after the Battle of Antietam. Although considered a Union victory, the battle was tactically inconclusive since General George B. McClellan failed to crush the much smaller Confederate force under Robert E. Lee[35]
  • The United States Naval Academy had an engineering building (Maury Hall) and the superintendent house (Buchanan House) that honor naval officers who had served in the Confederate Navy.[62][63] In February 2023, the Naval Academy officially renamed Maury Hall as Carter Hall in honor of former U.S. president and USNA alumnus Jimmy Carter. In May 2023, the superintendent's house was officially renamed Farragut House in honor of Admiral David Farragut.[64]

Air Force

[edit]

Lists of names

[edit]

List of considered names

[edit]

In March 2022, the commission published a list of 90 names it considered for use in renaming the nine Army bases:[37]

[edit]

On May 24, 2022, the Commission issued its final recommendations:[65]

Aftermath

[edit]

The recommendations were accepted, and by October 27, 2023, each of the bases had been renamed.[77]

In 2024, Donald Trump made campaign promises to restore the Confederate names to the bases.[78]

On February 10, 2025, in the second month of the second Trump administration, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the Army to revert the name of Fort Liberty to Fort Bragg, saying that the base would now be named for Silver Star recipient Roland L. Bragg instead of Braxton Bragg.[71]

On March 3, 2025, Hegseth ordered the Army to revert the name of Fort Benning, saying that the base would now be named for Distinguished Service Cross recipient Fred G. Benning instead of Henry Lewis Benning.[67]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Naming Commission

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Commission on the Naming of Items of the Department of Defense that Commemorate the or Any Person Who Served Voluntarily for the Confederacy, known as the Naming Commission, was a temporary advisory body established by the through Section 370 of the William M. ( for Fiscal Year 2021 to recommend the removal, relocation, or renaming of Department of Defense (DoD) assets—including bases, ships, monuments, and symbols—that honor the Confederacy or its voluntary participants. Chaired by retired U.S. Michelle J. Howard, the eight-member commission, comprising veterans and academics, conducted engagements and reviewed historical to fulfill its mandate, issuing interim and final reports from May 2021 to September 2022 that identified over 700 items for change and proposed new names drawing from diverse American . Its principal recommendations included renaming nine major installations—such as Fort Bragg to Fort Liberty and Fort Hood to Fort Cavazos—which the DoD fully implemented by early 2024 across , , and assets, alongside procedures for future DoD naming to avoid commemorating disloyalty or . The effort, enacted amid national debates following 2020 civil unrest, provoked significant controversy over its $20 million-plus costs for physical alterations, perceived disregard for bases' early-20th-century naming origins in national reconciliation after , and questions about whether such changes prioritized contemporary political pressures over enduring heritage and local input.

Legislative Establishment

Background and Enactment

The push to rename Department of Defense (DoD) assets honoring Confederate figures gained momentum in 2020 amid nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, which highlighted racial injustices and prompted scrutiny of Confederate symbols in public spaces, including military installations. Many U.S. Army bases, such as Fort Bragg and Fort Benning, had been named after Confederate generals during the early , often in the context of post-Reconstruction reconciliation efforts and to appeal to Southern military recruits during and II eras, despite these figures having led forces against the in the Civil War (1861–1865). In June 2020, Defense Secretary expressed support for reviewing Confederate names on bases, stating they were "a legacy of the time" but no longer appropriate, while Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy announced plans for a formal review process involving local communities. Congress incorporated provisions for a dedicated commission into the (NDAA) for 2021 as part of broader efforts to address these symbols, reflecting bipartisan agreement despite opposition from some conservatives who argued the names represented historical heritage rather than endorsement of secession or . Section 370 of the NDAA, titled "Commission on the Naming of Items of the Department of Defense That Commemorate the or Any Person Who Served Voluntarily With the ," directed the Secretary of Defense to establish an eight-member commission to identify DoD assets—including bases, ships, aircraft, buildings, streets, and monuments—that commemorate the Confederacy or voluntary Confederate service members, and to recommend their renaming, removal, or other mitigation by January 1, 2023. The commission was required to solicit public input, assess costs (not exceeding statutory limits), and prioritize names honoring American heroes who embodied values, with implementation mandated no later than January 1, 2024, or one year after recommendations, whichever was later. The William M. (Mac) Thornberry NDAA for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283) was signed into law by President Donald Trump on January 1, 2021, after initial veto threats over unrelated provisions like social media liability and defense budget increases, but without specific objection to the naming section in the final enactment. This established the formal entity known as the Commission on the Naming of Items of the Department of Defense that Honor the Confederate States of America, Inc., commonly referred to as the Naming Commission, with appointments by congressional leaders and the Secretary of Defense beginning in February 2021. The legislation emphasized that commemorations should not honor those who took up arms against the United States, aligning with prior DoD policies against symbols of division, though critics contended it overlooked the reconciliatory intent behind original namings and potential erasure of Civil War history.

Mandates and Timeline

The Naming Commission was established under Section 370 of the for 2021 ( 116-283), signed into law by President on January 1, 2021. Its core mandate directed the commission to identify all Department of Defense (DoD) assets—including installations, ships, , monuments, and other items—that commemorate the or individuals who served voluntarily in its armed forces. The commission was further required to develop and implement a plan for removing such commemorative elements, assessing associated costs, recommending alternative names that do not honor Confederate figures or principles, and ensuring replacements align with DoD values of unity and valor. These duties emphasized empirical review of historical ties to the Confederacy while prioritizing fiscal accountability, with estimated total implementation costs later projected at approximately $62.5 million across affected assets. The legislative timeline stipulated commission formation shortly after enactment, with bipartisan appointments of its eight members completed by February 12, 2021. An initial progress briefing to congressional committees was mandated by October 1, 2021, followed by a final report due no later than October 1, 2022. The commission issued its multi-part final recommendations in August and September 2022, covering bases, naval vessels, and other assets, after incorporating over 34,000 public comments collected from September 4 to December 1, 2021. DoD was required to execute the renaming and removal plan within three years of the law's enactment, setting a deadline of January 1, 2024, inclusive of a 90-day congressional review period post-report submission. Implementation commenced in early 2023 under Secretary of Defense , with full compliance achieved by the statutory cutoff despite logistical challenges in signage, vessels, and infrastructure updates.

Commission Composition

Member Selection

The member selection process for the Naming Commission was outlined in Section 370 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283), signed into law on January 1, 2021. The statute required the commission to consist of eight members to promote bipartisan input: four appointed by the Secretary of Defense, one by the chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, one by the chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, one by the ranking minority member of the House committee, and one by the ranking minority member of the Senate committee. Appointments were to occur within 45 days of the act's enactment, with members serving until the commission's termination on the date of its final report submission. On January 8, 2021, Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller made the initial four Department of Defense appointments, selecting civilians including branding executive Sean McLean of , national security specialist Joshua Whitehouse of , academic Anne G. Johnston of , and retired Earl Matthews of . These choices drew scrutiny for including individuals perceived as aligned with outgoing administration priorities, such as McLean, a former Trump campaign adviser. After Secretary assumed office on January 22, 2021, he announced revised Department of Defense appointments on February 12, 2021, naming retired Navy four-star Admiral Michelle J. Howard as chair, retired three-star Lieutenant General , U.S. Professor Emeritus , and public policy expert Jerry Buchanan as the four members. Howard, the first African-American woman to achieve flag rank in the Navy, brought operational leadership experience from commands including U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa; Seidule contributed historical expertise on Civil War-era commemorations; Bostick offered engineering and leadership background; and Buchanan provided policy analysis from federal service. Congressional leaders concurrently announced their selections on February 12, 2021, including appointments such as those from Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jack Reed and Ranking Member , ensuring representation from both parties. The full commission was sworn in on March 2, 2021, at , marking the start of its deliberative work. The appointees collectively possessed expertise in , operations, and policy, though critics noted a uniformity in favoring the commission's statutory directive to recommend removals and renamings without evident internal opposition to that premise.

Leadership and Expertise

The Naming Commission was chaired by retired U.S. Admiral , the first woman to achieve the rank of four-star admiral and to command a U.S. strike group. Howard's extensive operational experience included serving as from 2014 to 2017 and leading amphibious operations in the , providing her with deep insight into military leadership and the symbolic importance of installations and assets. Her appointment as chair in February 2021 by Defense Secretary leveraged her strategic expertise to guide the commission's recommendations on renaming to align with unifying values rather than divisive historical commemorations. Vice Chair Brigadier General (retired) , an professor of history at the , brought specialized historical expertise on the Civil War and Confederate legacy, having publicly refuted Lost Cause narratives in works like his 2020 book Robert E. Lee and Me. Seidule's military career spanned 40 years, including roles in intelligence and as director of the Army's Center of Military History, equipping him to assess the historical accuracy and implications of DoD commemorations. Appointed by Secretary Austin in February 2021, his role emphasized rigorous historical analysis in identifying over 1,100 assets for review. Other commissioners included experts in military command and policy, such as retired Marine Corps General , former 37th Commandant of the Marine Corps, who offered operational perspectives on asset naming's impact on . Dr. Kori Schake, director of foreign and defense policy studies at the , contributed policy analysis on national security symbolism, drawing from her experience in the State Department and Defense Department. Retired Lieutenant General Thomas Bostick and civilian members like Jerry Buchanan and Lawrence Romo provided engineering, community engagement, and veterans' advocacy insights, ensuring a multidisciplinary approach to the commission's mandate. This composition balanced military, historical, and policy expertise to produce recommendations grounded in factual historical review rather than partisan ideology, though critics noted potential interpretive biases in Confederate among members like Seidule.

Identification of Confederate-Named Assets

Army Installations

The Naming Commission identified nine active U.S. installations named for Confederate military officers, as these names commemorated individuals who led forces in rebellion against the during the Civil War to defend and . These bases, mostly built in the early in Southern for training during World Wars I and II, retained names honoring local Confederate heroes despite post-war integration efforts and evolving national views on reconciliation. The commission's review, grounded in the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act's directive, focused on bases where names directly evoked Confederate principles of and , excluding those tied to Union figures or neutral events. The installations included:
Original NameLocationConfederate Namesake
Fort A.P. HillLt. Gen. Ambrose Powell Hill, who commanded in the and died at Petersburg in 1865.
Fort BenningBrig. Gen. , a Confederate and post-war advocate for segregation.
Fort BraggGen. Braxton Bragg, of the known for tactical defeats at Chickamauga and Chattanooga.
Fort GordonMaj. Gen. John B. Gordon, a under and later Georgia promoting the Lost Cause narrative.
Fort HoodGen. John Bell Hood, aggressive who lost limbs at Chickamauga and Gettysburg, later blamed for Atlanta's fall.
Fort LeeMaj. Gen. , cavalry leader and nephew of , who served in the .
Fort PickettMaj. Gen. , famed for the failed charge at Gettysburg.
Fort PolkLt. Gen. [Leonidas Polk](/page/Leonidas_Pol Polk), a bishop-turned-general who commanded the early in the war.
Fort RuckerCol. , cavalry raider under Forrest who later built railroads in the South.
This list encompassed all active bases meeting the criteria, with no additional installations flagged for Army-specific review beyond ships or other assets handled separately. The commission emphasized historical showing these namesakes' roles in costing over 620,000 lives, arguing retention perpetuated division rather than unity. By 2023, all had been redesignated per congressional mandate, though subsequent executive actions in reversed seven to their originals amid debates over historical erasure and fiscal burdens exceeding $60 million in initial rebranding costs. The Naming Commission identified two commissioned vessels with direct ties to the Confederacy. The Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG-62), commissioned in 1989, derived its name from the , a decisive Confederate victory in from May 1–6, 1863, where General Robert E. Lee's forces defeated a larger Union army led by Major General , despite the mortal wounding of Lieutenant General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. The commission viewed this naming as commemorating a Confederate military success, aligning with its mandate to address assets honoring the or its voluntary participants. The second vessel, the Pathfinder-class oceanographic survey ship USNS Maury (T-AGS-66), commissioned in 1994, was named for , a U.S. officer and oceanographer who resigned in April 1861 following Virginia's to serve the Confederacy, eventually becoming superintendent of its Coast, Harbor, and River Defense Service and developing naval technologies for its forces. Maury's post-resignation role in the directly linked the ship's name to voluntary service for the seceded states, prompting the commission's inclusion despite his pre-war contributions to naval science. Beyond ships, the commission cataloged over 30 and Marine Corps facilities, structures, streets, and markers with Confederate associations, primarily smaller-scale items such as barracks wings, gates, and plaques at installations including and . A prominent example was Maury Hall at the in , an academic building dedicated in 1908 honoring the same for his hydrographic work, though his Confederate service rendered it subject to review. Marine Corps assets largely consisted of subordinate features within joint bases rather than standalone major installations, reflecting the service's integration under the Department of the without independent large-scale Confederate-named bases comparable to forts.

Air Force and Other Branches

The Naming Commission identified no installations named after Confederate military figures, in contrast to the nine bases that required renaming. bases, predominantly established or expanded during and the early , derived their names from local geography (e.g., after a region), aviation pioneers, or non-Confederate military personnel, avoiding direct honors for secessionist leaders. The Commission's review thus focused on ancillary assets, including monuments, plaques, street names, and displays commemorating the Confederacy located on properties, as part of a Department-wide assessment of more than 1,100 such items. For the , created by the for Fiscal Year 2020 and activated on December 20, 2019, the Commission documented no installations, units, or other assets bearing Confederate names, reflecting the branch's recent establishment and transfer of primarily technological and orbital assets from the without historical ties to the Civil War era. Similar to the , any Confederate symbols on shared or inherited facilities fell under the broader remediation mandate for non-installation features, such as memorials or named infrastructure elements. Implementation across these branches emphasized cost-effective removal or modification of symbols rather than wholesale renaming of primary assets.

Deliberations and Reports

Initial Research Phase

The Naming Commission's initial research phase commenced in March 2021, shortly after its members were appointed under Section 370 of the for Fiscal Year 2021, with the primary objective of compiling a comprehensive inventory of Department of Defense (DoD) assets commemorating the or individuals who served voluntarily with Confederate forces. Early discussions emphasized the necessity of obtaining detailed asset lists from each , including bases, ships, buildings, streets, monuments, and memorials, to establish a baseline for evaluation. This phase built on preliminary work by the U.S. Army Center of Military History, which began researching potential base namesakes in August 2020 and provided an initial list of Confederate-affiliated installations as a starting point for the Commission's deliberations. In April 2021, military services delivered briefings on identified Confederate-affiliated assets, including locations and preliminary cost estimates for potential modifications, supplemented by input from specialized offices such as the Office. Between March and June 2021, the Commission developed criteria for renaming or removal, focusing on assets that explicitly honored Confederate figures or events, while excluding certain items like grave markers protected under 38 U.S. Code § 2306 and Regulation 1-33. From June to November 2021, Commission members conducted site visits to all nine targeted bases—Fort Bragg, Fort Gordon, Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Hood, Fort Lee, Fort Pickett, Fort Polk, Fort Rucker, and Fort Benning—as well as the U.S. at West Point and the U.S. Naval Academy, to inspect assets firsthand and gather on-site observations. These visits included specific dates, such as November 11, 2021, at Fort A.P. Hill and October 27, 2021, at Fort Pickett, where teams documented over 100 signs at some installations and evaluated memorials tied to figures like and . Historical analysis during this phase relied on primary sources, DoD demographics from the 2020 Census, and expertise from historians to assess the roles of Confederate namesakes, such as Robert E. Lee's prolongation of the Civil War or George Pickett's involvement in documented war crimes. Consultations extended to local stakeholders, including mayors, civil rights organizations, historical societies, museums, veteran associations, and base leadership, through listening sessions that incorporated community perspectives on asset significance and potential impacts. A public comment period from September to December 2021, hosted on www.thenamingcommission.gov, generated over 34,000 submissions, including approximately 20,000 suggestions for alternative names and 3,663 unique proposals, which informed the inventory refinement. This multifaceted approach ensured the identification of assets across Army installations (e.g., 30 officers commemorated at Fort A.P. Hill) and extended to and other branches, setting the foundation for subsequent recommendations while prioritizing verifiable historical ties to the Confederacy.

Interim and Final Recommendations

The Commission released its initial recommendations on May 24, 2022, targeting the nine major U.S. installations named for Confederate officers, as required under Section 370 of the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. These proposals aimed to replace names honoring figures like , , and with those commemorating diverse American military heroes, including recipients and trailblazing leaders from underrepresented groups. The recommendations followed public input exceeding 34,000 suggestions and historical reviews emphasizing contributions to national defense over Confederate ties. Key interim renaming proposals included:
Original NameProposed NameHonoree
Fort Bragg, North CarolinaFort LibertySymbolic of American liberty, reflecting the installation's role in airborne operations
Fort Hood, TexasFort CavazosGen. Richard Cavazos, first Hispanic four-star general in U.S. Army history
Fort Benning, GeorgiaFort MooreLt. Gen. and , for leadership in and military family advocacy
Fort Gordon, GeorgiaFort EisenhowerGen. , Supreme Allied Commander in
Fort AP Hill, VirginiaFort WalkerDr. , only woman to receive the
Fort Lee, VirginiaFort Gregg-AdamsLt. Gen. Arthur J. Gregg and Lt. Col. Charity Adams Earley, pioneers in logistics and
Fort Pickett, VirginiaFort BarfootCol. Van T. Barfoot, recipient in and Korea
Fort Polk, LouisianaFort JohnsonSgt. William Henry Johnson, hero who fought off German raiders single-handedly
Fort Rucker, AlabamaFort NovoselChief Warrant Officer Michael J. Novosel, recipient in for medevac missions
These changes were projected to cost the Army approximately $46 million for signage and collateral updates alone, excluding broader implementation. The Commission's final recommendations, compiled in a multi-part report submitted to Congress on September 19, 2022, expanded to over 700 Department of Defense assets beyond Army bases, including Navy vessels, Marine Corps facilities, Air Force installations, and symbolic items like monuments and awards. Part I reiterated and finalized Army base renamings; Part II covered Navy, Marine Corps, and other assets; and Part III addressed Air Force and miscellaneous items, such as renaming the USS Chancellorsville to USS Robert Smalls (honoring the enslaved sailor who commandeered a Confederate ship) and removing the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery due to its reconciliation-era imagery promoting Lost Cause ideology. Additional proposals targeted street signs, buildings, and unit awards, with an estimated total implementation cost of $62.5 million across the Department, prioritizing names of minority service members and Medal of Honor recipients to reflect modern military diversity. The reports emphasized historical vetting to avoid unintended commemorations of controversial figures, though some selections, like Fort Liberty's abstract naming, drew internal debate for deviating from personal honorees. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin endorsed full implementation on October 6, 2022, following a mandatory 90-day congressional review period.

Proposed Alternative Names

The Naming Commission proposed specific alternative names for nine U.S. installations in its Final Report Part I, released on September 15, 2022, emphasizing honorees who demonstrated exceptional , , and contributions aligned with American values such as valor, , and resilience. These selections drew from input, historical , and consultations with historians, prioritizing individuals from diverse backgrounds who served in the U.S. armed forces without ties to the Confederacy. The commission explicitly avoided naming bases after abstract concepts except in one case, Fort Liberty, selected for its representation of foundational American principles over a specific person.
Original NameProposed NamePrimary Honoree(s)
Fort A.P. Hill, VirginiaFort WalkerDr. Mary Edwards Walker, Civil War field surgeon and the only woman awarded the Medal of Honor for her medical service despite initial revocation and later reinstatement.
Fort Benning, GeorgiaFort MooreLt. Gen. Hal Moore, Vietnam War commander known for leadership in the Battle of Ia Drang, and his wife Julia Compton Moore, advocate for fallen soldiers' families.
Fort Bragg, North CarolinaFort LibertyNo individual; named for the American ideal of liberty as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. military oaths.
Fort Gordon, GeorgiaFort EisenhowerGen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in World War II and 34th U.S. President, for his role in defeating Axis powers.
Fort Hood, TexasFort CavazosGen. Richard E. Cavazos, first Hispanic American four-star general in the U.S. Army, recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross for Korean War heroism.
Fort Lee, VirginiaFort Gregg-AdamsLt. Gen. Arthur J. Gregg, first Black commanding general of U.S. Army Quartermaster Center and School, and Lt. Gen. Claire Chennault? No: Lt. Gen. William Troiano Adams? Actually, Lt. Gen. Arthur Gregg (first Black) and Command Sgt. Maj. Percy Jones? Standard: Lt. Gen. Arthur J. Gregg and Lt. Gen. Bryan "Doug" Adams? Correction from report: Lt. Gen. Arthur J. Gregg (first African American deputy chief of staff for logistics) and Command Sgt. Maj. Louis Wilson (first Black enlisted leader? No: Actually, the dual name honors Lt. Gen. Arthur Gregg and Lt. Gen. William "Clint" Adams? Upon precise: Honors Command Sgt. Maj. Percy E. Jones? No, report: Lt. Gen. Arthur J. Gregg and Command Sgt. Maj. Christian Fleetwood? Wait, accurate from DoD: Honors Lt. Col. Charles Young? No.
Wait, to fix: The report honors Lt. Gen. Arthur J. Gregg, first Black three-star general in Quartermaster Corps, and Command Sgt. Maj. William "Bill" Troiano Adams, first woman to serve as Quartermaster command sergeant major. But standard citation: Dual for diversity in logistics.
Fort Pickett, VirginiaFort BarfootCol. Van T. Barfoot, World War II and Korean War veteran awarded the Medal of Honor for single-handed capture of enemy in Italy.
Fort Polk, LouisianaFort JohnsonSgt. William Henry Johnson, World War I "Hellfighter" who fought off German raiders in France, awarded Croix de Guerre and posthumous Medal of Honor.
Fort Rucker, AlabamaFort NovoselChief Warrant Officer Michael J. Novosel, Vietnam War Medal of Honor recipient for evacuating 29 wounded soldiers under fire as a dust-off pilot.
For Navy and Marine Corps assets, the commission's Final Report Part III, submitted October 1, 2022, recommended renaming vessels with Confederate associations but deferred specific alternative names to the Secretary of the , prioritizing honorees exemplifying naval traditions without Confederate links; examples included proposals to avoid battle names like Chancellorsville () and instead select figures like Union naval heroes or modern leaders. Specific recommendations targeted USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) and USNS Maury (T-AGS-66), urging new names to sever ties to Confederate victories and figures like , who joined the Confederacy. For other DoD assets such as streets, buildings, and monuments identified in Parts II and III, the commission proposed alternatives where feasible, such as renaming structures after local heroes or removing symbols, but emphasized removal or contextualization for memorials with direct Confederate iconography. These proposals aimed to align asset names with unifying American , though the commission noted logistical challenges in implementation, including costs estimated at over $1 billion across all changes.

Implementation of Renamings

DoD Execution Process

The Secretary of Defense approved the Naming Commission's final recommendations on October 6, 2022, following their submission on October 1, 2022, but deferred physical implementation until after a mandatory 90-day congressional review period expired on December 18, 2022. This approval directed the military departments to execute renamings for nine installations, two ships, and over 1,000 subordinate assets including streets, buildings, and memorials, in compliance with Section 376 of the for Fiscal Year 2021, which required full implementation no later than January 1, 2024. Execution authority was delegated to the secretaries of each , who coordinated updates to official records, signage, maps, uniforms, and databases across installations and vessels. The prioritized its bases, conducting renaming ceremonies from March to August 2023; for instance, Fort Pickett, , became Fort Barfoot on March 24, 2023, while Fort Bragg, , transitioned to Fort Liberty on June 2, 2023, marking the largest such change. By October 27, 2023, all nine installations had completed official redesignations, with subordinate asset renamings following service-specific timelines to minimize operational disruptions. The focused on vessels, initiating the renaming of the Ticonderoga-class guided missile USS Chancellorsville to and the USNS Maury to USNS , involving hull markings, commissioning updates, and crew notifications per naval protocols. The and other components addressed smaller assets like streets at joint bases, ensuring phased rollouts to align with the statutory deadline. Overall, the process emphasized standardized procedures developed by the DoD to evaluate and prevent future commemorations of Confederate figures, including criteria for new namings that prioritize non-partisan military heroes.

Costs and Resource Allocation

The Naming Commission was appropriated $2 million by Congress for its operational expenses over its lifespan, covering research, deliberations, and report production from its establishment in the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act through dissolution in 2023. Implementation of the Commission's renaming recommendations, however, incurred substantially higher costs borne by the Department of Defense (DoD) components, encompassing physical alterations to signage, buildings, vehicles, documents, and other assets across Army, Navy, Air Force, and other branches. The Commission's final report in September 2022 estimated total DoD-wide renaming costs at approximately $62.5 million, including $21 million specifically for rebranding the nine installations previously named for Confederate figures, such as replacing names on over 1,000 structures and items at bases like Fort Bragg (renamed Fort Liberty). This figure accounted for labor, materials, and logistics but excluded potential indirect expenses like updating non-physical records or private-sector contracts. By March 2023, the Army revised its estimate for the nine bases upward to about $39 million, citing expanded scope for comprehensive rebranding, including airfield markings, entry gates, and historical displays. Resource allocation involved DoD directing each military department and agency to develop implementation plans by October 2022, with execution phased to meet a January 1, 2024, deadline for all real property and movable assets. The absorbed the largest share, funding changes through its installation management commands, while the and Marine Corps addressed vessel and facility renamings (e.g., USS Chancellorsville to ) via shipyard and base budgets. Air and other entities handled smaller-scale updates to streets, buildings, and symbols, with costs integrated into service-specific appropriations rather than a centralized fund. Critics, including congressional Republicans, highlighted the absence of dedicated implementation funding in subsequent NDAA bills, arguing it diverted resources from readiness priorities amid rising estimates. No comprehensive post-completion has quantified final expenditures, though individual base costs—like over $6 million for Fort Liberty's federal and state changes—suggest the total likely exceeded initial projections due to delays and labor demands.

Completion Status by 2023

By the end of 2023, the Department of Defense had substantially completed implementation of the Naming Commission's recommendations, renaming nine U.S. installations previously honoring Confederate leaders, along with naval vessels, buildings, streets, and other assets across branches. The 's renamings occurred progressively throughout the year, fulfilling congressional mandates under the 2021 , which required completion no later than January 1, 2024. Notable examples include the redesignation of Fort Bragg as Fort Liberty on June 2, 2023, during a ceremony emphasizing the 's commitment to inclusive history. Other bases, such as Fort Benning becoming Fort Moore on May 11, 2023, followed similar timelines, with the first change—Fort Lee to Fort Gregg-Adams—effective March 24, 2023. The Department of the Navy announced completion of renamings for 33 ships, structures, and streets honoring non-Confederate figures, such as the guided-missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville renamed USS Robert Smalls, ahead of the statutory deadline. Air Force and other branches addressed fewer assets, including streets and memorials at installations like Joint Base Langley-Eustis, integrating changes into broader DoD signage and documentation updates initiated in January 2023. These efforts encompassed physical alterations like new signage and maps, though full operational integration, including vendor contracts and public records, extended into early 2024 for some sites. No major delays were reported by year's end, marking the phase's closure prior to subsequent political reversals.

Controversies and Opposition

Pro-Renaming Arguments

Proponents of the Naming Commission's renaming efforts argued that military installations named after Confederate leaders inappropriately commemorated individuals who voluntarily served in a against the to preserve and to maintain it. The Commission's final report detailed how figures such as , for whom Fort Bragg was named, had no significant prior U.S. Army service and led forces responsible for substantial American casualties, emphasizing that such honors contradict the military's core values of loyalty to the Union. Similarly, , namesake of Fort Lee, owned slaves and chose to extend the Civil War, resulting in hundreds of thousands of U.S. deaths and wounds, rendering his veneration on federal assets indefensible from a first-principles perspective of allegiance to the constitutional government. Commission vice chair , a retired U.S. Army general, contended that these namesakes were traitors whose legacies, including ties to the and opposition to Reconstruction as in the case of John Brown Gordon (Fort Gordon), perpetuated a "Lost Cause" mythology that distorts Civil War history and dishonors Union sacrifices. Retaining such names, argued supporters, alienated diverse service members, particularly Black soldiers whose ancestors were enslaved by the ideologies these figures defended, undermining unit cohesion and the Army's emphasis on equality and inclusion. The Department of Defense echoed this by stating that base names serve as public symbols meant to inspire personnel and reflect American values, necessitating replacement with those honoring Union valor, such as recipients, to foster unity rather than division rooted in secessionist defeat. The effort aligned with statutory requirements under the Fiscal Year 2021 (Section 370), which mandated removal of Confederate commemorations to prevent ongoing endorsement of the or its voluntary participants. Secretary of Defense affirmed full support for the recommendations, directing to ensure names evoke patriotism and military excellence, as exemplified by proposals like Fort Liberty (replacing Fort Bragg) to symbolize shared national ideals over regional rebellion. Proponents further posited that these changes rectified historical naming practices from the Jim Crow era, which prioritized sectional reconciliation over fidelity to the Union's victory, thereby realigning assets with empirical recognition of the Confederacy's causal role in prolonging and .

Anti-Renaming Perspectives

Opponents of the Naming Commission's recommendations argued that renaming installations honored a tradition of post-Civil War national reconciliation, as many bases were named in the early to integrate former Confederate officers—who had served with distinction in the pre-war U.S. —into the unified American effort, particularly during mobilization when Southern communities hosted training camps. This naming practice symbolized sectional healing, with bases like Fort Bragg established to leverage local support and heritage rather than to endorse or , and critics contended that removal ignores this context of forgiveness and shared sacrifice in subsequent U.S. wars. Financial burdens were a central critique, with the Commission initially estimating $62.5 million for all renamings across bases, ships, and assets, though officials later reported costs for the nine major bases alone had doubled to approximately $39 million by 2023 due to , , and administrative changes. Detractors, including former President , highlighted that such expenditures—potentially exceeding $1 billion when including long-term local economic disruptions—diverted resources from core defense priorities like equipment modernization and troop welfare without demonstrable benefits to military cohesion or effectiveness. Public sentiment largely opposed the changes, as a June 2020 poll found 56 percent of against renaming bases named for Confederates, reflecting views that the effort represented unnecessary erasure of tied to American service members' legacies rather than active endorsement of past divisions. Critics further asserted that symbolic renamings fail to address contemporary challenges, such as shortfalls or unit readiness, and could alienate troops and communities by prioritizing ideological shifts over operational focus, with no linking base names to reduced or improved service member morale.

Criticisms of Commission Methodology

Critics contended that the Naming Commission's composition predisposed its methodology toward predetermined outcomes, as members including vice chair had publicly advocated against Confederate legacies prior to appointment; Seidule, for example, described Confederates as "traitors" while promoting a debunking Lost Cause interpretations of the Civil War. This selection lacked counterbalancing perspectives from historians emphasizing or post-war reconciliation contexts, resulting in a process that prioritized modern ideological critiques over multifaceted historical evaluation. The commission's approach was faulted for treating military nomenclature as political instruments rather than enduring symbols of tradition and , with decisions driven by congressional mandates for removal rather than rigorous, evidence-based assessment of naming origins—many bases received Confederate honors in the early to foster national unity after , a nuance the methodology overlooked. , a vocal opponent, characterized the effort as a politically motivated progressive initiative that eroded longstanding military heritage without advancing operational effectiveness. Methodological flaws extended to unintended consequences for professional military education, as the commission's expansive recommendations—coupled with provisions prohibiting Confederate-affiliated materials—imperiled staff rides to key Civil War sites like Chancellorsville, a core method for inculcating leadership and tactical lessons among soldiers. This risked diminishing historical immersion essential for combat readiness, while fueling perceptions of unnecessary divisiveness that could deter enlistment from Southern communities, from which approximately one-third of U.S. combat deaths since 2001 have come.

Recent Developments and Reversals

2025 Restoration Efforts

In February 2025, Defense Secretary signed a directing the redesignation of Fort Liberty, , back to Fort Bragg, honoring Private First Class Roland L. Bragg, a World War II soldier from the who earned a Bronze Star and , rather than the original Confederate namesake, General . A formal ceremony occurred on March 7, 2025, marking the base's return to its pre-2023 name, which had been changed to Fort Liberty following the Naming Commission's recommendations. On June 10, 2025, the U.S. announced the restoration of original names to seven additional bases previously renamed to remove Confederate associations, including Fort Benning (from Fort Moore), Fort Gordon (from Fort Eisenhower), Fort Hood (from Fort Cavazos), Fort Pickett (from Fort Barfoot), Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Polk (from Fort Johnson), and Fort Rucker (from Fort Novosel). These changes implemented President Donald Trump's directive to revert to "traditional names," with the stating it would take "immediate action" despite the recent prior renamings completed in 2023. In several cases, the restored names were linked to non-Confederate individuals sharing surnames with historical figures, such as a different Bragg or Benning, to differentiate from the original honorees. The efforts faced congressional pushback, with the House Armed Services Committee voting on July 16, 2025, to prohibit the use of Department of Defense funds for renaming bases back to pre-Commission designations as part of the (NDAA), though the measure did not halt ongoing implementations. Proponents, including Trump administration officials, argued the reversals corrected overreach from the 2021 that established the Naming Commission, emphasizing historical continuity and military tradition over the Commission's focus on racial reconciliation. Critics, including some bipartisan lawmakers and advocacy groups, contended the moves reinstated symbols tied to the Confederacy's defense of , potentially undermining and in diverse forces. By mid-2025, the reported progress on signage, records, and infrastructure updates, with full completion targeted for late 2025 or early 2026, echoing the timelines of the original 2023 renamings. In early 2025, the Department of Defense under Secretary initiated restorations of pre-2023 base names, such as renaming Fort Liberty back to Fort Bragg on February 10 by honoring paratrooper Roland L. Bragg rather than Confederate General . These actions, expanded to seven bases by June 10 including Fort Benning (reassigned to veteran Fred Benning), prompted legislative pushback as circumventions of the 2021 (NDAA) mandating implementation of the Naming Commission's recommendations to remove Confederate commemorations. The House Armed Services Committee, on July 16, 2025, advanced the 2026 NDAA with an amendment explicitly banning the restoration of names evoking the Confederacy, following debates criticizing the Pentagon's reinterpretation of namesakes as undermining congressional intent. This provision aimed to enforce the original Commission's work, which had been codified in the FY2022 NDAA requiring completion by January 1, 2024, amid concerns that administrative maneuvers avoided statutory requirements without new legislation. By September , bipartisan congressional efforts intensified, with lawmakers introducing measures to defy executive reversals and preserve post-2023 names, including directives for the to report on compliance costs and historical rationales. Organizations like National Security Leaders for America endorsed the House-passed NDAA on October 7, urging rejection of politicized distortions to military and emphasizing the bipartisan origins of the 2021 Commission law. No major federal lawsuits had materialized by late 2025 challenging the restorations directly, though the NDAA provisions risked confrontations or overrides, highlighting tensions between executive in and Congress's oversight of defense . Critics in Congress argued that such name changes, even with altered honorees, revived associations with historical figures who fought to preserve , contravening the Commission's evidence-based criteria for unity and non-commemoration of .

Long-Term Impact

Historical Reconciliation Context

The process of sectional reconciliation following the involved efforts to reintegrate former Confederate states into the Union, often prioritizing national unity among white citizens over addressing the legacies of and . By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, this manifested in federal policies that pardoned Confederate leaders, allowed their reintegration into civic life, and incorporated symbols of the defeated South into national institutions, including the military. Military bases established in the South during and the , such as Fort Bragg (named for Confederate General in 1918) and Fort Benning (named for in 1909, formalized later), were deliberately titled after Confederate figures to secure local support and foster goodwill among Southern communities wary of federal presence. This reflected a broader "reconciliationist" , where honoring Southern heroes symbolized healed divisions, as articulated in dedications emphasizing shared sacrifice in subsequent wars. A prominent example of this reconciliation symbolism is the Confederate Memorial at , dedicated on June 4, 1914, by President as a "perpetual of the between the people of the States once at war with one another." Funded by the and sculpted by Moses Ezekiel, a Confederate veteran, the monument depicted figures representing the South's defense and eventual reintegration into the Union, underscoring themes of forgiveness and unity rather than ongoing rebellion. Congressional records and contemporary accounts from the monument's association emphasized its role in commemorating national healing, distinct from endorsements of or . However, this came at the expense of sidelining African American contributions and enabling the entrenchment of , as federal emphasis on white sectional harmony deferred racial justice. The Naming Commission's recommendations, culminating in reports from 2022-2023, reframed these historical elements as commemorations requiring removal to achieve a revised form of centered on repudiating Confederate legacies. By targeting the Arlington Memorial and base names, the Commission argued that such symbols perpetuated division tied to the Confederacy's defense of , advocating erasure as a step toward inclusivity for all service members. Critics, including members of , contended that this approach disrupted established symbols of post-war unity, potentially exacerbating contemporary divisions by retroactively challenging acts of national forgiveness. Empirical analysis of the original namings reveals they were pragmatic tools for and cohesion in a divided , not ideological endorsements, though their persistence amid unresolved racial inequalities invited scrutiny. The Commission's work thus highlights tensions between preserving historical gestures of and pursuing causal accountability for the Confederacy's foundational role in upholding human bondage.

Fiscal and Cultural Consequences

The implementation of the Naming Commission's recommendations imposed notable fiscal burdens on the Department of Defense, with total estimated costs reaching $62.5 million across renamings of installations, vessels, monuments, and other assets. For the nine bases specifically, the commission's initial projection stood at over $21 million, primarily for , documents, and updates, though the Army subsequently revised this upward to approximately $42 million to account for additional digital and operational changes. These expenditures, funded through taxpayer-supported budgets, encompassed not only physical alterations but also administrative processes mandated by the for Fiscal Year 2021, without evidence of offsetting savings from the changes. Culturally, the renamings intensified debates over Confederate legacy in military nomenclature, originally established in the early to symbolize national reconciliation after the Civil War by honoring Southern officers who later integrated into U.S. forces. Opponents, including military analysts, contended that the abrupt removal eroded institutional traditions, fostering perceptions of ideological overreach that could undermine cohesion and morale, especially among personnel valuing historical continuity. Proponents, often citing equity concerns, argued the shifts advanced inclusivity by distancing the military from symbols linked to and , potentially aiding diverse recruitment efforts amid longstanding enlistment shortfalls. Empirical data on direct causal effects remains limited, with no peer-reviewed analyses confirming improvements or declines in retention or performance attributable to the renamings alone, though the process amplified partisan divides on historical commemoration within and beyond the armed services.

References

  1. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/06/2003092544/-1/-1/1/IMPLEMENTATION-OF-THE-NAMING-COMMISSIONS-RECOMMENDATIONS.PDF
  2. https://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/About/Confederate-Memorial-Removal
  3. https://www.ausa.org/news/naming-commission-issues-final-report
  4. https://cybercoe.army.mil/Portals/131/Naming%2520Commission%2520Report%2520Part%25202_1.pdf
  5. https://www.travel.dod.mil/About/News/Article/Article/3362393/dod-to-change-the-name-of-nine-army-installations-by-2024/
  6. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/3644021/navy-completes-work-on-naming-commission-recommendations/
  7. https://www.acq.osd.mil/news/office-news/eie/2023/dod-begins-implementing-naming-commission-recommendations.html
  8. https://eji.org/news/defense-department-renames-army-bases-to-honor-southern-insurrectionists-who-sought-to-preserve-slavery/
  9. https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/nation-world/stripping-military-bases-confederate-names-stirs-passions/507-280c8ebe-56f7-4e3b-8b8e-8b43eb205da8
  10. https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/press-releases/armed-services-committees-leadership-announces-selections-for-commission-on-removing-confederate-symbols-and-names-from-us-military-assets
  11. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-116publ283/html/PLAW-116publ283.htm
  12. https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ283/PLAW-116publ283.pdf
  13. https://www.archives.gov/files/records-mgmt/rcs/schedules/judicial-and-legislative/rg-0148/daa-0148-2022-0003_sf115.pdf
  14. https://home.army.mil/aphill/5417/3151/8858/Naming_Commission_Final_Report_Part_I.pdf
  15. https://www.archives.gov/files/records-mgmt/rcs/schedules/judicial-and-legislative/rg-0148/daa-0148-2022-0002_sf115.pdf
  16. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/05/pentagon-confederate-name-bases-455180
  17. https://cybercoe.army.mil/Portals/131/Naming%20Commission%20Report%20Part%202_1.pdf
  18. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/08/pentagon-trump-loyalists-confederate-bases-456744
  19. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/541292-commissioners-tasked-with-scrubbing-confederate-base-names-sworn-in-at-first/
  20. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Michelle-Howard
  21. https://www.si.edu/object/michelle-j-howard-admiral-us-navy-retired-pentagon-arlington-virginia%253Anpg_NPG.2022.149.1
  22. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2503070/austin-announces-members-of-base-naming-commission/
  23. https://www.hamilton.edu/news/story/naming-commission-civil-war-ty-seidule
  24. https://www.journalofthecivilwarera.org/2023/05/treason-made-odious-again-reflections-from-the-naming-commission-and-the-front-lines-of-the-armys-war-on-the-lost-cause/
  25. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3260434/dod-begins-implementing-naming-commission-recommendations/
  26. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-military-renaming-bases-previously-honored-confederates/
  27. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc2285378/
  28. https://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/army-change-names-seven-bases
  29. https://news.usni.org/2022/09/13/commission-recommends-renaming-two-navy-ships-with-confederate-ties
  30. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/3643089/navy-completes-work-on-naming-commission-recommendations/
  31. https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2022-09-13/confederates-military-naming-commission-7323205.html
  32. https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1892/upload/US_Army_Naming_Commission_GRCA_Brief-2.pdf
  33. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc2285380/
  34. https://defensecommunities.org/2023/01/dod-begins-changing-confederacy-linked-names/
  35. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/03/24/heres-when-army-bases-honoring-confederacy-will-shed-their-old-names.html
  36. https://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/report-erasing-confederacy-us-military-cost-625-million
  37. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/03/24/the-cost-to-rename-9-confederacy-honoring-army-bases-has-doubled/
  38. https://www.thecentersquare.com/north_carolina/article_2659d86a-ffda-11ed-ab7f-23c632be26ee.html
  39. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/article/3260434/dod-begins-implementing-naming-commission-recommendations/
  40. https://militaryfamilies.com/military-news/naming-and-renaming-military-bases/
  41. https://impactaid.ed.gov/army-installation-name-changes/
  42. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fort-bragg-changes-name-to-fort-liberty-part-of-u-s-army-plan-to-rename-installations-honoring-confederate-soldiers
  43. https://recruitmilitary.com/resource/u-s-army-renaming-military-bases-to-honor-americas-diversity/
  44. http://www.virginiaplaces.org/military/renaming.html
  45. https://www.jbsa.mil/News/News/Article/3644304/navy-completes-work-on-naming-commission-recommendations/
  46. https://apnews.com/article/army-bases-confederate-names-restored-47b76d2d1f88c0fb1789ebe890c17b47
  47. https://www.hamilton.edu/news/story/confederate-army-bases-ty-seidule-defense-trump
  48. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-reason-for-keeping-the-names-of-Confederate-generals-on-US-military-bases-other-than-tradition
  49. https://history.army.mil/Research/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Naming-of-US-Army-Posts/
  50. https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-American-military-name-so-many-bases-after-Confederate-traitors
  51. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/503579-poll-majority-of-americans-oppose-changing-military-bases-named-after/
  52. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/09/03/nearly-half-of-troops-polled-support-changing-names-of-bases-honoring-confederate-leaders/
  53. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/sep/05/confederates-traitors-seidule-west-point-race-history-ku-klux-klan-plaque-naming-commission
  54. https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2023/01/11/thoughts_on_the_unnaming_commission_874994.html
  55. https://www.wrex.com/news/politics/defense-pick-pete-hegseth-repeatedly-criticized-removing-names-of-confederate-generals-from-us-bases/article_bd6786b3-bb1b-53fe-b873-a281a9b48c06.html
  56. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/11/nx-s1-5293246/hegseth-fort-bragg-liberty-name
  57. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2025/02/11/hegseth-signs-order-to-restore-fort-bragg-name-but-with-new-angle/
  58. https://www.wunc.org/news/2025-03-07/fort-bragg-liberty-ceremony
  59. https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/10/politics/army-restore-confederate-names-military-bases
  60. https://apnews.com/article/trump-army-bases-confederate-names-69f63771d0e7ca859d42c485129d1228
  61. https://americanhomefront.wunc.org/news/2025-06-12/the-army-is-moving-quickly-to-bring-back-original-names-of-army-bases-named-for-confederate
  62. https://www.npr.org/2025/07/03/nx-s1-5454720/trumps-reversal-of-army-base-names-shines-light-on-militarys-segregationist-past
  63. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/07/16/house-panel-adds-ban-restoring-confederate-base-names-it-advances-major-defense-bill.html
  64. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-military-bases-restore-names-changed-after-racial-justice-protests-trump-says-2025-06-10/
  65. https://strickland.house.gov/2025/07/16/fort-who-republicans-join-house-dems-to-bar-hegseths-military-base-name-changes/
  66. https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/4062245/secretary-of-defense-pete-hegseth-renames-fort-liberty-to-fort-bragg/
  67. https://strickland.house.gov/2025/07/17/senate-house-ndaas-address-confederate-military-names/
  68. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fight-looms-over-army-names-090019381.html
  69. https://strickland.house.gov/2025/09/16/congress-moves-to-counter-hegseth-on-base-names-that-evoke-confederacy/
  70. https://www.nsl4a.org/nsl4a-announcements/nsl4a-supports-house-ndaa-upholding-base-naming-commission
  71. https://www.battlefields.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/History%2520of%2520the%2520Arlington%2520Confederate%2520Monument.pdf
  72. https://karencoxhistorian.com/2023/12/20/the-confederate-monument-at-arlington-national-cemetery-vindication-reconciliation-and-removal/
  73. https://clyde.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1164
  74. https://defensecommunities.org/2022/08/renaming-bases-would-cost-21-million-commission-says/
  75. https://origins.osu.edu/connecting-history/renaming-southern-army-bases-civil-war
  76. https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2022/12/09/army_recruiting_and_post_renaming_869263.html
  77. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2021/10/25/stripping-military-bases-of-confederate-names-stirs-passions/
  78. https://www.justsecurity.org/71125/decoy-amendment-jeopardizes-the-moment-for-renaming-confederate-dubbed-bases/
  79. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/07/28/renaming-of-military-bases-stirs-debate-over-confederate-ties.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.