Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress




Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
Updated February 27, 2024
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
RS22478




Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Summary
Names for Navy ships traditionally have been chosen and announced by the Secretary of the
Navy, under the direction of the President and in accordance with rules prescribed by Congress.
Rules for giving certain types of names to certain types of Navy ships have evolved over time.
There have been exceptions to the Navy’s ship-naming rules, particularly for the purpose of
naming a ship for a person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it to be
named for something else. Some observers have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the
rules for naming Navy ships.
Names for Navy ship types currently or recently procured for the Navy include the following:
• The first and second SSBN-826 class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)
have been named District of Columbia and Wisconsin.
• Until 2020, Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines were named largely
for states, but the most recent seven have been named for four earlier U.S. Navy
attack submarines, a former Secretary of the Navy, an island, and a city,
suggesting that there is no longer a clear naming rule for the class.
• Of the Navy’s 15 most recently named aircraft carriers, 10 have been named for
past U.S. Presidents and 2 for Members of Congress.
Destroyers are being named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps,
and Coast Guard, including Secretaries of the Navy.
• The first three FFG-62 class frigates have been named Constellation, Congress,
and Chesapeake, in honor of three of the first six U.S. Navy ships authorized by
Congress in 1794, and the fourth has been named Lafayette in honor of Marquis
de Lafayette and his service during the American Revolutionary War.
Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) were named for regionally important U.S. cities
and communities.
Amphibious assault ships (LHAs) are being named for U.S. Marine Corps
battles, early U.S. Navy sailing ships, or aircraft carriers from World War II.
San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships are being named for major U.S.
cities and communities and the cities and communities that were attacked on
September 11, 2001.
John Lewis (TAO-205) class oilers are being named for people who fought for
civil rights and human rights.
Expeditionary Fast Transports (EPFs) are being named for small U.S. cities.
• The first of the Navy’s new Expeditionary Medical Ships (EMSs) has been
named Bethesda to honor the history and community of health care professionals
of Naval Support Activity Bethesda. The second EMS has been named Balboa to
honor the legacy and commitment of Navy doctors, nurses, corpsmen, and staff
of Balboa Naval Hospital in San Diego.
Expeditionary Transport Docks (ESDs) and Expeditionary Sea Bases (ESBs)
are being named for famous names or places of historical significance to U.S.
Marines.
Navajo (TATS-6) class towing, salvage, and rescue ships are being named for
prominent Native Americans or Native American tribes.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 13 link to page 15 link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 24 link to page 27 link to page 33 link to page 35 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 38 link to page 42 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 25 link to page 28 link to page 42 link to page 43 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Contents
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Navy’s Authority and Process for Naming Ships ...................................................................... 1
Authority for Naming Ships................................................................................................ 1
Process for Selecting Names ............................................................................................... 1
July 2012 Navy Report to Congress ................................................................................... 3
Overview of Naming Rules for Ship Types ........................................................................ 3

Rules for Ship Types Now Being Procured or Recently Procured ............................................ 5
Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs) ............................................................................... 5
Attack Submarines (SSNs) ................................................................................................. 6
Aircraft Carriers (CVNs) .................................................................................................... 9
Destroyers (DDGs) ............................................................................................................ 11
Frigates (FFGs) ................................................................................................................. 13
Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) .......................................................................................... 14
Amphibious Assault Ships (LHAs) ................................................................................... 14
Amphibious Ships (LPDs) ................................................................................................ 15
Oilers (TAOs) .................................................................................................................... 16
Dry Cargo and Ammunition Ships (TAKEs) .................................................................... 16
Expeditionary Fast Transports (EPFs) .............................................................................. 17
Expeditionary Medical Ships (EMSs) .............................................................................. 17
Expeditionary Transport Docks (ESDs) and Expeditionary Sea Bases (ESBs) ................ 17
Towing, Salvage, and Rescue Ships (TATSs) ................................................................... 18
Aspects of Navy Ship Names .................................................................................................. 18
Two State Names Not Currently Being Used, Particularly Kansas .................................. 18
Ships Named for Living Persons ...................................................................................... 20
Ships Named for the Confederacy or Confederate Officers ............................................. 23
Ships Named Several Years Before They Were Procured ................................................. 29
Changes to Names of Navy Ships ..................................................................................... 31
Public’s Role in Naming Ships ............................................................................................... 32
Congress’s Role in Naming Ships ........................................................................................... 32

Overview of Congressional Influence on Navy Ship-Naming Decisions ......................... 32
Congressional Responses to Announced Navy Ship-Naming Decisions .......................... 34
Legislation on Future Navy Ship-Naming Decisions ....................................................... 38
Legislative Activity in 2023 .......................................................................................................... 40
FY2024 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2670/S. 2226) ........................................ 40
House ................................................................................................................................ 40
Conference ........................................................................................................................ 40


Tables
Table 1. Ships Since 1973 Named for Persons Who Were Living at the Time ............................. 21
Table 2. Navy Ships Included in Naming Commission’s DOD Inventory .................................... 24
Table 3. Recent Enacted Legislative Provisions ............................................................................ 38
Table 4. Examples of Proposed Bills and Amendments ................................................................ 39

Congressional Research Service

link to page 45 link to page 47 link to page 48 link to page 55 link to page 56 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Appendixes
Appendix A. Navy’s Process for Naming Ships ............................................................................ 41
Appendix B. Executive Summary of July 2012 Navy Report to Congress ................................... 43
Appendix C. Ships Named for the Confederacy or Confederate Officers..................................... 44
Appendix D. Ex-U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Formerly Named Taney .............................................. 51

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 52

Congressional Research Service

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Background
Navy’s Authority and Process for Naming Ships
Authority for Naming Ships
Names for Navy ships traditionally have been chosen and announced by the Secretary of the
Navy, under the direction of the President and in accordance with rules prescribed by Congress.
For most of the 19th century, U.S. law included language explicitly assigning the Secretary of the
Navy the task of naming new Navy ships.1 The reference to the Secretary of the Navy
disappeared from the U.S. Code in 1925.2 The code today (10 U.S.C. §8662) is silent on the issue
of who has the authority to name new Navy ships,3 but the Secretary of the Navy arguably retains
implicit authority, given the location of Section 8662 in subtitle C of Title 10, which covers the
Navy and Marine Corps.
Process for Selecting Names
The Navy’s process for naming ships is set forth in SECNAV (Secretary of the Navy) Instruction
5031.1D of March 21, 2019, which states that “SECNAV is the sole entity with authority to
approve the name of new construction, conversion, and long-term charter ships. The SECNAV is
also the authority for approving the naming convention for new ship classes. The SECNAV

1 A law approved in 1819 (Res. of March 3, 1819, §1, 3 Stat. 538, No. 7) stated, “That all of the ships of the navy of the
United States, now building, or hereafter to be built, shall be named by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of
the President of the United States” in accordance with rules specifying that ships of the first class were to be named
after states of the Union, and second and third class ships were to be named, respectively, after rivers and principal
cities and towns. A law approved in 1858 (Act of June 12, 1858, c. 153, §5, 11 Stat. 319) provided a similar rule for
“steamships of the navy,” except that third-class vessels (those with fewer than twenty guns) were to be named by the
Secretary of the Navy as the President may direct, taking care that no two vessels in the Navy shall bear the same
name.” §1531 of the Revised Statutes of 1873-1874, citing the 1819 and 1858 laws, states the following: “The vessels
of the Navy shall be named by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President” in accordance with rules
similar to those above, varying slightly depending on whether the vessel was a sailing ship or a steamship. In 1898,
Congress passed a law (Act of May 4, 1898, c. 234, 30 Stat. 390 [appropriations for the naval services]) prescribing
rules for the naming of “first-class battle ships and monitors,” which specified that these were to be named after States
and “shall not be named for any city, place, or persons until the names of the States, shall have been exhausted.” The
provision did not explicitly state whose duty it would be to assign names to vessels. Congress repealed this provision in
1908 as it pertained to monitors, permitting those vessels to be named “as the President may direct.” (Act of May 13,
1908, c. 166, 35 Stat. 159.)
2 The reference to the Secretary of the Navy found in §1531 of the Revised Statutes of 1873-1874 (see previous
footnote) is absent from the U.S. Code of 1925, which covers Navy vessel names in Title 34, §461-463.
3 10 U.S.C. §8662 was previously numbered as 10 U.S.C. §7292. It was renumbered as 10 U.S.C. §7292 by Section
807(d)(2) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (H.R. 5515/P.L. 115-232 of
August 13, 2018). (Section 807 of P.L. 115-232 directed the renumbering of various sections of Title 10 relating to the
Navy and Marine Corps. Sections 806 and 808 did the same for sections of Title 10 relating to the Air Force and Army,
respectively.) Prior to that, 34 U.S.C. §461-463 of the 1925 U.S. Code (see previous footnote) had been recodified as
10 U.S.C. §7292. 10 U.S.C. §8662 states that battleships “shall be named for a State. However, if the names of all the
States are in use, a battleship may be named for a city, place, or person” (§8662(b)). It specifically authorizes the
Secretary of the Navy to “change the name of any vessel bought for the Navy” (§8662(c)), but does not explicitly
assign responsibility for ensuring that no two vessels have the same name (§8662(a)), or for naming battleships
(§8662(b)).
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 45 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Public Affairs Office is SECNAV’s appointed agent responsible for initiating and coordinating the
naming process.”4 For an additional excerpt from this document, see Appendix A.
In discussing its name-selection process, the Naval History and Heritage Command—the Navy’s
in-house office of professional historians—cites the above-mentioned laws and states the
following:
As with many other things, the procedures and practices involved in Navy ship naming are
as much, if not more, products of evolution and tradition than of legislation. As we have
seen, the names for new ships are personally decided by the Secretary of the Navy. The
Secretary can rely on many sources to help him reach his decisions. Each year, the Navy
[sic: Naval] History and Heritage Command (NHHC) compiles primary and alternate ship
name recommendations and forwards these to the Chief of Naval Operations by way of the
chain of command. These recommendations are the result of research into the history of
the Navy and by suggestions submitted by service members, Navy veterans, and the public.
Ship name source records at NHHC reflect the wide variety of name sources that have been
used in the past, particularly since World War I. Ship name recommendations are
conditioned by such factors as the name categories for ship types now being built, as
approved by the Secretary of the Navy; the distribution of geographic names of ships of
the fleet; names borne by previous ships that distinguished themselves in service; names
recommended by individuals and groups; and names of naval leaders, national figures, and
deceased members of the Navy and Marine Corps who have been honored for heroism in
war or for extraordinary achievement in peace.
In its final form, after consideration at the various levels of command, the Chief of Naval
Operations signs the memorandum recommending names for the current year’s building
program and sends it to the Secretary of the Navy. The Secretary considers these
nominations, along with others he receives, as well as his own thoughts in this matter. At
appropriate times, he selects names for specific ships and announces them.
While there is no set time for assigning a name, it is customarily done before the ship is
christened. The ship’s sponsor—the person who will christen the ship—is also selected and
invited by the Secretary. In the case of ships named for individuals, an effort is made to
identify the eldest living direct female descendant of that individual to perform the role of
ship’s sponsor. For ships with other name sources, it is customary to honor the wives of
senior naval officers or public officials.
While the Navy has attempted to be systematic in naming its ships, like all institutions it
has been subject to evolutionary change, and the name sources of the Navy’s ships have
not been immune to this change. Thus, an historical accounting of this evolution, as it
appeared in modern times, may help the reader understand the ship naming process as it
exists today.5
A July 2012 Navy report to Congress on the Navy’s policies and practices for naming ships (see
next section) states the following:
Once a type/class naming convention [i.e., a general rule or guideline for how ships of a
certain type or class are to be named] is established, Secretaries can rely on many sources
to help in the final selection of a ship name. For example, sitting Secretaries can solicit

4 Department of the Navy, SECNAV Instruction [SECNAVINST] 5031.1D, Subject: Ship Naming, Sponsor Selection,
Crest Development, Keel Layings, Christenings, Commissionings, and Decommissionings, March 29, 2019, accessed
January 13, 2023, at
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/doni/Directives/05000%20General%20Management%20Security%20and%20Safety%20
Services/05-00%20General%20Admin%20and%20Management%20Support/5031.1D.pdf.
5 Naval History and Heritage Command, “The Evolution of Ship Naming in the U.S. Navy,” published May 22, 2018,
accessed January 13, 2023, at https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/heritage/customs-and-traditions0/ship-
naming/the-evolution-of-ship-naming-in-the-u-s--navy.html.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 47 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

ideas and recommendations from either the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) or the
Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), or both. They can also task the Naval Heritage
and History Command to compile primary and alternate ship name recommendations that
are the result of research into the history of the Navy’s battle force or particular ship names.
Secretaries also routinely receive formal suggestions for ship names from concerned
citizens, active and retired servicemembers, or members of Congress. Finally, Congress
can enact provisions in Public Law that express the sense of the entire body about new ship
naming conventions or specific ship names. Regardless of the origin of the
recommendations, however, the final selection of a ship’s name is the Secretary’s to make,
informed and guided by his own thoughts, counsel, and preferences. At the appropriate
time—normally sometime after the ship has been either authorized or appropriated by
Congress and before its keel laying or christening—the Secretary records his decision with
a formal naming announcement.6
July 2012 Navy Report to Congress
On July 13, 2012, the Navy submitted to Congress a 73-page report on the Navy’s policies and
practices for naming ships.7 The report was submitted in response to Section 1014 of the FY2012
National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540/P.L. 112-81 of December 31, 2011). The
executive summary of the Navy’s report is reprinted here as Appendix B.8
Overview of Naming Rules for Ship Types
Evolution Over Time
Rules for giving certain types of names to certain types of Navy ships have evolved over time.
Attack submarines, for example, were once named for fish, then later for cities, and most recently
(in most cases) for states, while cruisers were once named for cities, then later for states,9 and
most recently for battles. State names, to cite another example, were once given to battleships,
then later to nuclear-powered cruisers and ballistic missile submarines, and most recently to (in
most cases) Virginia-class attack submarines.10
The Naval History and Heritage Command states the following: “How will the Navy name its
ships in the future? It seems safe to say that the evolutionary process of the past will continue; as
the fleet itself changes, so will the names given to its ships. It seems equally safe, however, to say
that future decisions in this area will continue to demonstrate regard for the rich history and
valued traditions of the United States Navy.”11 The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states that

6 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 3.
7 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, 73 pp. As of February 27, 2024, the report
was posted at https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/browse-by-topic/heritage/pdf/Shipnamingreport.pdf.
8 For an article providing a critical perspective on the Navy’s report, see Norman Polmar, “Report on Ship Naming
Falls Short,” Seapower, October 2012: 6-7.
9 Cruisers named for states were nuclear-powered cruisers.
10 10 U.S.C. 8662(b) states “Each battleship shall be named for a State. However, if the names of all the States are in
use, a battleship may be named for a city, place, or person.” The Navy has not procured any new battleships (i.e.,
surface combatants larger than cruisers) since World War II. 10 U.S.C. 8662(b) does not prohibit the Navy from giving
state names to ships other than battleships.
11 Naval History and Heritage Command, “The Evolution of Ship Naming in the U.S. Navy,” accessed April 30, 2019,
at https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/browse-by-topic/heritage/customs-and-traditions0/ship-naming/
the-evolution-of-ship-naming-in-the-u-s—navy.html.
Congressional Research Service

3

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

“US Navy ship-naming policies, practices, and ‘traditions’ are not fixed; they evolve constantly
over time.”12 The report also states that “Just as [ship] type naming conventions change over time
to accommodate technological change as well as choices made by Secretaries, they also change
over time as every Secretary makes their own interpretation of the original naming convention.”13
Exceptions
There have been numerous exceptions to the Navy’s ship-naming rules, particularly for the
purpose of naming a ship for a person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it
to be named for something else.14 The July 2012 report to Congress cites exceptions to ship-
naming rules dating back to the earliest days of the republic, and states that “a Secretary’s
discretion to make exceptions to ship-naming conventions is one of the Navy’s oldest ship-
naming traditions.”15 The report argues that exceptions made for the purpose of naming ships for
Presidents or Members of Congress have occurred frequently enough that, rather than being
exceptions, they constitute a “special cross-type naming convention” for Presidents and Members
of Congress.16 This CRS report continues to note, as exceptions to basic class naming rules,

12 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 10.
13 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 25.
14 Ohio (SSBN-726) class ballistic missile submarines, for example, were named for states, but one (SSBN-730) was
named for Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington, who died in office in 1983. Los Angeles (SSN-688) class
attack submarines were named for cities, but one (SSN-709) was named for Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, who served
for many years as director of the Navy’s nuclear propulsion program. Ticonderoga (CG-47) class cruisers were named
for battles, but one (CG-51) was named for Thomas S. Gates, a former Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of Defense.
15 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 7.
16 The report states that
the decision of the [Navy’s 1969] Riera Panel [on Navy ship names] to remove members of
Congress from the destroyer naming convention resulted in a now four-decade old, bipartisan
practice of honoring members of Congress with long records of support to the US military with
ships names selected and spread across a variety of ship types and classes. Orthodox Traditionalists
decry this development as an unwarranted intrusion of “politics” in Navy ship naming practice. But
this is a selective interpretation of the historical record. Secretaries of the Navy have been naming
ships for members of Congress for nearly a century in order to honor those extraordinary elected
leaders who have helped to make the Navy-Marine Corps Team the most powerful naval force in
history.
Like many Pragmatic Secretaries of the Navy before him, [then-]Secretary [of the Navy Ray]
Mabus endorses and subscribes to this special naming convention....
Objections to [then-]Secretary Mabus’s decision to name a ship in honor of Congressman Murtha
generally fall into one of four categories. The first are Orthodox Traditionalists who naturally
complain that his selection represents a corruption of the LPD 17 naming convention. However, as
outlined above, the choice is perfectly consistent with the special cross-type naming convention
that honors Legislative Branch members who have been closely identified with military and naval
affairs, which has been endorsed by Secretaries from both parties and Congress....
In summary, while USS John P. Murtha represents an exception to the established LPD 17
[amphibious ship] class naming convention, it is completely consistent with the special cross-type
naming convention for honoring famous American elected leaders, including both Presidents and
members of Congress with records of long-term service and support to the US armed forces.
(Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the
Vessels of the Navy
, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, pp.
28-30. Italics as in original. See also pp. 37, 41, 42, 44, 47, 68, and 73.)
Congressional Research Service

4

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

instances where ships other than aircraft carriers have been named for Presidents or Members of
Congress.
Some observers have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for naming Navy
ships.17 Such observers might cite, for example, the three-ship Seawolf (SSN-21) class of attack
submarines—Seawolf (SSN-21), Connecticut (SSN-22), and Jimmy Carter (SSN-23)—which
were named for a fish, a state, and a President, respectively, reflecting no apparent class naming
rule.18 The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states the following: “Current ship naming policies
and practices fall well within the historic spectrum of policies and practices for naming vessels of
the Navy, and are altogether consistent with ship naming customs and traditions.”19
Rules for Ship Types Now Being Procured or Recently Procured
For ship types now being procured for the Navy, or recently procured for the Navy, naming rules
(and exceptions thereto) are summarized below. The July 2012 Navy report to Congress discusses
current naming rules (and exceptions thereto) at length.
Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs)
On December 14, 2016, the Navy announced that SSBN-826, the first of a planned class of at
least 12 new ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), would be named Columbia, in honor of the
District of Columbia.20 Consequently, since December 2016, the 12 or more planned new SSBNs
have been referred to as Columbia (SSBN-826) class boats.21
On June 3, 2022, the Navy announced that it was modifying SSBN-826’s name from Columbia to
District of Columbia, so as to avoid an overlap in names with USS Columbia (SSN-771), a Los
Angeles (SSN-688) class attack submarine that was named for Columbia, SC; Columbia, IL; and
Columbia, MO.22 SSN-771 entered service in 1995, and its final years of service may overlap

17 See, for example, Donald R. Bouchoux, “The Name Game,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, March 2000: 110-111;
Norman Polmar, “Misnaming Aircraft Carriers,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, September 2006: 30-31; Norman
Polmar, “Misnaming Navy Ships (Again),” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, February 2009: 89; and Norman Polmar,
“There’s a Lot in a Name,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, April 2012: 88-89; Carl Forsling, “A Plan To Fix The
Navy’s Broken Ship Naming System,” Task and Purpose, May 6, 2015.
18 See, for example, Norman Polmar, “There’s a Lot in a Name,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, April 2012: 88-89,
which characterizes the naming of the Seawolf class as a “fiasco.” For the Navy’s discussion of the Seawolf class
names, see Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the
Navy
, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, pp. 46-47.
19 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. iii.
20 “Secretary of the Navy Names Three Vessels,” DOD Press Release NR-444-16, December 14, 2016. See also Megan
Eckstein, “SECNAV Mabus to Officially Designate First ORP [Ohio Replacement Program] Boat USS Columbia
(SSBN-826),” USNI News, December 13, 2016. The Navy’s intent to name the first Ohio replacement boat Columbia
was first reported in July 2016; see Sam LaGrone, “Navy Ohio Replacement Sub Class to Be Named for D.C.,” USNI
News
, July 28, 2016; Jacqueline Klimas, “Navy’s Next Sub Class to Be Named after D.C.,” Washington Examiner, July
29, 2016; “Document: Notice to Congress on 8 Proposed Navy Ship Names,” USNI News, August 3, 2016.
21 For more on the Columbia-class program, see CRS Report R41129, Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic
Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
22 A June 3, 2022, Navy news release stated
Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Carlos Del Toro announced today that the first ship in the
Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) will be officially named USS District of
Columbia (SSBN 826).
The decision to name SSBN 826 is to alleviate any name conflicts with the already-commissioned
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 38 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

with the initial years of service of SSBN-826. Such an overlap would pose an issue, as 10 U.S.C.
§8662(a) states, “Not more than one vessel of the Navy may have the same name.” Modifying
SSBN-826’s name from Columbia to District of Columbia avoids such an issue.23 As discussed
below (see “Congressional Responses to Announced Navy Ship-Naming Decisions”), the Navy in
1982 modified the name of SSN-705, another Los Angles-class attack submarine, from Corpus
Christi
to City of Corpus Christi.
The Navy states that notwithstanding the modification to SSBN-826’s name, the 12 or more
planned new SSBNs will continue to be referred to as Columbia (SSBN-826) class boats.24 On
October 28, 2020, the Navy announced that SSBN-827, the second boat in the class, will be
named Wisconsin.25 The Navy has not announced a naming rule for the Columbia-class boats.
Attack Submarines (SSNs)
As of February 27, 2024, the Navy had announced names for Virginia (SSN-774) class attack
submarines26 through SSN-810, the first of two Virginia-class boats that Congress procured in
FY2023, and had not announced a name for SSN-811, the second Virginia-class boat that was
procured in FY2023.
Until 2020, Virginia-class boats were named largely for states, but the most recent seven have
been named for four earlier U.S. Navy attack submarines, a former Secretary of the Navy, an
island, and a city, suggesting that there is no longer a clear naming rule for the class.
Three Virginia-class boats have been named for persons:
• On January 8, 2009, then-Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter announced that
SSN-785 would be named for former Senator John Warner.27

USS Columbia (SSN 771). §10 U.S.C. 8662(a) states that not more than one vessel of the Navy
may have the same name.
The Columbia program was named in 2016 with the lead ship projected to enter service in 2027,
consequently overlapping with the existing USS Columbia (SSN 771). SSBN 826 will be named
after the nation’s capital while SSN 771 is named after cities in South Carolina, Missouri, and
Illinois named Columbia, following the naval tradition of SSNs being named after U.S. cities.
(Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs, “SECNAV Names SSBN 826 USS District of Columbia,”
Release #22-10, June 3, 2022. A similar statement is available as Department of Defense,
“SECNAV Names SSBN 826 USS District of Columbia,” news release dated June 6, 2022,
accessed June 13, 2022, at https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3053562/
secnav-names-ssbn-826-uss-district-of-columbia/.)
See also Justin Katz, “Navy, General Dynamics Lay the Keel for Newly Renamed USS District of Columbia,”
Breaking Defense, June 5, 2022.
23 The possibility of an overlap in years of operation between SSN-771 and SSBN-826 and the resulting issue under 10
U.S.C. §8662(a) was discussed in this report from the version dated April 23, 2018, through the version dated March
31, 2022, which was the version prior to the Navy’s June 3, 2022, announcement. The discussion noted that one
possible way to resolve the naming issue arising from such an overlap would be to modify the name of SSBN-826 to
District of Columbia.
24 Email from Navy Office of Legislative Affairs to CRS, June 6, 2022.
25 See, for example, Richard R. Burgess, “SECNAV Selects USS Wisconsin as Name of Second Columbia SSBN,”
Seapower, October 28, 2020.
26 For more on the Virginia-class program, see CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia-Class Submarine Program and
AUKUS Submarine Proposal: Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
27 DOD News Release No. 016-09, “Navy Names Virginia Class Submarine USS John Warner,” January 8, 2009.
Warner served as a sailor in World War II, as a Marine in the Korean War, as Under Secretary of the Navy in 1969-
1972, and as Secretary of the Navy in 1972-1974. Warner served as a Senator from January 2, 1979, to January 3,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 8 link to page 25 link to page 36 link to page 36 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

• On January 9, 2014, then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that SSN-
795 would be named for Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, who served for many
years as director of the Navy’s nuclear propulsion program.28
• On February 28, 2023, Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro announced that
SSN-808 would be named for John H. Dalton,29 who was Secretary of the Navy
from July 22, 1993, to November 16, 1998, and served in the Navy from 1964 to
1969, during which time he served aboard two Navy submarines.
In 2020-2021, four consecutive Virginia-class boats (SSNs 804-807) were named in honor of
earlier U.S. Navy attack submarines:
• On October 13, 2020, then-Secretary of the Navy Kenneth J. Braithwaite
announced that SSN-804 would be named Barb, in honor of two previous U.S.
Navy attack submarines that were so named.30
• On November 18, 2020, then-Secretary Braithwaite announced that SSN-805 and
SSN-806 would be named Tang and Wahoo, respectively, in honor of two
previous Navy attack submarines named Tang and two previous Navy attack
submarines named Wahoo.31
• On January 15, 2021, then-Secretary Braithwaite announced that SSN-807 would
be named Silversides in honor of two previous Navy attack submarines that were
so named.32
As noted above, on February 28, 2023, Secretary Del Toro announced that SSN-808 would be
named for former Secretary of the Navy John H. Dalton.
SSN-809 has been named for Long Island. May 25, 2023, press reports quoted Secretary Del Toro
as stating that the Navy would name a forthcoming Virginia-class submarine for Long Island.33

2009. He was a longtime Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and was for several years the chairman of
that committee. Winter’s January 8, 2009, announcement assigned a name to SSN-785 11 months before the ship was
fully funded. (The ship was fully funded by the FY2010 DOD Appropriations Act [H.R. 3326/P.L. 111-118], which
was signed into law on December 19, 2009.) Naming a ship almost a year before it is funded is unusual. Winter stepped
down as Secretary of the Navy on March 13, 2009. If SSN-785 had not been named for Warner, the 111th Congress
might have had an opportunity to consider whether CVN-79, the next Ford-class carrier, should be named for Warner.
One observer argued in 2009 that in light of Warner’s record and past traditions for naming Navy ships, “he should be
honored by an aircraft carrier (two CVNs [nuclear-powered aircraft carriers] have been named for Members of
Congress) or possibly the lead ship for the planned class of CG(X) cruisers—but not a submarine.” (Norman Polmar,
“Misnaming Navy Ships (Again),” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, February 2009: 89.)
28 DOD News Release No. NR-009-15, “Navy Names New Virginia-Class Attack Submarine,” January 9, 2015. As
discussed elsewhere in this report (see footnote 14, Table 1, and the section entitled “Overview of Congressional
Influence on Navy Ship-Naming Decisions”
), a previous attack submarine—the Los Angeles-class submarine SSN-
709—was named for Rickover.
29 U.S. Navy, “SECNAV Names Future Virginia-class Nuclear-Powered Attack Submarine after 70th Secretary of the
Navy John H. Dalton,” press release dated February 28, 2023.
30 U.S. Navy press release, “Secretary Names Future Destroyer, Attack Submarine,” October 13, 2020. See also
Mallory Shelbourne, “SECNAV Names Attack Boat After WWII USS Barb, DDG for Former SECNAV Lehman,”
USNI News, October 13, 2020.
31 U.S. Navy news release, “SECNAV Names Two Future Virginia-class Submarines Tang, Wahoo,” November 18,
2020.
32 Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs, “SECNAV Names Future Vessels while aboard Historic Navy Ship,” U.S.
Navy, January 15, 2021.
33 “Fleet Week NYC 2023: US Navy’s Newest Submarine Will Honor Long Island Veterans,” NBC New York, May 25,
2023 (video report); CBS New York Team, “New Submarine to Be Named USS Long Island, Navy Secretary Carlos
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

7

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

On October 3, 2023, Secretary Del Toro announced that SSN-810 would be named San
Francisco
.34 The boat will be the fourth U.S. Navy ship to be named for the city.
The Navy’s naming decisions for the seven most recently named boats in the class can be viewed
as responding to a situation of the Navy currently not having many state names available to use in
naming new Navy ships. The 28 Virginia-class boats that to date have been named for states,
together with 17 Ohio (SSBN-726) class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and cruise missile
submarines (SSGNs) named for states,35 one Columbia (SSBN-826) class SSBN named for a
state (Wisconsin [SSBN-827]), one Seawolf (SSN-21) class attack submarine named for a state
(Connecticut [SSN-22]), and one San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ship named in part for
a state (New York [LPD-21]),36 make for a total of 48 in-service, under-construction, or planned
ships that are named for states. Navy plans call for not retiring any of these 48 ships until
FY2026, when retirements of Ohio-class boats are scheduled to begin. (The two state names that
remain available for potential application to Virginia-class boats or other Navy ships are Kansas
and South Carolina [see section below on state names not currently being used].)
Over the next several years, the Navy can manage the situation of having not more than 50 states
for which ships can be named by amending the naming rule for the Virginia class, by maintaining
the state naming rule but making additional exceptions to the rule, and/or by giving Virginia-class
boats the same state names as the earliest-retiring Ohio-class boats.37

Del Toro Says,” CBS News, May 25, 2023. See also Grant Parpan, “U.S. Navy to name new submarine USS Long
Island,” Newsday, May 29, 2023; GLI Staff, “Navy Building a Submarine Named USS Long Island,” Greater Long
Island
, May 30, 2023.
34 U.S. Navy press release, “SECNAV Del Toro Names Future Nuclear-Powered Attack Submarine USS San Francisco
(SSN 810),” October 3, 2023.
35 A total of 18 Ohio-class boats were built, of which 17 were named for states. (The fifth boat in the class, SSBN-730,
was named for Sen. Henry M. Jackson.) The 18 boats were all built as SSBNs; the first four boats in the class were later
converted into cruise missile submarines (SSGNs). For more on the Ohio-class boats, see CRS Report R41129, Navy
Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald
O'Rourke.
36 As discussed below in the section on amphibious ships (LPDs), San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships are
being named in part for cities and communities attacked on September 11, 2001. Three LPD-17 class ships are so
named—New York (LPD-21), Arlington (LPD-24) (for the county in Virginia), and Somerset (LPD-25) (for the county
in Pennsylvania). The Navy’s July 2012 report to Congress on the Navy’s policies and practices for naming ships,
however, states
On September 7, 2002, at a memorial service in New York City, [then-]Secretary [of the Navy
Gordon] England announced that LPD 21 USS would be named USS New York. On the face of it,
the choice was entirely consistent with the [LPD-17] type’s “American cities” [naming]
convention. However, when making the announcement, Secretary England made clear that the
ship’s name honored far more than just a city. He named New York for the city and state of New
York, the victims of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and for “…all the great leaders in New
York who emerged after the tragic events [of 9‐11].”
(Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the
Vessels of the Navy
, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p.
25. Ellipse, italics, and final bracketed portion as in original.)
37 10 U.S.C. 8662(a) states “Not more than one vessel of the Navy may have the same name.” Interpreting the phrase
“vessel of the Navy” to mean a ship that has been delivered to the Navy or commissioned into service with the Navy
would permit the Navy to name Virginia-class boats under construction for states whose names are assigned to Ohio-
class boats that are to be decommissioned before the Virginia-class boats in question are to be delivered or
commissioned into service. Interpreting “vessel of the Navy” to refer additionally to ships that are under construction
for the Navy could require the Navy to defer the official act of naming one or more Virginia-class boats that are under
construction until Ohio-class boats with the same state names have been decommissioned.
Congressional Research Service

8

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Aircraft Carriers (CVNs)
Overview
The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states that “while carrier names are still ‘individually
considered,’ they are now generally named in honor of past US Presidents.”38 Of the 15 most
recent aircraft carriers (those with hull numbers 67 through 81), 10 have been named for past U.S.
Presidents and 2 for Members of Congress.
The Navy is currently procuring Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class carriers.39 On January 16, 2007,
the Navy announced that CVN-78, the lead ship in the CVN-78 class, would be named for
President Gerald R. Ford.
On May 29, 2011, the Navy announced that CVN-79, the second ship in the class, would be
named for President John F. Kennedy.40
On December 1, 2012, the Navy announced that CVN-80, the third ship in the class, would be
named Enterprise. The Navy made the announcement on the same day that it deactivated the 51-
year-old aircraft carrier CVN-65, also named Enterprise.41 CVN-80 is the ninth Navy ship named
Enterprise. CVN-80 was procured in the FY2018 budget, which Congress considered in 2017. If
CVN-80, like most Navy ships, had been named at about the time of procurement, or later, rather
than in 2012, it would have been named by then-Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer. The July
2012 Navy report to Congress, which was produced when Ray Mabus was the Secretary of the
Navy, states that
Secretary [of the Navy Ray] Mabus values the ability to consider [aircraft] carrier names
on an individual, case‐by‐case basis, for two reasons. First, it will allow a future Secretary
to name a future fleet aircraft carrier for someone or something other than a former
President. Indeed, Secretary Mabus has a particular name in mind. With the scheduled
decommissioning of USS Enterprise (CVN 65), perhaps the most famous ship name in US
Navy history besides USS Constitution will be removed from the Naval Vessel Register.
Secretary Mabus believes this circumstance could be remedied by bestowing the
Enterprise’s storied name on a future carrier.42
Prior to the naming of CVN-80, the most recent carrier that was not named for a President or
Member of Congress was the second of the 14 most recently named carriers, Nimitz (CVN-68),
which was procured in FY1967.43
On January 20, 2020, at a Martin Luther King Jr. Day ceremony, the Navy announced that the
fourth ship in the class, CVN-81, which Congress authorized in FY2019, would be named for

38 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 37.
39 For more on the CVN-78 program, see CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program:
Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
40 DOD News Release No. 449-11, “Navy Names Next Aircraft Carrier USS John F. Kennedy,” May 29, 2011. CVN-
79 will be the second aircraft carrier named for Kennedy. The first, CV-67, was the last conventionally powered carrier
procured for the Navy. CV-67 was procured in FY1963, entered service in 1968, and was decommissioned in 2007.
41 “Enterprise, Navy’s First Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier, Inactivated,” Navy News Service, December 1, 2012;
Hugh Lessig, “Navy Retires One Enterprise, Will Welcome Another,” Newport News Daily Press, December 2, 2012.
42 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 37.
43 CVN-68 was named for Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, a five-star admiral who commanded U.S. and allied forces in
the Pacific in World War II. Nimitz died in 1966, the same year that Congress considered the FY1967 defense budget
that funded the procurement of CVN-68.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 25 link to page 43 link to page 42 link to page 25 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Ship’s Cook Third Class Doris Miller, an African American enlisted sailor who in 1942 received
the Navy Cross (the Navy’s second-highest decoration awarded for valor in combat, following the
Medal of Honor) for his actions during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7,
1941.44 Miller was the first African American sailor to receive the Navy Cross, and is recognized
as one of the first U.S. heroes of World War II.45 He died in 1943 aboard the escort carrier
Liscome Bay (CVE-56) when the ship was hit by a Japanese torpedo during the Battle of Makin
in the Gilbert Islands, which now constitute the main part of the country of Kiribati. CVN-81 is
the first U.S. aircraft carrier to be named for an African American and the first aircraft carrier to
be named in honor of a sailor for actions while serving in the enlisted ranks. It is the second Navy
ship to be named for Miller; the first, FF-1091, a Knox (FF-1052) class frigate, was procured in
FY1967, commissioned into service in 1973, and decommissioned in 1991.46
Two Carriers Named for Members of Congress—USS Carl Vinson and
USS John C. Stennis
The two aircraft carriers named for Members of Congress are USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), which
entered service in 1982 and is scheduled to remain service until about 2032, and USS John C.
Stennis
(CVN-74), which entered service in 1995 and is scheduled to remain in service until the
late 2040s. As shown in Table 1, both of these ships are examples of U.S. military ships that were
named for persons who were living at the time the name was announced.
As shown in Table 4, in the 93rd Congress, provisions were proposed relating to the naming of
CVN-70 for Representative Carl Vinson. As shown in Table 3, the 100th Congress passed an
amendment relating to the naming of an aircraft carrier for Senator John Stennis. The amendment
was enacted as Section 8138 of the FY1988 Department of Defense (DOD) DOD Appropriations
Act, which formed part of H.J.Res. 395/P.L. 100-202 of December 22, 1987.47 Section 8138
stated, “It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of Defense should name one of the new
nuclear aircraft carriers appropriated in fiscal year 1988 [i.e., either CVN-74 or CVN-75] the
U.S.S. JOHN C. STENNIS.” As shown in Table 1, on June 23, 1988 (i.e., about six months after

44 See Acting Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs, “Navy Will Name a Future Ford Class Aircraft Carrier After WWII
Hero Doris Miller,” Navy News Service, January 19, 2020, which states
On Dec. 7, 1941, Miller was collecting laundry on the battleship West Virginia (BB-48), when the
attack from Japanese forces commenced. When the alarm for general quarters sounded he headed
for his battle station, an anti-aircraft battery magazine, only to discover that torpedo damage had
wrecked it. Miller was ordered to the ship’s bridge to aid the mortally wounded commanding
officer, and subsequently manned a .50 caliber Browning anti-aircraft machine gun until he ran out
of ammunition. Miller then helped move many other injured Sailors as the ship was ordered
abandoned due to her own fires and flaming oil floating down from the destroyed [battleship]
Arizona (BB-33). West Virginia lost 150 of its 1,500 person crew.
See also William Cole, “Navy to Name Aircraft Carrier for Pearl Harbor Hero Doris Miller,” Honolulu Star-
Advertiser
, January 17, 2020; Johnny Diaz, “Navy Aircraft Carrier to Be Named for Black Pearl Harbor
Veteran,” New York Times, January 18, 2020; Sam LaGrone, “Next Ford-Class Carrier to Be Named After
Pearl Harbor Hero Doris Miller,” USNI News, January 18, 2020; Laurel Wamsley, “U.S. Navy to Name
Aircraft Carrier After WWII Hero Doris Miller,” NPR, January 19, 2020; Carl Prine, “Navy’s Newest
Aircraft Carrier Named in Honor of African American Hero,” Navy Times, January 20, 2020; Jay Price, “A
Military 1st: A Supercarrier Is Named After An African American Sailor,” NPR, September 29, 2020.
45 See also Thomas W. Cutrer and T. Michael Parrish, “How Dorie Miller’s Bravery Helped Fight Navy Racism,” Navy
Times
, October 31, 2019; and Marcus S. Cox, “WWII Review: Doris Miller, Pearl Harbor and the Birth of the Civil
Rights Movement,” HistoryNet.com, September 5, 2018.
46 FF-1091 was transferred to Turkey as a hulk in 1999 and sunk as a target in a Turkish naval exercise in 2001.
47 The provision was added to H.J.Res. 395 by S.Amdt. 1354, which was proposed by Sen. Ted Stevens on December
12, 1987, and agreed to in the Senate by voice vote on the same date.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 35 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

the enactment of P.L. 100-202), President Reagan announced that CVN-74 would be named for
Stennis, and on December 19, 1988, the Navy officially named the ship for Stennis.
Some observers have raised the issue of whether CVN-74 should be renamed on account of
Senator Stennis’s positions on segregation and civil rights.48 A July 13, 2020, press report states
that U.S. Navy officials have “discussed renaming two aircraft carriers named after Southern U.S.
legislators who advocated racial segregation: the USS John C. Stennis and USS Carl Vinson.
Within the military, the Stennis has been nicknamed ‘Johnny Reb,’ a common nickname for
Confederate soldiers.”49
For some general background information regarding changes to the names of Navy ships, see the
section entitled “Changes to Names of Navy Ships” later in this report.
Destroyers (DDGs)
The Navy is currently procuring Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyers.50 Destroyers
traditionally have been named for famous U.S. naval leaders and distinguished heroes. The July
2012 Navy report to Congress discusses this tradition and states more specifically that destroyers
are being named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including
Secretaries of the Navy. Exceptions since 2012 include the following:
• On May 7, 2012, the Navy announced that it was naming DDG-116 for a living
person,51 Thomas Hudner.52
• On May 23, 2013, the Navy announced that it was naming DDG-117 for a living
person, Paul Ignatius, and that it was naming DDG-118 for the late Senator
Daniel Inouye who served in the U.S. Army during World War II.53
• On March 31 and April 5, 2016, it was reported that the Navy was naming DDG-
120 for a living person, former Senator Carl Levin.54

48 See Edward J. Ryan, “Renaming the USS John C. Stennis Is Not in Line with American Values,” Navy Times,
October 27, 2022; John P. Cordle, “Now Is the Time to Rename the Carrier John C. Stennis,” Navy Times, October 11,
2022; Robert Farley, “USS John C. Stennis: Does the U.S. Navy Need to Rename This Aircraft Carrier?” National
Interest
, May 30, 2021; Josh Farley, “Two aircraft carriers were named for ardent segregationists. Could they ever be
renamed?” Kitsap Sun, January 19, 2021; Katherine Hafner, “One of America’s Aircraft Carriers Is Named for a
Segregationist. Some Want to Rename it,” Virginian-Pilot, July 1, 2020; Gina Harkins, “Navy Ship Names Could Fall
Under Pentagon’s New Diversity Review,” Military.com, June 24, 2020; Geoff Ziezulewicz, “John C. Stennis Was an
Ardent Segregationist. Is It Time to Change the Carrier’s Name?” Navy Times, June 23, 2020; Bridget Naso,
“Controversy Over John C. Stennis Aircraft Carrier Name,” NBC San Diego, June 23, 2020; Reuben Keith Green, “The
Case for Renaming the USS John C. Stennis,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, June 2020.
49 Michael R. Gordon, “Confederate Symbolism in the Military Stretches Far Beyond Flags, Base Names,” Wall Street
Journal
, July 13, 2020. See also John Wilkens, “Racial Justice Turns to Navy Ships Named for Confederate Battles,
Segregationists,” San Diego Union-Tribune, July 26, 2020.
50 For more on the DDG-51 program, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs:
Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
51 Throughout this report, the term living person means a person who was living at the time the name was announced.
52 DOD News Release No. 352-12, “Secretary of the Navy Announces DDG 116 to Be Named Thomas Hudner,” May
7, 2012.
53 DOD News Release No. 361-13, “Navy Names Next Two Destroyers,” May 23, 2013.
54 General Dynamics press release, “Navy Awards General Dynamics Bath Iron Works $644 Million for Construction
of DDG 51 Class Destroyer,” March 31, 2016, and Associated Press, “Navy Naming Destroyer after Former Michigan
Senator Carl Levin,” Military Times, April 5, 2016.
Congressional Research Service

11

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

• On July 28, 2016, the Navy announced that it was naming DDG-124 for a living
person, Harvey C. Barnum Jr.55
• On July 11, 2018, the Navy announced that it was expanding the name of the
destroyer John. S. McCain (DDG-56) to include a living person, Senator John S.
McCain III.56
• On May 6, 2019, the Navy announced that it was naming DDG-133 for a living
person, former Senator Sam Nunn, who had served in the Coast Guard from 1959
to 1960, and in the Coast Guard Reserve from 1960 until 1968.57
• On January 11, 2023, the Navy announced that it was naming DDG-140 for a
living person, Thomas G. Kelley.58
As of February 27, 2024, the Navy had announced names for all DDG-51 class destroyers
procured through DDG-142, the third of three DDG-51s procured in FY2023.

55 “Secretary Mabus Names Destroyer for Medal of Honor Recipient,” Navy News Service, July 28, 2016.
56 The Navy announced that it was expanding the name of the destroyer John. S. McCain (DDG-56), originally named
for Admiral John S. “Slew” McCain (1884-1945) and his son, Admiral John S. “Jack” McCain Jr. (1911-1981), to also
include Sen. John S. McCain III, the grandson of Admiral John S. McCain and the son of Admiral John S. McCain Jr.
DDG-56 was procured in FY1989 and was commissioned into service on July 2, 1994. John S. McCain III served as a
Member of the House of Representatives from 1983 to 1987, and as a Senator from 1987 to 2018. Among his
committee chairmanships, he was the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee from January 3, 2015, until
his death on August 25, 2018. He was the Republican Party candidate for President in 2008. A July 12, 2018, Navy
notice stated the following:
Expanding the name of USS JOHN S. MCCAIN to include Senator McCain properly honors three
generations of dedicated service to our Navy and nation. Admiral John S. McCain (1884-1945),
served as a distinguished carrier task force commander of World War II. Admiral John S. McCain,
Jr. (1911-1981), served as the former Commander-in- Chief, U.S. Pacific Command. Senator John
S. McCain III, continued the legacy of service as a Naval Aviator during the Vietnam War. As a
prisoner of war, McCain represented our nation with dignity and returned with honor.
(Richard V. Spencer, SecNav notice 5030, July 12, 2018, “Name Added to Ship Currently in
Fleet,” posted at “VIDEO: Sen. John McCain Added to Destroyer’s Namesake Along with Father,
Grandfather,” USNI News, July 11, 2018.)
See also the press release entitled “U.S. Navy Names Ship After U.S. Senator John McCain,” July 11, 2018, accessed
July 12, 2018, at https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2018/7/u-s-navy-names-ship-after-u-s-senator-john-
mccain; Caitlin Doornbos, “McCain Joins Father and Grandfather on Ship’s List of Namesakes,” Stars and Stripes,
July 11, 2018. See also “VIDEO: Sen. John McCain Added to Destroyer’s Namesake Along with Father, Grandfather,”
USNI News, July 11, 2018; Ken Moritsugu (Associated Press), “US Navy Dedicates Japan-Based Destroyer to US Sen.
McCain,” Navy Times, July 12, 2018.
57 See Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs, “SECNAV Names New Destroyer In Honor of US Senator from Georgia,”
Navy News Service, May 6, 2019. Nunn was a Senator from 1972 to 1997. During his time in the Senate, he was,
among other things, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee from January 1987 to January 1995.
58 U.S. Navy, “SECNAV Names Future Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer after MoH Recipient Captain Thomas G.
Kelley,” January 12, 2023, which states: “In 2020, former Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer announced his
intention to name a ship after Kelley but had yet to dedicate the name to an assigned hull number. Today, Del Toro
assigns the name to DDG-140, which was appropriated in the fiscal year 2023 budget.” See also Heather Mongilio,
“SECNAV Del Toro Names Future Destroyer After MoH Recipient Thomas Gunning Kelley,” USNI News, January
11, 2023; Konstantin Toropin, “Future Destroyer Will Honor Vietnam War Hero,” Military.com, January 11, 2023.
Congressional Research Service

12

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Frigates (FFGs)
Current Navy plans call for procuring a total of 20 Constellation (FFG-62) class frigates.59 On
October 7, 2020, the Navy announced that the first ship in the class, FFG-62,60 which was
procured in FY2020, would be named Constellation, in honor of one of the first six U.S. Navy
ships authorized by Congress in 1794—the heavy frigates United States, Constellation,
Constitution, Chesapeake, Congress, and President.61 Ships in this class are consequently now
known as Constellation (FFG-62) class ships. FFG-62 is the fifth Navy ship to be named
Constellation.
On December 2, 2020, in testimony to the Readiness and Management Support subcommittee of
the Senate Armed Services Committee, then-Secretary of the Navy Kenneth Braithwaite
announced that the second ship in the class, FFG-63, which the Navy has requested for
procurement in FY2021, would be named Congress, in honor of another one of those first six
ships. In his testimony, then-Secretary Braithwaite stated
So I'd like to take this moment to announce that the next Constellation-class frigate will be
named for one of those original six, a name selected by our first president, George
Washington. The ship will be USS Congress to honor and recognize the work that you and
your staff do every day to support our sailors, our marines and the people of the United
States of America. On behalf of the Department of the Navy, our marines, our sailors, our
civilian workforce and their families that serve at their side, thank you for what you do to
enhance our readiness. I look forward to your questions.62
Six previous U.S. naval ships have been named Congress, of which the frigate authorized by
Congress in 1794 was the third. The sixth Congress was a motor launch that the Navy acquired
and placed in service in 1918 and then sold in 1919.63
On January 15, 2021, then-Secretary Braithwaite announced that the third ship in the class, FFG-
64, would be named Chesapeake, in honor of another one of those first six ships.
The Navy’s announcements about the naming of FFG-62, FFG-63, and FFG-64 did not make
clear what the naming rule for the class will be, because the Navy plans to procure many more
than six FFG-62 class ships.
On June 29, 2023, Secretary Del Toro announced in Paris that the fourth ship in the class, FFG-
65, would be named Lafayette, in honor of Marquis de Lafayette and his service during the
American Revolutionary War. A Navy press release about the announcement noted that Congress
in 2002 posthumously made Lafayette an honorary U.S. citizen, and that three previous Navy

59 For more on the FFG-62 program, see CRS Report R44972, Navy Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate Program:
Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
60 The previous class of U.S. Navy frigates, the Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7) class, ended with USS Ingraham
(FFG-61).
61 Department of the Navy, “SECNAV Names Navy’s Newest Class of FFG(X) Ships,” October 7, 2020.
62 Source: Transcript of the hearing, which focused on Navy and Marine Corps readiness. See also Gina Harkins, “The
Navy is Naming its Next New Frigate USS Congress,” Military.com, December 3, 2020; Joseph Trevithick, “Navy
Boss Tells Congress That A New Frigate Will Be Named USS Congress. No, Really,” The Drive, December 2, 2020.
63 See U.S. Navy, Naval History and Heritage Command, Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, accessed
December 3, 2020, at https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs.html. See also Richard R.
Burgess, “SECNAV Selects USS Congress as Name of Second Constellation Frigate,” Seapower, December 2, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

13

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

vessels—a sidewheel ironclad ram, a transport ship (AP-53), and a ballistic missile submarine
(SSBN-616)—were named in honor of Lafayette.64
Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs)
A total of 35 littoral combat ships (LCSs) were procured through FY2019; there are no plans to
procure any more LCSs.65 All 35 ships have been named. LCSs were at first named for U.S. mid-
tier cities, small towns, and other U.S. communities.66 The naming rule was later adjusted to
regionally important U.S. cities and communities.
An exception occurred on February 10, 2012, when the Navy announced that it was naming LCS-
10 for former Representative Gabrielle Giffords.67 Another exception occurred on February 23,
2018, when President Trump, in a press conference with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm
Turnbull, announced that an LCS would be named Canberra, in honor of HMAS Canberra
(D33), an Australian cruiser named for the capital city of Australia that fought alongside U.S.
Navy forces in World War II and was scuttled after being damaged by Japanese attack in the
Battle of Savo Island on August 9, 1942.68 LCS-30 was named Canberra. A previous U.S. Navy
ship, the gun cruiser Canberra (CA-70), which served from 1943 to 1947 and again from 1956 to
1970, was similarly named in honor of HMAS Canberra. There is also a current HMAS
Canberra
(L02), an amphibious assault ship (i.e., helicopter carrier) that entered service in 2014
and now serves as the flagship of the Australian navy.69 The situation of LCS-30 and L02 sharing
the same name will presumably not violate 10 U.S.C. §8662(a)—which states that “not more than
one vessel of the Navy may have the same name”—because 10 U.S.C. §8662 is a statute
governing the naming of U.S. Navy ships and L02 is not a U.S. Navy ship.
Amphibious Assault Ships (LHAs)
Amphibious assault ships (LHAs), which look like medium-sized aircraft carriers, are being
named for U.S. Marine Corps battles, early U.S. Navy sailing ships, or aircraft carriers from
World War II.70 The Navy announced on June 27, 2008, that the first LHA-6 class amphibious
assault ship, LHA-6, would be named America, a name previously used for an aircraft carrier
(CV-66) that served in the Navy from 1965 to 1996. The Navy announced on May 4, 2012, that
LHA-7, the second ship in the class, LHA-7, would be named Tripoli, the location of famous

64 “SECNAV Names Future Constellation-Class Guided-Missile Frigate Lafayette,” U.S. Navy press release, June 29,
2023.
65 For more on the LCS program, see CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background
and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
66 The Navy named LCS-1 and LCS-2 Freedom and Independence, respectively, after multiple U.S. cities with these
names.
67 DOD News Release No. 096-12, “Navy Names Littoral Combat Ship Gabrielle Giffords,” February 10, 2012. For the
Navy’s discussion of this naming choice, see Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S.
Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy
, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012,
pp. 33-34.
68 Richard R. Burgess, “President Trump Names Navy LCS for World War II Australian Cruiser,” Seapower, February
23, 2018.
69 In between D33 and L02, there was also HMAS Canberra (FFG 02), a frigate that served in Australia’s navy from
1981 to 2005.
70 The Navy states that the name given to to the amphibious assault ship LHA-9 “follows the tradition of naming
amphibious assault ships after U.S. Marine Corps battles, early U.S. sailing ships, or legacy names of earlier carriers
from World War II.” (U.S. Navy, “SECNAV Names Future America-class Amphibious Assault Ship Fallujah,”
December 13, 2022.) For more on the LHA program, see CRS Report R43543, Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA
Amphibious Ship Programs: Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service

14

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Marine battles in the First Barbary War.71 The Navy reaffirmed this name selection with a more
formal announcement on May 30, 2014.72 On November 9, 2016, the Navy announced that the
third ship in the class, LHA-8, will be named Bougainville, the location of a famous World War II
campaign in the Pacific.73 On December 13, 2022, the Navy announced that the fourth ship in the
class, LHA-9, will be named Fallujah to commemorate the first and second battles of Fallujah,
two U.S.-led offensives during the Iraq War.74
Amphibious Ships (LPDs)
San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships are being named for major U.S. cities and
communities (with major being defined as being one of the top three population centers in a
state), and the cities and communities that were attacked on September 11, 2001. An exception
occurred on April 23, 2010, when the Navy announced that it was naming LPD-26, the 10th ship
in the class, for the late Representative John P. Murtha.75 Another exception occurred on May 2,
2018, when the Navy announced that it was naming LPD-29, the 13th ship in the class, for Navy
Captain Richard M. McCool Jr., who received the Medal of Honor for his actions in World War II
and later served in the Korean and Vietnam wars.
On October 10, 2019, the Navy announced that LPD-30 will be named Harrisburg, for the city in
Pennsylvania.76 LPD-30 is to be the first of a new version, or flight, of the LPD-17 class design
called the LPD-17 Flight II design.77 On January 15, 2021, the Navy announced that LPD-31
would be named Pittsburgh, making it the second LPD-17 Flight II class ship in a row named for
a city in Pennsylvania. On October 12, 2023, the Navy announced that LPD-32 would be named
Philadelphia,78 making it the third LPD-17 Flight II ship in a row named for a city in
Pennsylvania.

71 DOD News Release No. 347-12, “Secretary of the Navy Announces LHA 7 Will Be Named USS Tripoli,” May 4,
2012. The name Tripoli was previously used for an amphibious assault ship (LPH-10) that served in the Navy from
1966 to 1995, and for an escort carrier (CVE-64) that served in the Navy from 1943 to 1946.
72 “SECNAV Formally Names USS Tripoli,” Navy News Service, June 2, 2014.
73 “SECNAV Names Next Amphibious Assault Ship,” Navy News Service, November 9, 2016.
74 U.S. Navy, “SECNAV Names Future America-class Amphibious Assault Ship Fallujah,” December 13, 2022. See
also, for example, Diana Stancy Correll, “Next America-Class Amphibious Assault Ship to be Bamed ‘Fallujah,’”
Defense News, December 13, 2022; Caitlin M. Kenney, “Amphibious Warship To Be Named for Fallujah Battles,”
Defense One, December 13, 2022; Heather Mongilio, “SECNAV Names Next Big Deck Amphib USS Fallujah,” USNI
News
, December 13, 2022; Emma Helfrich, “Navy Names Next Amphibious Ship USS Fallujah,” The Drive,
December 14, 2022. See also Richard R. Burgess, “Muslim Civil Rights Group Protests Name ‘Fallujah’ for U.S. Navy
Ship,” Seapower, December 15, 2022; Irene Loewenson, “What Naming a Ship after Fallujah Means to Those Who
Fought There,” Marine Corps Times, December 27, 2022.
Konstantin Toropin, “Navy to Name Amphibious Assault Ship After Battle of Fallujah, Among the Deadliest of the
Iraq War,” Military.com, December 14, 2022.
75 DOD News Release No. 329-10, “Navy Names Amphibious Ship For Congressman John Murtha,” April 23, 2010.
For the Navy’s discussion of this naming choice, see Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of
the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy
, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13,
2012, pp. 28-30. For a recent news report about the naming of this ship, see Dan Lamothe, “As Anger Still Simmers,
Navy Christening the USS John P. Murtha,” Washington Post, March 20, 2015.
76 Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs, “SECNAV Names Future Amphibious Transport Dock Ship in Honor of the
city of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,” Navy News Service, October 10, 2019.
77 For more on the LPD-17 Flight II program, see CRS Report R43543, Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious
Ship Programs: Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
78 U.S. Navy, “SECNAV Names Future U.S. Navy Ship After the City of Philadelphia,” press release dated October
12, 2023.
Congressional Research Service

15

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Oilers (TAOs)
On January 6, 2016, then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that the Navy’s new oilers
would be named for “people who fought for civil rights and human rights,”79 and that the first
ship in the class, TAO-205, which was procured in FY2016, would be named for Representative
John Lewis.80 The ships in this class consequently are now referred to as John Lewis (TAO-205)
class ships. The Navy wants to procure a total of 20 John Lewis-class ships.81
On July 28, 2016, it was reported that the Navy would name the second through sixth ships in the
class (i.e., TAOs 206 through 210) for Harvey Milk, Earl Warren, Robert F. Kennedy, Lucy Stone,
and Sojourner Truth, respectively.82 On February 25, 2022, Secretary Del Toro announced that the
seventh ship in the class (TAO-211), which was the first of two TAO-205s procured in FY2022,
would be named for Thurgood Marshall.83 On March 31, 2022, Secretary Del Toro announced
that the eighth ship in the class (TAO-212), which was the second of two TAO-205s procured in
FY2022, would be named for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.84 On September 17, 2023, the Navy
announced that the ninth ship in the class (TAO-213), which was procured in FY2023, would be
named for Harriet Tubman.85
Dry Cargo and Ammunition Ships (TAKEs)
The Navy’s 14 Lewis and Clark (TAKE-1) class cargo and ammunition ships were named for
famous American explorers, trailblazers, and pioneers. The Navy announced on October 9, 2009,
that the 13th ship in the class was being named for the civil rights activist Medgar Evers.86 The
Navy announced on May 18, 2011, that the 14th ship in the class would be named for civil rights
activist Cesar Chavez.87

79 Valerie Insinna, “Navy to Name Next Generation Oilers for Civil Rights Icons,” Defense Daily, January 7, 2016: 4.
80 “Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus Names Fleet Replenishment Oiler,” Navy News Service, January 6, 2016.
81 For more on the John Lewis-class program, see CRS Report R43546, Navy John Lewis (TAO-205) Class Oiler
Shipbuilding Program: Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
82 Sam LaGrone, “Navy to Name Ship After Gay Rights Activist Harvey Milk,” USNI News, July 28, 2016. See also
“Document: Notice to Congress on 8 Proposed Navy Ship Names,” USNI News, August 3, 2016. See also “SECNAV
to Name Next John Lewis-Class Oiler After Civil and Human Rights Leader Harvey Milk,” Navy Live, July 30, 2016;
“Secretary of the Navy Names Newest Fleet Replenishment Oiler, USNS Harvey Milk,” Navy News Service, August
17, 2016. The first six ships in the class are being procured under a block buy contract.
83 Seapower Staff, “SECNAV Names Future T-AO USNS Thurgood Marshall, Sponsors for USS Doris Miller,”
Seapower, February 25, 2022.
84 U.S. Navy, “SECNAV Names Future Replenishment Oiler Ship Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” press release dated March
31, 2022.
85 U.S. Navy, “SECNAV Names Ship After American Abolitionist, Social Activist Harriet Tubman,” press release
dated September 17, 2023.
86 DOD News Release No. 788-09, “Navy Names Ship After Civil Rights Activist Medgar Evers,” October 9, 2009.
For the Navy’s discussion of this naming choice, see Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of
the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy
, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13,
2012, pp. 21-22.
87 DOD News Release No. 420-11, “Navy Names Ship For Civil Rights Activist Cesar Chavez,” May 18, 2011. For the
Navy’s discussion of this naming choice, see Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S.
Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy
, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012,
pp. 22-24. A November 29, 2016, news article states the following: “I got the name Cesar Chavez from the shipyard,”
[then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus] said [referring to General Dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding
Company (GD/NASSCO) of San Diego, CA, the builder of the TAKE-1 class ships]. “They were the ones who
recommended it because 85 percent of the shipyard workers in San Diego are Hispanic.” (Wyatt Olson, “Outgoing
Navy Sec. Mabus Leaves Imprint on Policies, Ship Acquisition,” Military.com, November 29, 2016.)
Congressional Research Service

16

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Expeditionary Fast Transports (EPFs)
Expeditionary fast transports (EPFs), which until May 2011 were being procured by the Army as
well as by the Navy, were at first named for American traits and values. In December 2009, the
naming rule for EPFs was changed to small U.S. cities. At some point between December 2010
and October 2011, it was adjusted to small U.S. cities and counties.88 As of February 27, 2024,
the Navy had announced names for all EPFs through EPF-15, which was procured in FY2021,
and had not announced a name for EPF-16, which was procured in FY2022.
Expeditionary Medical Ships (EMSs)
The Navy is acquiring a new class of Expeditionary Medical Ships (EMSs) that are medical-care
variants of the EPF design discussed above. The ships are being named for U.S. military
hospitals.89 On May 15, 2023, the Navy announced that the first such ship, EMS-1, which was
procured in FY2022, will be named Bethesda, “to honor and immortalize the history and
community of healthcare professionals that make up Naval Support Activity Bethesda, who have
saved and rehabilitated the lives of service members, veterans, civilians, their families, and even
Presidents of the United States.”90 Ships in the class will consequently be referred to as Bethesda-
class ships.
On October 27, 2023, the Navy announced that EMS-2, which was procured in FY2023, will be
named Balboa, after the informal name for Naval Medical Center San Diego, to honor “the
legacy and commitment of Navy doctors, nurses, corpsmen, and staff of Balboa Naval Hospital in
caring for the needs of U.S. Service Members.”91 As of February 27, 2024, the Navy had not
announced a name for EMS-3, which was also procured in FY2023.
Expeditionary Transport Docks (ESDs) and Expeditionary Sea Bases (ESBs)
The Navy’s two expeditionary transport docks (ESDs 1 and 2) and its expeditionary sea bases
(ESB 3 and higher) are being named for famous names or places of historical significance to U.S.
Marines. On November 10, 2020, the Navy announced that ESB-6, which was procured in
FY2018, would be named for Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Medal of Honor recipient
Sergeant Major John L. Canley.92 A fifth ESB (ESB-7) was procured in FY2019. On January 15,
2021, the Navy announced that ESB-7, which was procured in FY2019, would be named for

88 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, pp. 18-19.
89 U.S. Navy, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, “SECNAV Del Toro Names Future Medical Ship USNS Balboa (EMS
2),” November 6, 2023.
90 U.S. Navy, “SECNAV Names Navy’s First-in-Class Expeditionary Medical Ship after National Naval Medical
Center Bethesda,” May 15, 2023. The Navy’s naming announcement was also reported to have occurred on May 12
(rather than May 15), 2023. See, for example, Mike Schuler, “U.S. Navy Names Next-Generation Hospital Ship,”
gCaptain, May 12, 2023. See also Naval News staff, “SECNAV Names US Navy’s First-In-Class Expeditionary
Medical Ship,” Naval News, May 13, 2023. On January 8, 2024, a naming ceremony for the ship was held at Walter
Reed National Military Medical Center’s National Intrepid Center of Excellence (NICoE). (See U.S. Navy, SECNAV
Del Toro Names Future Medical Ship USNS Bethesda (EMS 1), Honors Medical Legacy, press release dated January
8, 2024.)
91 U.S. Navy, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, “SECNAV Del Toro Names Future Medical Ship USNS Balboa (EMS
2),” November 6, 2023.
92 See, for example, Seapower Staff, “SECNAV Names Future Expeditionary Sea Base USS John L. Canley,”
Seapower, November 10, 2020; Gina Harkins, “Navy’s Newest Ship to Be Named for Marine Sgt. Maj. John Canley,
Vietnam War Hero,” Military.com, November 11, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

17

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Marine Corps veteran and Medal of Honor recipient Private First Class Robert E. Simanek.93 On
July 27, 2023, the Navy announced that ESB-8, which was procured in FY2022, would be named
for Marine Corps Korean War veteran and Medal of Honor recipient Hector A. Cafferata Jr.94
Towing, Salvage, and Rescue Ships (TATSs)
On March 12, 2019, the Navy announced that that TATS-6, the first ship in a new class of towing,
salvage, and rescue ships (TATSs), would be named Navajo, and that ships in this class will be
named for prominent Native Americans or Native American tribes.95 As of February 27, 2024, the
Navy had announced names for all TATSs through TATS-13, which was procured in FY2022, and
had not announced names for TATS-14, which was also procured in FY2022, or TATS-15, which
was procured in FY2023.
Aspects of Navy Ship Names
Two State Names Not Currently Being Used, Particularly Kansas
As noted earlier in the section on evolution over time in Navy ship-naming rules, state names
were once given to battleships, then later to nuclear-powered cruisers and ballistic missile
submarines, and most recently to (in most cases) Virginia-class attack submarines.96 As noted
earlier in the section on names for attack submarines, a total of 48 in-service, under-construction,
or planned Navy ships (47 of them submarines) are currently named for states.
The two states whose names are not currently being used for active Navy ships are Kansas and
South Carolina. For some time, Kansas has been the state for which, by far, the most time has
passed since a ship named for the state has been in commissioned service with the Navy as a
combat asset, and for which no ship by that name is currently under construction. As of February
27, 2024, it has been more than 102 years since the decommissioning on December 16, 1921, of
the battleship Kansas (BB-21), the most recent ship named for the state of Kansas that was in
commissioned service with the Navy as a combat asset.97 The most recent ship named for South
Carolina—the nuclear-powered cruiser South Carolina (CGN-37)—was decommissioned on July
30, 1999.
On December 23, 2019, the Navy announced that SSN-802, and SSN-803, the two Virginia-class
attack submarines procured in FY2019, would be named for the states of Oklahoma and Arizona,
respectively.98 Prior to this naming announcement, Arizona and Oklahoma were the two states
after Kansas for which the most time had passed since a Navy ship bearing the state’s name had

93 Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs, “SECNAV Names Future Vessels while aboard Historic Navy Ship,” U.S.
Navy, January 15, 2021.
94 “SECNAV Names Future Expeditionary Sea Base Ship USNS Hector A. Cafferata Jr. (ESB 8),” U.S. Navy, July 27,
2023.
95 “SECNAV Names New Class of Towing, Salvage and Rescue Ship Navajo,” Navy News Service, March 12, 2019.
96 10 U.S.C. 8662(b) states “Each battleship shall be named for a State. However, if the names of all the States are in
use, a battleship may be named for a city, place, or person.” The Navy has not procured any new battleships (i.e.,
surface combatants larger than cruisers) since World War II. 10 U.S.C. 8662(b) does not prohibit the Navy from giving
state names to ships other than battleships.
97 The Littoral Combat Ship Kansas City (LCS-22), named for the adjacent cities of Kansas City, Missouri, and Kansas
City, KS, was procured in FY2015 and was commissioned into service on June 20, 2020. Its name was announced in
July 2015 by then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus.
98 Acting Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs, “Acting SECNAV Names Two Newest Virginia-Class Subs for
Greatest-Gen Heroes of Pearl Harbor,” Navy News Service, December 23, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

18

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

been in commissioned service. The previous ships named for these two states were battleships
sunk in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941—the battleship Arizona (BB-
39), which was decommissioned on December 29, 1941, following its sinking in the attack, and
the battleship Oklahoma (BB-37), which was raised and surveyed after the attack, found to be too
uneconomical to repair, and decommissioned in 1944.99 BB-39 now serves as a memorial.
While there is no rule requiring the Navy, in selecting state names for ships, to choose states for
which the most time has passed since a ship named for the state has been in commissioned
service with the Navy as a combat asset, advocates of naming a ship for a certain state may
choose to point out, among other things, the length of time that has transpired since a ship named
for the state has been in commissioned service with the Navy as a combat asset.
In its announcement of April 13, 2012, that the Navy was naming the Virginia-class attack
submarines SSNs 786 through 790 for Illinois, Washington, Colorado, Indiana, and South Dakota,
respectively, DOD stated, “none of the five states has had a ship named for it for more than 49
years. The most recent to serve was the battleship Indiana, which was decommissioned in
October 1963.”100 The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states the following: “Before deciding
on which names to select [for the five submarines], [then-]Secretary [of the Navy Ray] Mabus
asked for a list of State names that had been absent the longest from the US Naval Register.”101 In
its announcement of November 19, 2012, that the Navy was naming the Virginia-class attack
submarine SSN-791 for Delaware, DOD quoted then-Secretary Mabus as saying, “It has been too
long since there has been a USS Delaware in the fleet.”102
A Navy News Service article about the Navy’s September 18, 2014, announcement that the
Virginia-class attack submarine SSN-792 was being named for Vermont stated that “This is the
first ship named for Vermont since 1920[,] when the second USS Vermont was
decommissioned.”103 A Navy News Service article about the Navy’s October 10, 2014,
announcement that the Virginia-class attack submarine SSN-793 was being named for Oregon
stated that the previous USS Oregon “was a battleship best known for its roles in the Spanish
American War when it helped destroy Admiral Cervera’s fleet and in the Philippine-American
War; it performed blockade duty in Manila Bay and off Lingayen Gulf, served as a station ship,
and aided in the capture of Vigan.”104
A Navy News Service article about the Navy’s January 19, 2016, announcement that the Virginia-
class attack submarine SSN-801 was being named for Utah stated, “The future USS Utah will be
the second naval vessel to bear the name; the first, a battleship designated BB-31, was
commissioned in 1911 and had a long, honorable time in service.... While conducting anti-
gunnery exercises in Pearl Harbor, BB-31 was struck by a torpedo and capsized during the initial

99 The Los Angeles (SSN-688) class attack submarine Oklahoma City (SSN-723) entered service in 1988 and will
reach the end of its 33-year expected service life in 2021.
100 DOD News Release No. 264-12, “Navy Names Five New Submarines,” April 13, 2012.
101 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 48.
102 DOD News Release No. 914-12, “Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus Names the Next Virginia-Class Submarine
USS Delaware with Dr. Jill Biden as the Sponsor,” November 19, 2012.
103 “SECNAV Names Virginia-class Submarine, USS Vermont,” Navy News Service, September 18, 2014.
104 “Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus Names Virginia-Class Submarine USS Oregon,” Navy News Service, October
10, 2014.
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 25 link to page 25 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

stages of the Japanese attack [on December 7, 1941]. She was struck from the Navy record Nov.
13, 1944 and received a battle star for her service in World War I.”105
The Navy’s naming announcements for Virginia-class submarines have reduced the group of
states for which several decades had passed since a ship named for the state had been in
commissioned service with the Navy as a combat asset, and for which no ship by that name is
currently under construction. This group used to include Illinois, Delaware, Vermont, Oregon,
Montana, Oklahoma, and Arizona, but Virginia-class attack submarines have now been named for
these states. (See the Virginia-class attack submarine naming announcements of April 13, 2012;
November 19, 2012; September 18, 2014; October 10, 2014; September 2, 2015, and December
23, 2019, respectively.)
As discussed earlier in the section on rules for naming attack submarines, over the next several
years, the Navy can manage the situation of having not more than 50 states for which ships can be
named by amending the naming rule for the Virginia class, by maintaining the state naming rule
but making additional exceptions to the rule, and/or by giving Virginia-class boats the same state
names as the earliest-retiring Ohio-class boats.106 (Ohio-class boats, however, are currently
scheduled to be retired in FY2026 and subsequent years at a rate of generally one boat per year.)
Ships Named for Living Persons
The Navy occasionally names ships for living persons, meaning (throughout this CRS report)
persons who were living at the time the name was announced. As shown in Table 1, since the
naming of CVN-70 for Carl Vinson in 1974, at least 28 U.S. military ships have been named for
living persons. As shown in the table, with one exception (LCS-10, which was named for
Gabrielle Giffords), the persons in question were at least 73 years old at the time the name was
announced. Some of the ships were named for current or former Members of Congress.
The Navy stated in February 2012 that
The Navy named several ships for living people (ex. George Washington, Ben Franklin,
etc.) in the early years of our Republic. The Naval History and Heritage Command
(NHHC) believes that the last ship to be named by the Navy in honor of a living person
prior to [the aircraft carrier] CARL VINSON (CVN-70) was the brig JEFFERSON
(launched in April 1814). Between 1814 and November 18, 1973, when President Nixon
announced the naming of CARL VINSON,107 NHHC does not believe that any ships had
been named for a living person by the Navy as NHHC does not have records that would
indicate such.108


105 “Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus Names Virginia-Class Submarine,” Navy News Service, January 19, 2016. BB-
31 was decommissioned on September 5, 1944, and then struck from the navy record on November 13, 1944.
106 10 U.S.C. 8662(a) states “Not more than one vessel of the Navy may have the same name.” Interpreting the phrase
“vessel of the Navy” to mean a ship that has been delivered to the Navy or commissioned into service with the Navy
would permit the Navy to name Virginia-class boats under construction for states whose names are assigned to Ohio-
class boats that are to be decommissioned before the Virginia-class boats in question are to be delivered or
commissioned into service. Interpreting “vessel of the Navy” to refer additionally to ships that are under construction
for the Navy could require the Navy to defer the official act of naming one or more Virginia-class boats that are under
construction until Ohio-class boats with the same state names have been decommissioned.
107 Although President Nixon announced on November 18, 1973, that CVN-70 would be named for Carl Vinson, as
shown in Table 1, the name apparently was officially given to the ship on January 18, 1974.
108 Navy information paper dated February 28, 2012, provided to CRS by Navy Office of Legislative Affairs, March 1,
2012.
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Table 1. Ships Since 1973 Named for Persons Who Were Living at the Time
Person’s
Fiscal
Year ship
age when
year ship
entered or
Hull
Date name
name was
was
is to enter
Ship type
number
Ship name
announced
announced
procured
service
Aircraft carrier
CVN-70
Carl Vinson
1/18/1974
90
FY1974
1982
Attack submarine
SSN-709
Hyman G. Rickover
5/9/1983
83
FY1974
1984
Destroyer
DDG-51
Arleigh Burke
11/5/1982
81
FY1985
1991
Aircraft carrier
CVN-74
John C. Stennis
6/23/1988a
86
FY1988
1995
Sealift ship
TAKR-300
Bob Hope
1/27/1994
90
FY1993
1998
Aircraft carrier
CVN-76
Ronald Reagan
2/2/1995
83
FY1995
2003
Attack submarine
SSN-23
Jimmy Carter
4/8/1998
73
FY1996b
2005
Destroyer
DDG-94
Nitze
1/10/2001
93
FY1999
2005
Aircraft carrier
CVN-77
George H.W. Bush
12/9/2002
78
FY2001
2009
Destroyer
DDG-108
Wayne E. Meyer
11/29/2006
80
FY2004
2009
Attack submarine
SSN-785
John Warner
1/8/2009
81
FY2010
2015
Expeditionary transport dock
ESD-2
John Glenn
1/4/2012
90
FY2011
2014
Littoral Combat Ship
LCS-10
Gabrielle Giffords
2/10/2012
41
FY2012
2017
Destroyer
DDG-116
Thomas Hudner
5/7/2012
87
FY2012
2017
Destroyer
DDG-117
Paul Ignatius
5/23/2013
92
FY2013
2018
Oiler
TAO-205
John Lewis
1/6/2016
75
FY2016
2022
Expeditionary Sea Base
ESB-4
Hershel “Woody” Williams
1/14/16
92
FY2014
2018
Destroyer
DDG-120
Carl Levin
3/31/16
81
FY2013
2022
Destroyer
DDG-124
Harvey C. Barnum Jr.
7/28/16
75
FY2016
2024
Destroyer
DDG-56
John S. McCain
7/11/2018c
81
FY1989
1994
Destroyer
DDG-133
Sam Nunn
5/6/2019
80
FY2020
2026
Destroyer
DDG-137
John F. Lehman
10/13/2020
78
FY2021
2027
Expeditionary Sea Base
ESB-6
John L. Canley
11/10/2020
82
FY2018
2022
Expeditionary Sea Base
ESB-7
Robert E. Simanek
1/15/2021
90
FY2019
2024
Destroyer
DDG-138
J. William Middendorf
6/10/2022d
97
FY2022
2028
Oceanographic survey ship
TAGS-67
Robert Ballard
12/21/22
80
FY2018
2025
Destroyer
DDG-140
Thomas G. Kelley
1/11/23
83
FY2023
2029
Attack submarine
SSN-808
John H. Dalton
2/28/23
81
FY2022
2030
Source: Compiled by CRS. Source for dates when names were announced for CVN-70 through DDG-108:
Navy Office of Legislative Affairs email to CRS, May 1, 2012. Sources for dates when names of ships after DDG-
108 were announced: Navy announcements and news accounts on the naming of those ships.
a. This is the date that President Reagan announced that the ship would be named for Stennis. The Navy
officially named the ship for Stennis on December 19, 1988.
b. SSN-23 was originally procured in FY1992. Its procurement was suspended, and then reinstated in FY1996.
c. On July 11, 2018, the Navy announced that it was expanding the name of the destroyer John. S. McCain
(DDG-56), originally named for Admiral John S. McCain (1884-1945) and Admiral John S. McCain Jr. (1911-
1981), to also include Senator John S. McCain III.
d. The Navy states “In 2020, former Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer announced his intention to name a
ship after Middendorf, but had not dedicated the name to an assigned hul number. Today, [Secretary of the
Navy Carlos] Del Toro assigns the name to DDG-138 which was appropriated in the fiscal year 2022
budget.” (Department of Defense, “SECNAV Names Future Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer USS J. Wil iam
Middendorf,” news release dated June 10, 2022.)
The July 2012 Navy report to Congress, noting a case from 1900 that was not included in the
above passage, states that
Congressional Research Service

21

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

the practice of naming ships in honor of deserving Americans or naval leaders while they
are still alive can be traced all the way back to the Revolutionary War. At the time, with
little established history or tradition, the young Continental Navy looked to honor those
who were fighting so hard to earn America’s freedom. Consequently, George Washington
had no less than five ships named for him before his death; John Adams and James
Madison, three apiece; John Hancock, two; and Benjamin Franklin, one.
The practice of naming ships after living persons was relatively commonplace up through
1814, when a US Navy brig was named in honor of Thomas Jefferson. However, after the
War of 1812, with the US Navy older and more established, and with the list of famous
Americans and notable naval heroes growing ever longer, the practice of naming ships after
living persons fell into disuse. Indeed, the only exception over the next 150 years came in
1900, when the Navy purchased its first submarine from its still living inventor, John Philip
Holland, and Secretary of the Navy John D. Long named her USS Holland (SS 1) in his
honor....
[In the early 1970s], however, Department of the Navy leaders were considering the name
for CVN 70. Secretary of the Navy John Warner knew the 93rd Congress had introduced
no less than three bills or amendments (none enacted) urging that CVN 70 be named for in
honor of Carl Vinson, who served in the House for 50 years and was known as the “Father
of the Two-Ocean Navy.” Although Secretary Warner felt Congressman Vinson was more
than worthy of a ship name, the former Congressman was still alive. Naming a ship for this
giant of naval affairs would therefore violate a 160-year old tradition. After considering
the pros and cons of doing so, Secretary Warner asked President Richard Nixon’s approval
to name CVN 70 for the 90-year old statesman. President Nixon readily agreed. Indeed, he
personally announced the decision on January 18, 1974....
In hindsight, rather than this decision being a rare exception, it signaled a return to the
Continental Navy tradition of occasionally honoring famous living persons with a ship
name. Since then, and before the appointment of current Secretary [now then-Secretary] of
the Navy Ray Mabus, Secretaries of the Navy have occasionally chosen to follow this new,
“old tradition,” naming ships in honor of still living former Presidents Jimmy Carter,
Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Gerald R. Ford; Secretary of the Navy Paul Nitze;
Navy Admirals Hyman G. Rickover, Arleigh Burke, and Wayne E. Meyer; Senators John
C. Stennis and John Warner; and famous entertainer Bob Hope. Moreover, it is important
to note that three of these well-known Americans—Gerald R. Ford, John C. Stennis, and
Bob Hope—were so honored after Congress enacted provisions in Public Laws urging the
Navy to do so. By its own actions, then, Congress has acknowledged the practice of
occasionally naming ships for living persons, if not outright approved of it.
In other words, while naming ships after living persons remains a relatively rare
occurrence—about three per decade since 1970—it is now an accepted but sparingly used
practice for Pragmatic Secretaries [of the Navy] of both parties. For them, occasionally
honoring an especially deserving member of Congress, US naval leader, or famous
American with a ship name so that they might end their days on earth knowing that their
life’s work is both recognized and honored by America’s Navy-Marine Corps Team, and
that their spirit will accompany and inspire the Team in battle, is sometimes exactly the
right thing to do.109

109 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, pp. 7-9.
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 28 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Ships Named for the Confederacy or Confederate Officers
Section 1749 of FY2020 NDAA
Section 1749 of the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (S. 1790/P.L. 116-92
of December 20, 2019) prohibited the Secretary of Defense, in naming a new ship (or other asset)
or renaming an existing ship (or other asset), from giving the asset a name that refers to, or
includes a term referring to, the Confederate States of America, including any name referring to a
person who served or held leadership within the Confederacy, or a Confederate battlefield victory.
The provision also stated that “Nothing in this section may be construed as requiring a Secretary
concerned to initiate a review of previously named assets.”
Section 370 of FY2021 NDAA, Creating Naming Commission
Section 370 of the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 6395/P.L. 116-283 of
January 1, 2021) directed the Secretary of Defense to “establish a commission relating to
assigning, modifying, or removing of names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia to
assets of the Department of Defense that commemorate the Confederate States of America or any
person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America.” The provision also stated
that “not later than three years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall implement the plan submitted by the commission” and “remove all names, symbols,
displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederate States of
America (commonly referred to as the ‘Confederacy’) or any person who served voluntarily with
the Confederate States of America from all assets of the Department of Defense.” The provision
stated (emphasis added) that the term assets “includes any base, installation, street, building,
facility, aircraft, ship, plane, weapon, equipment, or any other property owned or controlled by
the Department of Defense.”
The commission created by Section 370 is commonly referred to as the Naming Commission. (Its
formal name is 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.)
Navy Ships Included in Naming Commission’s March 2022 List of DOD Assets
Being Reviewed

On March 31, 2022, the Naming Commission updated the list of DOD assets that it was then
reviewing. Table 2 shows the four Navy ships included in the list as of March 31, 2022.
A March 31, 2022, blog post stated that
one ship that is not on the [Naming Commission’s] list, and therefore is not in the federal
Naming Commission’s crosshairs, is the USS Antietam.
Retired Adm. Michelle Howard, who chairs the Naming Commission established by
Congress in 2021, said last year that its members were still considering whether to include
the USS Antietam. That debate now seems to have concluded with a finding that a new
name isn't necessary.
The ship was named after the Battle of Antietam in 1862, during the Civil War. Confederate
forces tried to push into Union territory but were repelled – most see the fight as a Union
victory, although casualties were high on both sides.
Congressional Research Service

23

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

“It depends on whether or not you see Antietam as a Union victory,” Howard said at the
time. “So that needs more exploration behind what the ship was named.”110
Table 2. Navy Ships Included in Naming Commission’s DOD Inventory
Ship
Comment Shown in Naming Commission’s List
USS Chancellorsville (CG-62)
“The ship is named after a Civil War battle in western Virginia that was a decisive
victory for Robert E. Lee and the Confederacy (which also cost the list of
Stonewall Jackson, CSA). Ship wil be decommissioned in 2026.”
USNS Maury (TAGS-66)
“Confirmed; named after Matthew Maury, former U.S. Navy officer who founded
the science of oceanography and meteorology before the Civil War. The ship is 1
of 7 Pathfinder-class survey ships; 6 named after U.S. scientists.”
USS Shiloh (CG-67)
“Official crest of Shiloh, named after the bloodiest battle on the continent at the
time and Grant’s first major victory, features crossed and furled U.S. and
Confederate battle flags. Ship wil be decommissioned in 2024.
USS Vella Gulf (CG-72)
“The crest of the ship, named after a battle in the Solomon Islands i August 1943,
contains the motto ‘Move Swiftly, Strike Vigorously,’ which as its website notes,
is from a Stonewall Jackson maxim. Ship wil be decommissioned in 2022.”
Source: “DoD Inventory,” The Naming Commission, last updated March 31, 2022, accessed March 31, 2022, at
https://www.thenamingcommission.gov/inventory. The website states at the top of the list that “the fol owing
assets were identified for review to determine: (1) whether their names commemorate the Confederacy, and (2)
if a recommendation is warranted for renaming or removal. This list is subject to change as we continue our
work with the Department of Defense to identify all such assets across the service branches and the
department. Inclusion on this list means only that the asset is subject to review by the Commission; renaming
and removal recommendations wil be included in our final report to Congress no later than Oct. 1, 2022.”
Naming Commission’s September 2022 Recommendation that USS
Chancellorsville (CG-62) and
USNS Maury (TAGS-66) Be Renamed
On September 13, 2022, it was reported that the Naming Commission would recommend in its
final report that the cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) and the oceanographic survey ship
USNS Maury (TAGS-66) be renamed, and that new names for the ships be selected by the
Secretary of the Navy.111
The commission divided its final report into three parts. Part III, which addressed various DOD
assets, including Navy ships, was submitted to Congress on September 19, 2022. Regarding
Department of the Navy assets, Part III of the report states
As part of the effort to determine the scope of Confederacy-affiliated assets across the
Department of Defense, the Commission received briefings from its four Service branches
in April 2021 and those services submitted their Confederacy-affiliated assets.
Of particular note, the U.S. Navy identified the USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) and USNS
Maury (T-AGS-66). The USS Chancellorsville is named after a Civil War battle that was
a victory for the Confederacy. The USNS Maury is named after Matthew Fontaine Maury,
the “Father of Modern Oceanography,” who resigned from the U.S. Navy to sail for the
Confederacy.

110 AUSN Staff, “USS Antietam Spared from Effort to Ditch Confederate Names,” Association of the United States
Navy (AUSN), March 31, 2022.
111 Sam LaGrone and Heather Mongilio, “Updated: Commission Recommends Renaming Two Navy Ships with
Confederate Ties,” USNI News, September 13, 2022; Meghann Myers, “Navy Secretary to Rename USS
Chancellorsville, USNS Maury,” Defense News, September 13, 2022.
Congressional Research Service

24

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

The Commission recommends the Secretary of Defense authorize the Secretary of the
Navy to rename all Department of Navy assets that commemorate the Confederacy or
individuals who voluntarily served with the Confederacy. This includes all assets identified
on the Defense inventory list to include buildings, streets, ships and their associated digital
footprints (see Appendix C).112
The above-mentioned Appendix C of Part III of the commission’s final report lists Confederacy-
affiliated assets within various parts of DOD. The list includes two Navy vessels—USS
Chancellorsville (CG-62), which the report states is “is named after Civil War battle that was a
victory for the Confederacy,” and USNS Maury (TAGS-66), which the report states is “named
after Matthew Maury, who resigned from the U.S. Navy to sail for the Confederacy.”113
A September 13, 2022, press report stated that the commission
did not offer recommendations for new names [for CG-62 and TAGS-66] and the new
designations are up to Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro, commission member and retired
Army Brig. Gen. Ty Seidule, the vice chair of the commission, told reporters on Tuesday
[September 13].
Under U.S. law the SECNAV names ships, whereas the Naming Commission decided the
new names for bases. The Naming Commission decided early on that it would only offer
new names for the Army bases, Seidule said.
There have been early discussions on potential new names, but there has been no final
determination as to what the names would be or when the service would rename the ships,
Navy spokesman Capt. J.D. Dorsey told USNI News on Tuesday.
“Secretary Del Toro appreciates the naming commission’s diligent work on this effort,”
Dorsey said....
Chancellorsville, a Japan-based cruiser, commissioned in 1989 was named for an 1863
Confederate victory, while the survey ship was named for Matthew Fontaine Maury, who
joined the Confederacy after a long career with the U.S. Navy in which he laid much of the
modern foundation for meteorology and navigation.
At the suggestion of the Navy, the Naming Commission looked at what was said during
Chancellorsville’s commissioning ceremony, the ship’s heraldic background and what
used to be in the [ship’s] wardroom [i.e., officers’ mess compartment], Seidule said.
“We looked at the entire context and felt as though that this commemorated the
Confederacy,” he said.
While not named for a Confederate, the Virginia battle was an overwhelming victory for
the Army of Northern Virginia led by Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson.
Much of the heraldry aboard and the ship’s crest celebrates that fact.
“The predominant gray refers to General Robert E. Lee’s spectacular military strategies
and his dominance in this battle. Lee’s victory came at heavy cost, however, because
General Thomas J. ‘Stonewall’ Jackson was mortally wounded. The inverted wreath
commemorates General Jackson’s death,” read the description of the crest before it was
removed from the ship’s web page.
The ship’s motto, “Press on,” is what Jackson allegedly said in pursuit of a rout of Union
troops.

112 The Naming Commission, Final Report to Congress, Part III: Remaining Department of Defense Assets, September
2022, p. 19.
113 The Naming Commission, Final Report to Congress, Part III: Remaining Department of Defense Assets, September
2022, pp. 42 and 43.
Congressional Research Service

25

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Navy officials in the lead-up to the 1989 commissioning celebrated Lee and Jackson’s
success....
Up until 2016, the ship’s wardroom featured a painting of Lee and Jackson that has since
been removed....
In considering Maury’s name, the commission looked at the namesake. Although Maury
is sometimes considered the father of oceanography, he fought for and believed in the
ideals of the Confederacy, making his name inappropriate for a ship, Seidule said.
The commission also considered renaming USS Antietam (CG-54), which was a Union
strategic victory but resulted in massive casualties. The commission said it did not warrant
renaming because it was a U.S. victory and led to the Emancipation Proclamation.114
Another September 13, 2022, press report stated that CG-62 and TAGS-66
should be renamed per Navy tradition, according to the commission, with new names
coming at the discretion of Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro.
“The secretary of the Navy has almost always … been responsible for the naming of U.S.
Navy ships, and we thought it was appropriate in this case as well,” retired Army Brig.
Gen. Ty Seidule, the commission’s vice chair, told reporters Tuesday [September 13].
The decision on the Navy ships was made early, Seidule said, in order to free up their
limited time and budget to spend traveling around to Army posts to get input from soldiers,
families and the local community about how to rename them.115
October 2022 Secretary of Defense Memorandum on Implementing Naming
Commission’s Recommendations

On October 6, 2022, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III issued a memorandum on
implementing the Naming Commission’s recommendations that states in part
I concur with all of the Naming Commission's recommendations, including the renaming
plan....
I fully support the efforts and recommendations of the Naming Commission on this
important matter, and I am committed to implementing all of the Commission’s
recommendations as soon as possible, subject to the expiration of the 90-day waiting period
mandated by section 370(g), and no later than January 1, 2024. To that end, I direct the
relevant DoD and Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Component heads to begin
planning for implementation of the Commission’s recommendations immediately.
Although the Department will not implement the renaming plan prior to the expiration of
the 90-day waiting period on December 18, 2022, several of the Naming Commission’s
recommendations—including those related to changes to the Department’s
memorialization and naming processes—are not subject to the Congressional waiting
period. I therefore direct the relevant DoD and OSD Component heads to begin to
implement those recommendations immediately. The Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment (USD(A&S)) will provide additional guidance for the
implementation of those recommendations.
In addition, I have established a Naming Commission Implementation Working Group (the
Working Group) led by the USD(A&S) to oversee the full implementation of the

114 Sam LaGrone and Heather Mongilio, “Updated: Commission Recommends Renaming Two Navy Ships with
Confederate Ties,” USNI News, September 13, 2022.
115 Meghann Myers, “Navy Secretary to Rename USS Chancellorsville, USNS Maury,” Defense News, September 13,
2022.
Congressional Research Service

26

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Commission’s recommendations. In support of the Working Group, each relevant DoD and
OSD Component head will review the Commission’s report and develop a plan of action
and milestones (POAM) for implementation of all of the Naming Commission’s
recommendations.
Each DoD and OSD Component head shall submit its POAM to the Working Group no
later than November 18, 2022. The USD(A&S) shall issue a planning memorandum
providing pre-implementation instructions to relevant DoD and OSD Component heads no
later than October 13, 2022.116
February 27, 2023, Navy Announcement of Renaming of USS Chancellorsville
(CG-62) as
USS Robert Smalls
On February 27, 2023, Secretary Del Toro announced that the cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG-
62) would be renamed the USS Robert Smalls. The Navy’s announcement stated that
This renaming honors Robert Smalls, a skilled sailor and statesman born into slavery in
South Carolina.
The decision arrived after a congressionally mandated Naming Commission outlined
several military assets across all branches of service that required renaming due to
confederate ties. In September 2022, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin accepted all
recommendations from the naming commission and gave each service until the end of 2023
to rename their assets.
“I am proud to rename CG 62 after Robert Smalls. He was an extraordinary American and
I had the pleasure of learning more about him last year when I visited his home in South
Carolina,” said Del Toro. “The renaming of these assets is not about rewriting history, but
to remove the focus on the parts of our history that don’t align with the tenets of this
country, and instead allows us to highlight the events and people in history who may have
been overlooked. Robert Smalls is a man who deserves a namesake ship and with this
renaming, his story will continue to be retold and highlighted.”
Robert Smalls (1839-1915) was born into slavery in South Carolina. He became a skilled
sailor and was an expert navigator of southern coasts. Smalls was conscripted in 1862 to
serve as pilot of the Confederate steamer Planter at Charleston. On 13 May 1862, he
executed a daring escape out of the heavily fortified Charleston harbor with his family,
other enslaved people, and valuable military cargo onboard, and successfully surrendered
Planter to the U.S. Navy. Smalls continued as pilot of the ship, but also piloted ironclad
Keokuk and other vessels. He ultimately became captain of Planter. An ardent advocate
for African Americans, Smalls led one of the first boycotts of segregated public
transportation in 1864. This movement led to the city of Philadelphia integrating streetcars
in 1867. After the Civil War, Smalls was appointed a brigadier general of the South
Carolina militia, and from 1868 to 1874 he served in the South Carolina legislature. In
1874, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and served for five terms,
advocating for greater integration. After his time in Congress, Smalls was twice appointed
collector of the Port of Beaufort, South Carolina. He died at Beaufort in 1915.
The logistical aspects associated with renaming the ship will begin henceforth and will
continue until completion with minimal impact on operations and the crew. CG-62 was
commissioned in 1989 and named USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) to honor the Battle of

116 Secretary of Defense, Memorandum for Senior Pentagon Leadership, Defense Agency and DOD Field Activity
Directors, Subject: Implementation of the Naming Commission's Recommendations, October 6, 2022, accessed
October 7, 2022 at https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/06/2003092544/-1/-1/1/IMPLEMENTATION-OF-THE-
NAMING-COMMISSIONS-RECOMMENDATIONS.PDF.
Congressional Research Service

27

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Chancellorsville, a Confederate victory during the Civil War. CG-62 is currently assigned
to Carrier Strike Group Five and is forward-deployed to Yokosuka, Japan.117
March 8, 2023, Navy Announcement of Renaming of USNS Maury (TAGS-66) as
USNS Marie Tharp
On March 8, 2023, Secretary Del Toro announced that the oceanographic survey ship USNS
Maury (TAGS-66) has been renamed the USS Marie Tharp. The Navy’s announcement stated
that
This renaming honors Marie Tharp, a pioneering geologist and oceanographic cartographer
who created the first scientific maps of the Atlantic Ocean floor and shaped our
understanding of plate tectonics and continental drift.
The decision arrived after a congressionally mandated Naming Commission outlined
several military assets across all branches of service that required renaming due to
confederate ties. In September 2022, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin accepted all
recommendations from the naming commission and gave each service until the end of 2023
to rename their assets.
“I’m pleased to announce the former USNS Maury will be renamed in honor of pioneering
geologist and oceanographic cartographer, Marie Tharp. Her dedication to research
brought life to the unknown ocean world and proved important information about the earth,
all while being a woman in a male-dominated industry,” said Del Toro. “As the history of
our great Nation evolves, we must put forth the effort to recognize figures who positively
influenced our society. This renaming honors just one of the many historic women who
have made a significant impact on not only our Navy, but our Nation.”
Tharp was born in 1920 and graduated from the Ohio University in 1943. Due to WWII,
more women were recruited into a variety of professions, prompting the University of
Michigan to open their geology program to women, resulting in Tharp completing her
master’s degree in 1944. After working in her field for a few years, Tharp became one of
the first women to work at the Lamont Geological Observatory. During this time she met
Bruce C. Heezen (namesake of T-AGS 64) and worked together using photographic data
to locate downed military aircraft from WWII. Between 1946 and 1952, Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute’s research vessel, Atlantis, used sonar to obtain depth
measurements of the North Atlantic Ocean, which Tharp, in collaboration with her
colleague, Heezen, used to create highly detailed seafloor profiles and maps. While
examining these profiles, Tharp noticed a cleft in the ocean floor that she deduced to be a
rift valley that ran along the ridge crest and continued along the length of its axis, evidence
of continental drift. At the time, the consensus of the U.S. scientific community held
continental drift to be impossible, but later examination bore out Tharp’s hypothesis. Her
work thus proved instrumental to the development of Plate Tectonic Theory, a
revolutionary idea in the field of geology at the time. Owing to this and other innovative
mapping efforts (some which the Navy funded), the National Geographic Society awarded
Tharp its highest honor, the Hubbard Medal, placing her among the ranks of other
pioneering researchers and explorers such as Sir Ernest Shackleton, Charles Lindbergh,
and Rear Admiral Richard E. Byrd.

117 U.S. Navy, “SECNAV Renames Ticonderoga-class Guided Missile Cruiser USS Chancellorsville after Robert
Smalls,” press release dated February 27, 2023. See also Emily Schmall, “Stripping Confederate Ties, the U.S. Navy
Renames Two Vessels,” New York Times, March 11 (updated March 12), 2023; Benjamin Armstrong, “‘A Hero’ In a
Commandeered Confederate Steamer, Robert Smalls Piloted Himself and Other Slaves to Freedom and Garnered the
Plaudits of a Grateful Union Navy,” Naval History Magazine, February 2021.
Congressional Research Service

28

link to page 48 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

The logistical aspects associated with renaming the ship will begin henceforth and will
continue until completion with minimal impact on operations and the crew.
T-AGS 66 was accepted in 2016 and named USNS Maury (T-AGS 66) after Commander
Matthew Fontaine Maury, the “Father of Modern Oceanography” who resigned from his
Navy career to accept a command in the Confederate States Navy. The former USNS
Maury was the only US Navy Vessel named after a Confederate military officer. T-AGS
66 is currently assigned to Military Sealift Command and is in the Persian Gulf.118
For additional background information on ships named for the Confederacy or Confederate
officers, see Appendix C.
Ships Named Several Years Before They Were Procured
In recent years, the Navy on a few occasions has announced names for ships years before those
ships were procured. Although announcing a name for a ship years before it is procured is not
prohibited, doing so could deprive a future Secretary of the Navy (or, more broadly, a future
Administration) of the opportunity to select a name for the ship. It could also deprive Congress of
an opportunity to express its sense regarding potential names for a ship, and create a risk of
assigning a name to a ship that eventually is not procured for some reason, a situation that could
be viewed as potentially embarrassing to the Navy. As noted earlier, the July 2012 Navy report to
Congress states the following:
At the appropriate time—normally sometime after the ship has been either authorized or
appropriated by Congress and before its keel laying or christening—the Secretary records
his decision with a formal naming announcement.119
At the end of the above passage, there is a footnote (number 3) in the Navy report that states the
following:
Although there is no hard and fast rule, Secretaries most often name a ship after Congress
has appropriated funds for its construction or approved its future construction in some
way—such as authorization of either block buys or multi-year procurements of a specific
number of ships. There are special cases, however, when Secretaries use their discretion to
name ships before formal Congressional approval, such as when Secretary John Lehman
announced the namesake for a new class of Aegis guided missile destroyers would be
Admiral Arleigh Burke, several years before the ship was either authorized or
appropriated.120
In connection with the quoted footnote passage immediately above, it can be noted that the lead
ship of the DDG-51 class of destroyers was named for Arleigh Burke on November 5, 1982,
about two years before the ship was authorized and fully funded.121

118 U.S. Navy, “SECNAV Renames Pathfinder-class Oceanographic Survey Ship USNS Maury after Marie Tharp,”
press release dated March 8, 2023. See also Emily Schmall, “Stripping Confederate Ties, the U.S. Navy Renames Two
Vessels,” New York Times, March 11 (updated March 12), 2023. Consistent with another one of the Naming
Commission’s recommendations, the Navy on February 17, 2023, announced that Maury Hall, a building at the U.S.
Naval Academy named for Matthew Maury, has been renamed Carter Hall for former President Jimmy Carter, who
graduated from the Naval Academy in 1946. (U.S. Navy, “SECNAV Renames United States Naval Academy Campus
Building After Former President Carter,” press release dated February 17, 2023.)
119 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 3.
120 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 3.
121 Congress authorized the ship in the FY1985 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5167/P.L. 98-525 of October
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

29

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Recent examples of Navy ships whose names were announced more than two years before they
were procured include the following:122
The destroyer Zumwalt (DDG-1000). On July 4, 2000, President Bill Clinton
announced that DDG-1000, the lead ship in a new class of destroyers, would be
named Zumwalt in honor of Admiral Elmo Zumwalt Jr., the Chief of Naval
Operations from 1970 to 1974, who had died on January 2, 2000. At the time of
the naming announcement, Congress was considering the Navy’s proposed
FY2001 budget, under which DDG-1000 was scheduled for authorization in
FY2005, a budget that Congress would consider in 2004, which was then about
four years in the future.123
The aircraft carrier Enterprise (CVN-80). As noted earlier, on December 1,
2012, the Navy announced that CVN-80, the third Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)
class aircraft carrier, would be named Enterprise. At the time of the
announcement, CVN-80 was scheduled for procurement in FY2018, the budget
for which Congress was to consider in 2017, which was then more than four
years in the future.124 (CVN-80 was in fact procured in FY2018.)
The ballistic missile submarine Columbia (SSBN-826). As noted earlier, on
July 28, 2016, it was reported that the first Ohio replacement ballistic missile
submarine (SSBN-826) will be named Columbia in honor of the District of
Columbia. This ship is scheduled for procurement in FY2021, the budget for
which Congress is to consider in 2020, which in July 2016 was about four years
in the future.
Three John Lewis (TAO-205) class oilers. As noted earlier, on July 28, 2016, it
was reported that the Navy would name the second through sixth John Lewis
(TAO-205) class oilers (i.e., TAOs 206 through 210) for Harvey Milk, Earl
Warren, Robert F. Kennedy, Lucy Stone, and Sojourner Truth, respectively. In
2016, these five ships were scheduled for procurement in FY2018, FY2019,
FY2020, FY2021, and FY2022, respectively, the budgets for which Congress has
considered or will consider in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively.
Thus, using the procurement dates that were scheduled in 2016, the name for

19, 1984), and fully funded the ship in H.J.Res. 648/P.L. 98-473 of October 12, 1984, a joint resolution making
continuing appropriations for FY1985, and for other purposes.
122 In response to a request from CRS for examples in recent years of ships that were named well in advance of when
they were authorized, the Navy on December 7, 2012, sent an email citing the case of the destroyer Zumwalt (DDG-
1000) and two other ships (the destroyer Arleigh Burke [DDG-51] and the amphibious ship San Antonio [LPD-17])
whose naming lead times were substantially less than that of the Zumwalt.
123 The FY2006 budget submission subsequently deferred the scheduled procurement of DDG-1000 to FY2007. DDG-
1000 and the second ship in the class, DDG-1001, were procured in FY2007 using split funding (i.e., two-year
incremental funding) in FY2007 and FY2008.
124 The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states that
[Then-]Secretary [of the Navy Ray] Mabus values the ability to consider [aircraft] carrier names on
an individual, case‐by‐case basis, for two reasons. First, it will allow a future Secretary to name a
future fleet aircraft carrier for someone or something other than a former President. Indeed, [then-]
Secretary Mabus has a particular name in mind. With the scheduled decommissioning of USS
Enterprise (CVN 65), perhaps the most famous ship name in US Navy history besides USS
Constitution will be removed from the Naval Vessel Register. [Then-]Secretary Mabus believes
this circumstance could be remedied by bestowing the Enterprise’s storied name on a future carrier.
(Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the
Vessels of the Navy
, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012,
p. 37.)
Congressional Research Service

30

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

TAO-208 (Robert F. Kennedy) was announced about three years before it was to
be procured, the name for TAO-209 (Lucy Stone) was announced about four
years it was to be procured, and the name for TAO-210 (Sojourner Truth) was
announced about five years before it was to be procured. As discussed in the CRS
report on the TAO-205 class program, the first six ships in the TAO-205 class are
being procured under a block buy contract that Congress authorized as part of its
action on the FY2016 defense budget.125 The procurement of each ship under this
contract remains subject to the availability of appropriations for that purpose.126
The ballistic missile submarine Wisconsin (SSBN-827). On October 28, 2020,
then-Secretary of the Navy Kenneth Braithwaite stated that the second Columbia
(SSBN-826) class ballistic missile submarine will be named Wisconsin. SSBN-
827 is scheduled for procurement in FY2024. Thus, the name for SSBN-827 was
announced about three years before it is to be procured.
Changes to Names of Navy Ships
The names of Navy ships are sometimes changed. A June 14, 2020, press report states
The Navy generally refrains from renaming its ships once they’ve entered service. Politics
and social mores certainly play a part in choosing the names of new ships, and it is not
unusual for a ship to be renamed one or more times prior to entering service, but it would
be quite unusual for ships to be renamed in service due to changing sensitivities.
Renamings usually take place because of an imperative to quickly honor a person or event.
They can also accompany a change in function such as converting a ship to a different
purpose or because a naming scheme for a certain class of ships might change. Other
changes might be for stylistic or administrative reasons and in those cases the core names
are retained even if the rendering changes. Prior to construction names have often been
swapped among ships of a class for a variety of reasons, including the symbolism of
building a particularly-named ship in a particular state or city.
Ships acquired from private or other sources have also frequently been renamed, especially
ships transferred from the US Army or US Coast Guard to naval service. Hundreds of ships
transferred from other government agencies such as the Maritime Commission or the
Maritime Administration have been renamed upon being acquired for US Navy service.127

125 The contract was authorized by Section 127 of the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1356/P.L. 114-
92 of November 25, 2015).
126 Section 127 of P.L. 114-92 states that “Any contract entered into under subsection (a) [of Section 127] shall provide
that any obligation of the United States to make a payment under the contract is subject to the availability of
appropriations for that purpose, and that total liability to the Government for termination of any contract entered into
shall be limited to the total amount of funding obligated at the time of termination.”
127 Christopher P. Cavas, “Renaming US Navy Ships,” Defense & Aerospace Report, June 14, 2020. Regarding the
names of certain Civil War-era ironclad monitors, one blog post states
[Then-]Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles directed that new vessels being built should illustrate
the pride of the American nation by having distinctly American names. As a result, many of the
monitors received names of American rivers, lakes, mountains, cities or Indian tribes. This practice
created a list of names that in some cases proved nearly unpronounceable. The practice
nevertheless remained in place until 1869, when the new Secretary of the Navy, Adolph A. Borie,
ordered the wholesale renaming of ships, often adopting new names based on classical Greek
figures or gods. This practice has somewhat complicated for many the tracing of these Civil War
era ships.
(“Later Ironclads,” USS Monitor Center at The Mariners Museum & Park, undated, accessed July
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

31

link to page 55 link to page 5 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Public’s Role in Naming Ships
Members of the public are sometimes interested in having Navy ships named for their own states
or cities, for earlier U.S. Navy ships (particularly those on which they or their relatives served),
for battles in which they or their relatives participated, or for people they admire. Citizens with
such an interest sometimes contact the Navy, DOD, or Congress seeking support for their
proposals. An October 2008 news report, for example, suggested that a letter-writing campaign by
New Hampshire elementary school students that began in January 2004 was instrumental in the
Navy’s decision in August 2004 to name a Virginia-class submarine after the state.128 The July
2012 Navy report to Congress states the following:
In addition to receiving input and recommendations from the President and Congress, every
Secretary of the Navy receives numerous requests from servicemembers, citizens, interest
groups, or individual members of Congress who want to name a ship in honor of a
particular hometown, or State, or place, or hero, or famous ship. This means the
“nomination” process is often fiercely contested as differing groups make the case that
“their” ship name is the most fitting choice for a Secretary to make.129
Members of the public may also express their opposition to an announced naming decision. The
July 2012 Navy report to Congress cites and discusses five recent examples of ship-naming
decisions that were criticized by some observers: the destroyer DDG-1002 (named for President
Lyndon Johnson), the Littoral Combat Ship LCS-10 (named for former Representative Gabrielle
Giffords), the amphibious ship LPD-26 (named for late Representative John P. Murtha), the
auxiliary ship TAKE-13 (named for Medgar Evers), and the auxiliary ship TAKE-14 (named for
Cesar Chavez).130
Congress’s Role in Naming Ships
Overview of Congressional Influence on Navy Ship-Naming Decisions
Congress has long maintained an interest in how Navy ships are named,131 and has influenced or
may have influenced pending Navy decisions on the naming of certain ships, including but not
limited to the following:
• One source states that “[the aircraft carriers] CVN 72 and CVN 73 were named
prior to their start [of construction], in part to preempt potential congressional

16, 2020, at https://www.monitorcenter.org/later-ironclads/.)
For background information regarding an ex-U.S. Coast Guard cutter originally named Taney that is owned
by the City of Baltimore and operated there as a museum ship, and whose name was removed by the City of
Baltimore, see Appendix D.
128 Dean Lohmeyer, “Students Who Helped Name the Navy’s Newest Sub Tour State’s Namesake,” Navy News
Service
, October 25, 2008.
129 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, pp. 12-13.
130 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 15.
131 For example, the 1819 and 1858 laws cited in footnote 1 set forth naming rules for certain kinds of ships. Today, 10
U.S.C. §8662(b) still requires that battleships (which the United States has not built since World War II) be named after
states.
Congressional Research Service

32

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

pressure to name one of those ships for Admiral H.G. Rickover ([instead,] the
[attack submarine] SSN 709 was named for the admiral).”132
• There was a friendly rivalry of sorts in Congress between those who supported
naming the aircraft carrier CVN-76 for President Truman and those who
supported naming it for President Reagan; the issue was effectively resolved by a
decision announced by President Clinton in February 1995 to name one carrier
(CVN-75) for Truman and another (CVN-76) for Reagan.133
• One press report suggests that the decision to name CVN-77 for President
George H. W. Bush may have been influenced by a congressional suggestion.134
• Section 1012 of the FY2007 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
(H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364 of October 17, 2006), expressed the sense of Congress
that the aircraft carrier CVN-78 should be named for President Gerald R. Ford.
The Navy announced on January 16, 2007, that CVN-78 would be named Gerald
R. Ford
.
• In the 111th Congress, H.Res. 1505, introduced on July 1, 2010, expressed the
sense of the House of Representatives that the Secretary of the Navy should
name the next appropriate naval ship in honor of John William Finn. The
measure was not acted on after being referred to the House Armed Services
Committee. On February 15, 2012, the Navy announced that DDG-113, an
Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer, would be named John Finn.135
• Section 1012 of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540/P.L.
112-81 of December 31, 2011) expressed the sense of Congress that the Secretary
of the Navy is encouraged to name the next available naval vessel after Rafael
Peralta. On February 15, 2012, the Navy announced that DDG-113, an Arleigh
Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer, would be named Rafael Peralta.136
• On June 19, 2019, Senators Todd Young and Mike Braun introduced S.Amdt.
793, an amendment to the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1790)
expressing the sense of the Congress that the Navy should name the next DDG-
51 class destroyer for the late former Senator Richard Lugar.137 On November 13,
2019, at which point no further action on S.Amdt. 793 was recorded at
Congress.gov, the Navy announced that it would name a DDG-51 class destroyer
for Lugar.138

132 The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet, op. cit., p. 113. See also pp. 70 and 86.
133 Patrick Pexton, “Clinton Compromise: Carriers Truman And Reagan,” Navy Times, February 13, 1995: 19. See also
“Navy Announces Aircraft Carrier To Be Named For President Truman,” Associated Press, February 2, 1995. CVN-75
had been preliminarily named the United States.
134 The article, which reported on the ship’s official naming ceremony, states the following: “[Senator] Warner recalled
that he first suggested naming a carrier in the senior Bush’s honor last year [i.e., in 2001], during a ceremony in
Newport News to christen the [previous] carrier Ronald Reagan.” (Dale Eisman, “Navy Names New Aircraft Carrier
For Elder Bush,” Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, December 10, 2002.)
135 DOD News Release No. 109-12, “Navy Names Five New Ships,” February 15, 2012.
136 DOD News Release No. 109-12, “Navy Names Five New Ships,” February 15, 2012.
137 Congress.gov states that the amendment was introduced by Sen. Young. A press release from Sen. Young’s Office
(Office of Sen. Todd Young, “Young Announces Navy Ship to be Named in Honor of Richard G. Lugar; Naming
Ceremony Nov. 18 in Indianapolis,” November 13, 2019) states that the amendment was introduced by Senators Young
and Braun.
138 Source: email from Navy Office of Legislative Affairs to CRS, November 14, 2019. See also Office of Sen. Todd
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

33

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

• Members of Congress wrote letters to Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas
Harker in 2021 and Secretary Del Toro in 2022 urging the Navy to name a ship
for Medal of Honor recipient Telesforo Trinidad.139 On May 19, 2022, Secretary
Del Toro announced that the destroyer DDG-139 would be so named.140
• Section 1086 of the FY2023 NDAA (H.R. 7900) as reported by the House Armed
Services Committee (H.Rept. 117-397 of July 1, 2022) expressed the sense of the
Congress that Secretary of the Navy should name a warship the USS Fallujah.
The joint explanatory statement that was released on December 6, 2022, for the
final version of the FY2023 NDAA (H.R. 7776/P.L. 117-263 of December 23,
2022), noted that this provision was not included in H.R. 7776. As noted earlier,
on December 13, 2022, the Navy announced that the amphibious assault ship
LHA-9 will be named Fallujah.The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states
that
every Secretary of the Navy, regardless of point of view [on how to name ships], is subject
to a variety of outside influences when considering the best names to choose. The first
among these comes from the President of the United States, under whose direction any
Secretary works....
Secretaries of the Navy must also consider the input of Congress.... Given the vital role
Congress plays in maintaining the Navy-Marine Corps Team, any Secretary is sure to
respect and consider its input when considering ships names.
Sometimes, the Secretary must also balance or contend with differences of opinion between
the President and Congress.141
The Navy suggests that congressional offices wishing to express support for proposals to name a
Navy ship for a specific person, place, or thing contact the office of the Secretary of the Navy to
make their support known. Congress may also pass legislation relating to ship names (see below).
Congressional Responses to Announced Navy Ship-Naming Decisions
Examples of Legislation
Congress can pass legislation regarding a ship-naming decision that has been announced by the
Navy. Such legislation can express Congress’s views regarding the Navy’s announced decision,
and if Congress so desires, can also suggest or direct the Navy to take some action. The following
are three examples of such legislation:
• S.Res. 332 of the 115th Congress is an example of a measure that appears to
reflect support for an announced Navy ship-naming decision. This measure,
introduced in the Senate on November 15, 2017, and considered and agreed to

Young, “Young Announces Navy Ship to be Named in Honor of Richard G. Lugar; Naming Ceremony Nov. 18 in
Indianapolis,” November 13, 2019, accessed November 14, 2019, at https://www.young.senate.gov/newsroom/press-
releases/young-announces-navy-ship-to-be-named-in-honor-of-richard-g-lugar-naming-ceremony-nov-18-in-
indianapolis.
139 Star-Advertiser Staff, “Navy Ship to Be Named After Filipino American Sailor,” Honolulu Star-Advertiser, June 3,
2022; Sarah Fearing, “Virginia Delegation Urges Navy to Name Ship After Only Filipino American to Receive the
Medal of Honor,” WAVY.com, April 4, 2022.
140 Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs, “SECNAV Names Future Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer Telesforo Trinidad,”
May 19, 2022.
141 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, pp. 11-12.
Congressional Research Service

34

link to page 44 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

without amendment and with a preamble by unanimous consent the same day,
summarizes the military career of Hershel “Woody” Williams and commemorates
the christening of ESB-4, an expeditionary sea base ship named for Williams (see
“Legislative Activity in 2023”).
• H.Res. 1022 of the 111th Congress is an example of a measure reflecting support
for an announced Navy ship-naming decision. This measure, introduced on
January 20, 2010, and passed by the House on February 4, 2010, congratulates
the Navy on its decision to name a naval ship for Medgar Evers.
• H.Con.Res. 312 of the 97th Congress is an example of a measure that appears to
reflect disagreement with an announced Navy ship-naming decision. This
measure expressed the sense of Congress that the Los Angeles (SSN-688) class
attack submarine Corpus Christi (SSN-705) should be renamed, and that a
nonlethal naval vessel should instead be named Corpus Christi. (Los Angeles-
class attack submarines were named for cities, and SSN-705 had been named for
Corpus Christi, TX.) H.Con.Res. 312 was introduced on April 21, 1982, and was
referred to the Seapower and Strategic and Critical Materials subcommittee of
the House Armed Services Committee on April 28, 1982. On May 10, 1982, the
Navy modified the name of SSN-705 to City of Corpus Christi.142

142 An April 24, 1982, press report states the following:
House Speaker Thomas P. O’Neill is asking the White House to change the name of the Navy’s
new nuclear submarine from the USS Corpus Christi to another title less offensive to Christian
groups.
O’Neill, D-Mass., suggested that the submarine be renamed the “USS City of Corpus Christi.”
In a telephone call he initiated Thursday to Michael K. Deaver, deputy chief of staff and assistant to
President [Ronald] Reagan, O’Neill said he found the name Corpus Christi to be inappropriate for a
nuclear-powered warship.
According to an O’Neill aide, Deaver replied that he would take the issue up with the president.
The USS Corpus Christi was named for the city in Texas. Corpus Christi is Latin for body of
Christ.
The Ad Hoc Corpus Christi Campaign, a group consisting of various Catholic and Protestant
laymen and clergy, opposed calling the submarine by its present designation.
O’Neill is a Roman Catholic.
Navy Secretary John F. Lehman, Jr., a Catholic, has defended the name USS Corpus Christi, saying
the submarine was not named for religious purposes but for the Texas city.
Other ships in the Navy’s history have carried the name USS Corpus Christi. The Navy has named
several of its other attack submarines after cities, for example the USS Los Angeles.
(Associated Press, “O’Neill Claims ‘Corpus Christi’ Inappropriate As Name for Sub,” Eugene
Register Guard
, April 24, 1982, accessed August 18, 2016, at https://news.google.com/
newspapers?id=l7RQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MuIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5979%2C5358114.)
A December 30, 1982, press report states the following:
The vessel was the subject of an intense controversy last spring when Roman Catholic and other
religious leaders and peace activists objected to the original name Corpus Christi, which in Latin
means “Body of Christ.”
President Reagan ordered the name changed [to City of Corpus Christi] over the objections of Navy
Secretary John Lehman.
(“Sub City of Corpus Christi to Be Commissioned Jan. 8,” New London Day, December 30, 1982,
accessed August 18, 2016, at https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RQQhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=
a3UFAAAAIBAJ&dq=city-of-corpus-christi%20submarine&pg=6072%2C6185609.)
Another apparent recent case of a ship’s name being amended to insert “City of” prior to the remainder of the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

35

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

USS Portland (LPD-27)
On April 12, 2013, then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that LPD-27, a San
Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ship, would be named for Portland, OR.143 LPD-27 is to be
the third Navy ship to bear the name Portland. The first, a cruiser (CA-33), was named for
Portland, ME. It was commissioned into service in February 1933, decommissioned in July 1946,
and maintained in reserve status until struck from the Navy list in March 1959. The second, an
amphibious ship (LSD-37), was named for both Portland, ME, and Portland, OR. It was
commissioned into service in October 1970, decommissioned in October 2003, and stricken from
the Naval Vessel Register in March 2004.
An April 18, 2013, press release from Senator Angus King stated that “U.S. Senators Susan
Collins and Angus King today sent a letter to Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy, asking that
the USS Portland [LPD-27], a new San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship named after
the city of Portland, Oregon, also be named in honor of Portland, Maine, consistent with the long
history and tradition of U.S. Navy ships bestowed with the name USS Portland.”144 In reply, the

name concerns the Expeditionary Fast Transport City of Bismarck (EPF-9). DOD’s June 6, 2013, news
release about the naming of this ship (then referred to as a Joint High Speed Vessel, or JHSV) and four other
ships states
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced today the next three joint high speed vessels (JHSV)
will be named USNS Yuma, USNS Bismarck and USNS Burlington, and two littoral combat ships
(LCS) will be named USS Billings and USS Tulsa…. USNS Bismarck (JHSV 9) is the first naval
vessel to be named in honor of North Dakota’s capital city.
(Department of Defense news release, “Navy Names Multiple Ships,” June 6, 2013, copy accessed
November 20, 2020, at https://web.archive.org/web/20130924221057/http://www.defense.gov/
releases/release.aspx?releaseid=16077.)
By the time of the ship’s christening in May 2017, the ship’s name had been changed to City of
Bismarck
. (See Department of Defense news release, “Navy to Christen Expeditionary Fast
Transport City of Bismarck,” May 11, 2017, accessed November 20, 2020, at
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/1179499/navy-to-christen-
expeditionary-fast-transport-city-of-bismarck/.)
143 DOD Release No: 237-13, “Secretary of the Navy Names Multiple Ships,” April 12, 2013. The release states
“Mabus named the future USS Portland (LPD 27) in honor of Oregon’s most highly populated city.”
144 Press release entitled “Senators Collins, King Request Ship Be Named After Portland, ME,” April 18, 2013,
accessed on December 11, 2017, at https://www.king.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senators-collins-king-
request-ship-be-named-after-portland-me. The press release presents the full text of the Senators’ letter to then-
Secretary Mabus, which is as follows:
Dear Secretary Mabus:
On April 12, 2013, you announced that LPD 27, a new San Antonio-class amphibious transport
dock ship, will be named the USS Portland after the city of Portland, Oregon.
We were surprised that the press release did not state that the ship was also named in honor of the
city of Portland, Maine. We write to ask that you clarify that the ship will also be named in honor
of Portland, Maine, consistent with the long history and tradition of U.S. Navy ships bestowed with
the name USS Portland.
The Department of the Navy press release stated LPD 27 will be the third ship to bear the name
USS Portland. The press release failed to mention that both of the previous two ships were named,
in whole or in part, to honor the city of Portland, Maine. The first USS Portland (CA-33) was the
lead ship of a new class of heavy cruisers. Launched in 1932, it was named after the city of
Portland, Maine, and saw battle during World War II at the 1942 Battle of the Coral Sea, the Battle
of Midway, and the Battle of Guadalcanal. After accruing 16 battle stars, she was decommissioned
in 1946.
The second USS Portland (LSD-37) was commissioned in 1970 and served until 2004. The ship
was also named after the city of Portland, Maine, but it was also named after the city of Portland,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

36

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Navy sent letters dated April 24, 2013, to Senators Collins and King that stated the following in
part:
In addition to [the ballistic missile submarine] USS MAINE (SSBN 743), Secretary [of the
Navy Ray] Mabus recently honored the state of Maine through his naming of [the
expeditionary fast transport ship] USNS MILLINOCKET (JHSV 3) [now called T-EPF 3]
which was christened last weekend and will proudly represent our Nation as part of the
fleet for decades to come. The Secretary of the Navy has tremendous appreciation for the
state of Maine, its citizens and the incredible support provided by them to our Navy and
our Nation. However, Oregon is the only state in our Nation that does not currently have a
ship in the fleet named for the state, its cities or communities. Secretary Mabus named LPD
27 after Portland, Oregon, to correct that oversight and acknowledge the support and
contributions made by the men and women of Portland and Oregon.145
As noted elsewhere in this report, on October 10, 2014, the Navy announced that it was naming
the Virginia-class attack submarine SSN-793 for Oregon.
A May 21, 2016, Navy blog post about the ship’s christening states that “LPD-27 will be the third
Navy ship named Portland, honoring both the Oregon seaport and Maine’s largest city.”146 That
statement is not correct, as the Navy confirmed that LPD-27 is named solely for Portland, OR.147
A July 5, 2017, Navy News Service report stated correctly that “LPD 27 is named for the city of
Portland, Oregon, and follows the World War II heavy cruiser CA 33 and the amphibious ship
LSD 37 as the third U.S. Navy ship to bear the name Portland.”148 LPD-27 was commissioned
into service on December 14, 2017.

Oregon. The ship’s insignia incorporates the seals of both cities.
The third USS Portland should continue this tradition. We understand that amphibious transport
dock ships are named for major American cities, and we can assure you that Portland, Maine is the
largest city in Maine and the metro area is home to one-third of Maine’s entire population.
Portland also has a rich naval history. South Portland is where many Liberty cargo ships were built
that sustained the war effort during World War II, and 4,700 skilled shipyard workers repair Los
Angeles-class and Virginia-class nuclear powered submarines one hour to the south of Portland at
the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Portland also has the largest port in Maine, and it is home to men
and women whose livelihood relies upon the ocean and its resources, as demonstrated by the
historic and bustling working waterfront.
We are confident that the impressive capabilities of LPD 27 and her crew can honor Portland,
Maine, without in any way reducing the simultaneous honor afforded to Portland, Oregon. In fact,
part of the rich history of Portland, Oregon, is that it was named after the city in Maine. In 1845,
two of the city’s founders, Asa Lovejoy of Boston, and Francis Pettygrove of Portland, Maine, each
wanted to name the new city after his original home town. After Pettygrove won a coin toss two out
of three times, the city was named after Portland, Maine. You can view the “Portland Penny” in
person at the Oregon Historical Society in downtown Portland, Oregon.
We request that you clarify that the USS Portland will be named in honor of Portland, Maine, as
well as Portland, Oregon. Given the history of both cities and the previous ships given the proud
name of USS Portland, we are confident that you will agree that doing so will greatly contribute to
the rich and storied history the USS Portland will carry with her as she and her crew defend our
nation.
For a press report, see Associated Press, “Navy Asked To Fix Snub Of Portland In Ship’s Name,” Boston Globe, April
20, 2013.
145 Letters dated April 24, 2013, from Pamela S. Kunze, Captain, U.S. Navy, Special Assistant for Public Affairs to the
Secretary of the Navy, responding on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy, to Senators Collins and King, provided to
CRS by Navy Office of Legislative Affairs, December 13, 2013.
146 “Future USS Portland (LPD 27) Christened,” Navy Live, May 21, 2016.
147 Source: CRS email exchange with Navy Office of Legislative Affairs, December 13, 2017.
148 “USS Portland (LPD 27) Successfully Completes Builder’s Trials,” Navy News Service, July 5, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

37

link to page 42 link to page 43 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Legislation on Future Navy Ship-Naming Decisions
Table 3 shows past enacted provisions going back to the 100th Congress regarding future ship-
naming decisions. All of these measures except the first one listed were nonmandatory provisions
that expressed the sense of the Congress (or of the Senate or House) about how a future Navy
ship should be named.
Table 3. Recent Enacted Legislative Provisions
Fiscal
Year
Public Law
Bill
Section
Ship
Name(s)
2019
P.L. 116-92
S. 1790
1749
Any ship (or other DOD asset)
Prohibition on new names
referring to Confederacy
2013
P.L. 113-6
H.R. 933
8119 of Division C the next available capital warship
Ted Stevens
2012
P.L. 112-81
H.R. 1540
1012
the next available naval vessel
Rafael Peralta
2011
P.L. 111-383 H.R. 6523
1022
a combat vessel
Father Vincent Capodanno
2007
P.L. 109-364 H.R. 5122
1012
CVN-78
Gerald R. Ford
2001
P.L. 106-398 H.R. 4205
1012
CVN-77
Lexington
1999
P.L. 105-261 H.R. 3616
1014
an LPD-17 class ship
Clifton B. Cates
1996
P.L. 104-106 S. 1124
1018
LHD-7
Iwo Jima
1996
P.L. 104-106 S. 1124
1018
LPD-17 class amphibious ships
Marine Corps battles or
members of Marine Corps
1996
P.L. 104-106 S. 1124
1019
an appropriate ship
Joseph Vittori
1991
P.L. 101-510 H.R. 4739
1426
the next DDG-51
Samuel S. Stratton
1989
P.L. 100-456 H.R. 4481
1221
the next SSBN
Melvin Price
1989
P.L. 100-456 H.R. 4481
1222
an appropriate ship
Bob Hope
1988
P.L. 100-202 H.J.Res. 395
8138
CVN-74 or CVN-75
John C. Stennis
Source: Prepared by CRS. All of these provisions expressed the sense of the Congress (or of the Senate or
House) about how a Navy ship should be named.
Table 4 shows past examples of proposed bills and amendments regarding future ship-naming
decisions going back to the 93rd Congress. Some of these measures expressed the sense of the
Congress about how a Navy ship should be named, while others would mandate a certain name
for a ship. Although few of these measures were acted on after being referred to committee, they
all signaled congressional interest in how certain ships should be named, and thus may have
influenced Navy decisions on these matters.
Congressional Research Service

38

link to page 43 link to page 43 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Table 4. Examples of Proposed Bills and Amendments
[Congress] and Bill
Ship
Proposed name(s)
[116th] H.Con.Res. 120/S.Con.Res. 41
Next Virginia-class submarine
Wisconsin
[116th] S.Amdt. 793 to S. 1790
Next DDG-51 class ship
Richard G. Lugar
[116th] S.Amdt. 764 to S. 1790
next available appropriate naval vessel Shannon Kent
[115th] S.Con.Res. 10
next nuclear powered submarine
Los Alamos
[113th] H.Res. 637
an appropriate Navy ship
Clifton B. Cates
[112th] H.Con.Res. 48
a Littoral Combat Ship
Ypsilanti
[112th] H.R. 1945
next available naval vessel
Rafael Peralta
[111th] H.Res. 1505
next appropriate naval ship
John William Finn
[111th] H.Res. 330
an appropriate ship
Clifton B. Cates
[111th] H.Con.Res. 83
CVN-79 or CVN-80
Barry M. Goldwater
[109th] S. 2766
CVN-78
Gerald R. Ford
[107th] H.Con.Res. 294
a new naval vessel
Bluejacket
[106th] S.Con.Res. 84
CVN-77
Lexington
[105th] S.Amdt. 2812 to S. 2057
LPD-17 class ship
Clifton B. Cates
[104th] H.J.Res. 61
CVN-76
Ronald Reagan
[104th] H.R. 445
CVN-76
Harry Truman
[104th] S.Con.Res. 62
SSN-774
South Dakota
[104th] S.J.Res. 17
CVN-76
Ronald Reagan
[104th] S.Amdt. 2277 to S. 1026
LHD-7
Iwo Jima
[104th] S.Amdt. 2277 to S. 1026
LPD-17 class ships
famous Marine Corps battles or heroes
[104th] S.Amdt. 4350 to S. 1745
a SSN-774 class submarine
South Dakota
[103rd] H.R. 5283
an appropriate ship
Joseph Vittori
[102nd] H.Con.Res. 354
a guided missile cruiser
Pearl Harbor
[102nd] H.R. 6115
CVN-76
Harry S Truman
[100th] H.Amdt. 614 to H.R. 4264
next SSBN-726 class submarine
Melvin Price
[100th] S.Amdt. 1354 to H.J.Res. 395
CVN-74 or CVN-75
John C. Stennis
[98th] H.Res. 99
an aircraft carrier
Wasp
[97th] H.Con.Res. 312
a nonlethal naval vessela
Corpus Christia
[97th] H.Res. 174
an aircraft carrier
Wasp
[97th] H.R. 4977
CVN-72
Hyman G. Rickover
[93rd] H.Con.Res. 386
CVN-70
Carl Vinson
[93rd] H.Con.Res. 387
CVN-70
Carl Vinson
[93rd] H.J.Res. 831
CVN-70
Carl Vinson
Source: Prepared by CRS.
a. H.Con.Res. 312 expressed the sense of Congress that the Los Angeles (SSN-688) class attack submarine
Corpus Christi (SSN-705) should be renamed, and that a nonlethal naval vessel should instead be named
Corpus Christi. (Los Angeles-class attack submarines were named for cities, and SSN-705 had been named for
Corpus Christi, TX.) H.Con.Res. 312 was introduced on April 21, 1982, and was referred to the Seapower
and Strategic and Critical Materials subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on April 28,
1982. On May 10, 1982, the Navy changed the name of SSN-705 to City of Corpus Christi.
Congressional Research Service

39

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Legislative Activity in 2023
FY2024 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2670/S. 2226)
House
In H.R. 2670 as reported by the House Armed Services Committee (H.Rept. 118-125 of June 30,
2023) and passed by the House on July 14, 2023
Section 1014, entitled “Repeal of Obsolete Provision of Law regarding Vessel
Nomenclature,” would strike (i.e., remove) subsection (b) of 10 U.S.C. 8662, the
U.S. Code provision on the naming of Navy ships. Subsection (b) states: “(b)
Each battleship shall be named for a State. However, if the names of all the States
are in use, a battleship may be named for a city, place, or person.” The United
States has not procured a battleship since World War II, and has not operated a
battleship since 1992.
Section 1025 would express the sense of the Congress that Navy should name a
commissioned naval vessel after formerly enslaved sailor and Civil War veteran
William B. Gould, to honor his strength of character and faithful service to our
country.
Section 1027 would express the sense of the Congress that the Navy should
name a Navy vessel for Marine Corps Major James Capers Jr., in honor of his
acts of valor in 1967, during the Vietnam War in 1967, for which he was
previously awarded the Silver Star.
Section 1857 would express a sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy
should name an amphibious or expeditionary class vessel for the Battle of Dai
Do, a Vietnam War battle.
Conference
In the conference report (H.Rept. 118-301 of December 6, 2023) on H.R. 2670, Section 1018,
entitled “Repeal of Obsolete Provision of Law regarding Vessel Nomenclature,” strikes (i.e.,
removes) subsection (b) of 10 U.S.C. 8662, the U.S. Code provision on the naming of Navy ships.
Subsection (b) states: “(b) Each battleship shall be named for a State. However, if the names of all
the States are in use, a battleship may be named for a city, place, or person.” The United States
has not procured a battleship since World War II, and has not operated a battleship since 1992.
The conference report does not include Sections 1025, 1027, and 1857 of the House version of
H.R. 2670.

Congressional Research Service

40

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Appendix A. Navy’s Process for Naming Ships
This appendix provides additional background information on the Navy’s process for naming ships.
As noted earlier, the Navy’s process for naming ships is set forth in SECNAV (Secretary of the
Navy) Instruction 5031.1D of March 21, 2019.149 Appendix A of this document states
SHIP NAMING PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES
1. Upon contract award for a new construction ship/ship class without an established
naming convention, the cognizant PEO [Program Executive Office] notifies the SECNAV
PAO [Public Affairs Office] and the NHHC [Naval History and Heritage Command] that
a contract has been awarded. The SECNAV PAO generates a tasker for the NHHC to
develop proposed naming conventions and hull designations. These recommendations
should be based on historical precedence for previous ships of similar type, capability, or
mission and should include three potential naming conventions, with supporting rationale
and proposed ship names associated with each convention. NHHC notifies the ONR
[Office of Naval Research] Office of Counsel of the potential names to review for possible
trademark law issues.
2. After preparation of the naming convention memorandum, the NHHC routes the package
through the cognizant PEO; Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Ship Programs
(DASN Ships); Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research Development and Acquisition)
(ASN(RD&A)); the Director of Navy Staff (DNS); the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations];
and ultimately the SECNAV PAO. Each organization reviews the recommended naming
conventions and prepares endorsement memoranda. The package is forwarded to the
SECNAV for consideration.
3. Once the naming convention has been established by the SECNAV, subsequent ship
naming packages will be initiated upon contract award by the SECNAV PAO, who will
generate a tasker for the NHHC to develop a proposed naming package. These
recommendations should be based on the naming convention, historical precedence for
previous ships, capability, or mission and include supporting rationale. The SECNAV PAO
provides the NHHC with ship naming recommendations received from public sources for
review and consideration.
4. The NHHC prepares a memorandum that provides ship name options to the SECNAV,
which is routed through the DNS and the CNO. The CNO reviews the options for each hull
to be named and forwards the package, along with CNO recommendations, to the
SECNAV PAO.
5. Upon receipt of the naming recommendation package, the SECNAV PAO coordinates
with SECNAV Legal Office to identify and resolve issues associated with all proposed
names. Upon completion of this review, the package is forwarded to the SECNAV for
consideration.
6. Upon the SECNAV’s selection of a name(s) of new construction ships, the SECNAV
PAO prepares a SECNAVNOTE 5030 with input from NHHC for the SECNAV’s
signature for distribution to the NHHC, the CNO, DNS, Chief of Naval Information
(CHINFO), ASN(RD&A), DASN Ships, the ONR Office of Counsel and the cognizant
PEO.

149 Department of the Navy, SECNAV Instruction [SECNAVINST] 5031.1D, Subject: Ship Naming, Sponsor
Selection, Crest Development, Keel Layings, Christenings, Commissionings, and Decommissionings, March 29, 2019,
accessed January 13, 2023, at
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/doni/Directives/05000%20General%20Management%20Security%20and%20Safety%20
Services/05-00%20General%20Admin%20and%20Management%20Support/5031.1D.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

41

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

7. Upon completion of the 5030 the SECNAV PAO will generate a press release to formally
release the name to the public.
8. The NHHC maintains comprehensive ship naming records containing biographical data
and ship heritage information associated with the ship’s namesake, including information
concerning previous ships of the same name.
Congressional Research Service

42

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Appendix B. Executive Summary of July 2012 Navy
Report to Congress
This appendix reprints the executive summary of the July 2012 Navy report to Congress on the
Navy’s policies and practices for naming its ships. The text of the executive summary is as
follows:
Executive Summary
This report is submitted in accordance with Section 1014 of P.L. 112-81, National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, dated 31 December 2011, which directs
the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on “policies and practices of the Navy for
naming vessels of the Navy.”
As required by the NDAA, this report:
• Includes a description of the current policies and practices of the Navy for naming
vessels of the Navy, and a description of the extent to which these policies and
practices vary from historical policies and practices of the Navy for naming vessels of
the Navy, and an explanation for such variances;
• Assesses the feasibility and advisability of establishing fixed policies for the naming
of one or more classes of vessels of the Navy, and a statement of the policies
recommended to apply to each class of vessels recommended to be covered by such
fixed policies if the establishment of such fixed policies is considered feasible and
advisable; and
• Identifies any other matter relating to the policies and practices of the Navy for naming
vessels of the Navy that the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate.
After examining the historical record in great detail, this report concludes:
• Current ship naming policies and practices fall well within the historic spectrum of
policies and practices for naming vessels of the Navy, and are altogether consistent
with ship naming customs and traditions.
• The establishment of fixed policies for the naming of one or more classes of vessels
of the Navy would be highly inadvisable. There is no objective evidence to suggest
that fixed policies would improve Navy ship naming policies and practices, which
have worked well for over two centuries.
In addition, the Department of the Navy used to routinely publish lists of current type
naming rules for battle force ships, and update it as changes were made to them. At some
point, this practice fell into disuse, leading to a general lack of knowledge about naming
rules. To remedy this problem, the Naval History and Heritage Command will once again
develop and publish a list of current type naming rules to help all Americans better
understand why Secretaries of the Navy choose the ship names they do. This list will be
updated as required.150

150 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. iii.
Congressional Research Service

43

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Appendix C. Ships Named for the Confederacy or
Confederate Officers
This appendix presents additional background information on Navy ships named for the
Confederacy or Confederate officers.
Past U.S. Navy Ships Named for Confederate Officers
A June 15, 2017, blog post states that past U.S. Navy ships that have been named for Confederate
officers include
the [ballistic missile submarine/attack submarine] USS Robert E. Lee (SSBN-601[/SSN-
601]) [commissioned 1960; decommissioned 1983], the [ballistic missile submarine] USS
Stonewall Jackson (SSBN-634) [commissioned 1964; decommissioned 1995], the
[submarine tender] USS Hunley (AS-31) [commissioned 1962; decommissioned 1994],
and the [submarine tender] USS Dixon (AS-37) [commissioned 1971; decommissioned
1995]. H. L. Hunley built the Confederate submarine that sank with him on board before it
engaged in combat. A subsequent Confederate submarine was built and named for him.
Commanded by George Dixon, the CSS Hunley carried out the world’s first submarine
attack when it struck the [sloop-of-war] USS Housatonic in February1864.
Currently in the fleet is the [Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis cruiser] USS
Chancellorsville (CG-62) [commissioned 1989], named for Lee’s greatest victory over the
U.S. Army. Chancellorsville also was the battle in which Gen. Thomas “Stonewall”
Jackson was mortally wounded by friendly fire.
The purpose of erecting monuments and naming U.S. ships after Confederates—enemies
of the United States—seems to be to recognize their perceived status as noble warriors
rather than to remember the cause for which they waged war: the dissolution of the United
States to preserve the “peculiar institution” of human slavery. This view of history is not
shared by millions of Americans who see the monuments to Confederates as glorifying,
even justifying the “lost cause” and the enslavement of humans.
Other ships have been named for enemies [of the United States], probably because they
were considered “noble warriors” too. [The ballistic missile submarine] USS Tecumseh
(SSBN-628) [commissioned 1964; decommissioned 1993]151 and [the harbor tug] USS
Osceola (YTB-129) [commissioned 1938; sold for scrapping 1973]152 were named after
American Indian leaders who fought wars against the United States.153

151 There were also earlier Navy ships named Tecumseh, including YT-273, a harbor tug placed into service in 1943,
renamed Olathe in 1962, and removed from service in 1975; a tug originally named Edward Luckenbach that was
completed in 1896, acquired by the Navy, renamed Tecumseh, and placed into service in 1898, and then served for
various periods, going repeatedly into and out of commission, from 1899 into the 1940s; and a Union Navy monitor
that was commissioned in 1864 and sunk in battle later that year against Confederate forces.
Primary source: Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, accessed October 27, 2017, at
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs.html.
152 There were also earlier Navy ships named Osceola, including AT-47, an armed tug commissioned in 1898,
recommissioned in 1911, and struck from the Navy in 1922; a monitor originally named Neosho that served in the
Union Navy from 1863 to 1865, was renamed Vixen in 1869, was again renamed Osceola later in 1869, and sold in
1873; and a gunboat in the Union Navy that was commissioned in 1864 and decommissioned in 1865.
Primary source: Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, accessed October 27, 2017, at
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs.html.
153 Earl J. Higgins, “Confederate Monuments At Sea?” U.S. Naval Institute Blog, June 15 2017. See also Geoff
Ziezulewicz, “Meet the Navy Ships Named in Honor of the Confederacy,” Navy Times, August 15, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

44

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

In addition to the ships mentioned above, other past Navy (USS) or Military Sealift Command
(USNS) ships named for Confederate officers, as identified by one observer, include
• the destroyer USS Buchanan (DDG-14) (commissioned 1962; decommissioned
1991);
• the destroyer USS Semmes (DDG-18) (commissioned 1962; decommissioned
1991);
• the destroyer USS Tattnall (DDG-19) (commissioned 1963; decommissioned
1991);
• the destroyer USS Waddell (DDG-24) (commissioned 1964; decommissioned
1992);
• the frigate USS Brooke (FFG-1) (commissioned 1966; decommissioned 1988);
• the frigate USS Richard L. Page (FFG-5) (commissioned 1967; decommissioned
1988);
• the oceanographic research ship USNS Lynch (TAGOR-7) (entered service 1965,
placed out of service 1994); and
• the above-mentioned surveying ship USNS Maury (TAGS-66) (entered service
2016; currently in service).154
USNS Maury (TAGS-66), USS Chancellorsville (CG-62), and USS
Antietam
(CG-54)
A May 21, 2021, press report states
The number of U.S. military assets that may need to be renamed as part of an effort to scrub
Confederate names could reach into the hundreds, the retired admiral leading the renaming
effort said Friday.
“I think once we get down to looking at buildings and street names, this potentially could
run into the hundreds,” retired Adm. Michelle Howard told reporters on a conference call.
Howard, a former vice chief of naval operations and the first African American woman to
command a U.S. Navy ship, is the chairwoman of the Commission on the Naming of Items
of the Department of Defense that Commemorates the Confederate States of America or
Any Person Who Served Voluntarily with the Confederate States of America, also known
as the Naming Commission….
In her update on the commission’s efforts Friday, Howard said its initial focus will be on
nine bases owned by the Department of Defense named after Confederate leaders….
The Navy, meanwhile, has identified at least one ship so far to look at for renaming,
Howard said: the USNS Maury, an oceanographic survey ship named after a commander
who resigned from the U.S. Navy to sail for the Confederacy.
The number of Navy ships identified for the renaming effort is expected to grow, with
Howard suggesting the USS Antietam guided missile cruiser as a possibility. The Battle of
Antietam is considered a strategic victory for the Union in the Civil War, but a tactical
stalemate.
“It depends on whether or not you see Antietam as a Union victory,” Howard said. “So that
needs more exploration behind what the ship was named. And we’ll work with—for any

154 Source: Emails to CRS from Steven Wills, Center for Naval Analysis, June 11 and June 22, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

45

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

of these where there’s battles—the intention at the time of the naming, what the purpose
and thought process was, the historical context behind that naming.”155
A July 13, 2020, press report states that “U.S. Navy officials have informally discussed renaming
several ships, including the USS Chancellorsville, which is named after a Confederate victory,
and the USNS Maury, an oceanographic survey ship named after Matthew Fontaine Maury, who
served as superintendent of the U.S. Naval Observatory and later joined the Confederate
Navy.”156
A June 24, 2020, press report states
The names of U.S. warships could face new scrutiny in coming months as the Pentagon
moves forward with a military-wide effort to target racial bias and prejudice in the ranks.
A Defense Department-wide review to improve inclusion and diversity will likely not only
look at military installation names, but those of Navy vessels too.
“While I cannot speak for these three groups of leaders who will provide recommendations
to the [defense secretary], I would personally expect that at least one of these groups will
make specific recommendations regarding the naming of bases and ships,” Christopher
Garver, a Pentagon spokesman, told Navy Times.
Lisa Lawrence, a Defense Department spokeswoman, said Wednesday [June 24] that
Defense Secretary Mark Esper is moving forward quickly, but deliberately, in setting up
the groups that will examine military issues related to diversity.
Like Army installations named for Confederate leaders, the names of at least two Navy
ships have been called into question in recent weeks as the country grapples with ongoing
protests for an end to racism and police brutality.
Retired Lt. Cmdr. Reuben Keith Green recently laid out his case for renaming the aircraft
carrier John C. Stennis in this month’s U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings magazine….157
The nationwide debate has also resurrected questions over why the Navy has a guided-
missile cruiser named for the Battle of Chancellorsville, which the Confederacy won….
The name of the oceanographic survey ship Maury also has ties to the Confederacy, U.S.
Naval Institute News recently noted.158
A June 12, 2020, press report states
The focus nationally has been on U.S. Army bases named for Confederate military leaders,
but there are also two active Navy ships connected to the Confederacy—[the] guided-
missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) and [the] oceanographic survey ship USNS
Maury (T-AGS-66).
Maury, delivered in 2016, was named for Matthew Fontaine Maury. While in the U.S.
Navy, Maury oversaw the Naval Observatory and was instrumental in laying the
foundation of modern oceanography. Murray resigned from the U.S. Navy and served in

155 Rebecca Kheel, “Commission Chair: ‘Hundreds’ of Military Assets Could Have Confederate Names Removed,”
The Hill, May 21, 2021. See also Meghann Myers, “Fort Belvoir, Cruiser Antietam Under Consideration for Renaming
by DoD Commission,” Military Times, May 21, 2021.
156 Michael R. Gordon, “Confederate Symbolism in the Military Stretches Far Beyond Flags, Base Names,” Wall Street
Journal
, July 13, 2020.
157 The name of USS John C. Stennis was discussed earlier in the section on names of aircraft carriers.
158 Gina Harkins, “Navy Ship Names Could Fall Under Pentagon’s New Diversity Review,” Military.com, June 24,
2020.
Congressional Research Service

46

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

the Confederate Navy. He spent the majority of the Civil War in Europe attempting to drum
up support for the Confederacy.159
Chancellorsville, commissioned in 1989, is named for the Confederate victory in 1863 by
the Army of Northern Virginia led by Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson.
The Ticonderoga-class of cruisers are named for American battles—including several Civil
War conflicts. Unlike USS Vicksburg (CG-69) or USS Mobile Bay (CG-53),
Chancellorsville is named for a clear Confederate victory that paved the way for the Army
of Northern Virginia’s invasion of Pennsylvania and the Battle of Gettysburg.
The hull of the cruiser contains minié balls and shell fragments from the battle, USA Today
reported in 1988. As of at least 2016, the ship’s wardroom held a painting of Lee and
Jackson.160
The Navy states that the Chancellorsville is
[t]he first U.S. Navy ship named for a Civil War battle fought just south of the
Rappahannock and Rapidan Rivers in Virginia (1–5 May 1863). Gen. Robert E. Lee, CSA,
who led the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, held Gen. Joseph Hooker, USA, who
commanded the Union Army and Department of the Potomac, in position while Lt. Gen.
Thomas J. Jackson, CSA, enveloped the Union right flank, surprising and rolling up the
Federal’s right. Lee’s victory, combined with the urgent need to relieve pressure on
Vicksburg, Miss., prompted the South’s thrust into Pennsylvania that summer, resulting in
the pivotal Battle of Gettysburg.161
Regarding the Chancellorsville, a June 9, 2020, press report stated
[A spokesman for Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday], Cmdr. Nathan
Christensen, declined to comment as to whether the sea service planned to change the name
of the warship Chancellorsville, commissioned in 1989 and named after a Confederate
victory during the Civil War….
An image on the command’s official website shows an image featuring several renderings
of the Confederate flag.162

159 In addition to TAGS-66, three previous Navy ships were also named for Maury. An online biography of Matthew
Fontaine Maury states “Nicknamed ‘Pathfinder of the Seas,’ Matthew Fontaine Maury made important contributions to
charting wind and ocean currents. His studies proved that by following the winds and currents ships could cross the
ocean in fewer days than ever before…. With the outbreak of the Civil War, Maury, a Virginian, resigned his
commission as a U.S. Navy commander and joined the Confederacy. He spent the war in the South, as well as abroad
in England, acquiring ships for the Confederacy.” (National Museum of the U.S. Navy, “Matthew Fontaine Maury
[1806-1873]),” published April 19, 2019, accessed June 11, 2020, at https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/
museums/nmusn/education/distance-learning/to-the-ends-of-the-earth/navigation/biography—matthew-fontaine-
maury.html.) See also Tim St. Onge, “Scientist of the Seas: The Legacy of Matthew Fontaine Maury,” Library of
Congress, July 25, 2018, accessed June 11, 2020, at https://blogs.loc.gov/maps/2018/07/scientist-of-the-seas-the-
legacy-of-matthew-fontaine-maury/.
160 Sam LaGrone, “Senate Bill to Purge Confederate Names from U.S. Military Could Affect Two Navy Ships,” USNI
News
, June 12, 2020.
161 “Chancellorsville (CG-62), 1989-,” Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, accessed October 27, 2017, at
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/c/chancellorsville—cg-62—1989-.html.
162 Geoff Ziezulewicz, “CNO Says No More Confederate Battle Flags in Public Spaces and Work Areas,” Navy Times,
June 9, 2020. For additional press reports about the CNO’s statement, see, for example, Idrees Ali, “U.S. Navy to Bar
Confederate Flags from Ships, Aircraft, Bases,” Reuters, June 9, 2020; Robert Burns (Associated Press), “Navy Bans
Display of Confederate Battle Flag as Military Leaders Consider Renaming Bases,” Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, June 9,
2020; Ryan Browne, “US Navy Joins Marines in Moving to Ban Confederate Battle Flag,” CNN, June 9, 2020; Paul D.
Shinkman, “Navy to Ban Confederate Flag Following Marine Corps Order,” U.S. News & World Report, June 9, 2020;
Caitlin McFall, “Navy Moves to Ban Confederate Flag,” Fox News, June 9, 2020; Zachary Halaschak, “US Navy
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

47

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Also regarding the Chancellorsville, an August 16, 2017, press report states the following:
As America churns through a bloody debate over the place Confederate monuments occupy
in the modern day United States, a Navy cruiser named in honor of a Confederate Civil
War victory is unlikely to see its named changed, a service official said Wednesday
[August 16, 2017].
The guided-missile cruiser Chancellorsville [CG-62] was commissioned in 1989 and
derives its name from an 1863 battle considered to be the greatest victory of Confederate
Gen. Robert E. Lee....
But a Navy official speaking on the condition of anonymity Wednesday said that even
though the Chancellorsville is named after a Confederate victory, the name comes from a
battle, not an individual, and soldiers on both sides died.
The week-long battle resulted in major casualties for both sides—13,000 Confederates and
17,000 Union troops, according to the National Parks [sic: Park] Service.
The Navy official did say, however, that there remains a chance the ship’s crest could be
altered.
The predominance of gray in the ship’s crest speaks to “General Robert E. Lee’s
spectacular military strategies and his dominance in this battle,” according to the ship’s
website.
An inverted wreath also memorializes the Confederacy’s second-best known general,
Stonewall Jackson, who was mortally wounded in the battle.
While the rupture of the country during the Civil War is reflected in the crest, it also
features Jackson’s order to “press on.”
“Maybe that is worth re-looking at or redoing,” the official said. “There’s a fine line.”163
February 2021 Navy Report on Inclusion and Diversity
A February 2021 Navy report on inclusion and diversity (I&D) in the Navy164 made numerous
recommendations, including one (number 5.7) bearing on Navy ships named for the Confederacy
or Confederate officers that states
This Initiative Is an Opportunity to Honor and Name Navy Assets for Naval Heroes.
Topic: Modernize process to name ships, buildings, streets in honor of national & historical
Naval Figures (5.7)
Problem Statement
Certain Navy ship names have been highlighted by Congress and in the media for
connections to confederate or white supremacist ideologies. Without a comprehensive
database or review of current Navy names, it is unclear whether the body of Navy names
is consistent with Navy Core Values and representative and inclusive of the truly diverse
population of the Navy, today and throughout the Navy’s rich history.
Following a review of internal Navy practices and Congressional Research Service (CRS)
documentation, there appears to be no consolidated database, process or effort within the

Moves to Ban Display of Confederate Battle Flag,” Washington Examiner, June 9, 2020; David Martin, Jordan
Freiman, and Li Cohen, “U.S. Navy to Ban All Public Displays of the Confederate Flag,” CBS News, June 10, 2020.
163 Geoff Ziezulewicz, “Navy Official: Ship Name Honoring Confederate Victory Unlikely to Change,” Navy Times,
August 16, 2017.
164 U.S. Navy, Task Force One Navy, Our Navy Team—Navigating A Course To True North, Final Report, undated,
released February 3, 2021, 141 pp.
Congressional Research Service

48

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Navy to review the names of Navy assets in order to ensure that the names reflect the Navy
Core Values. This initiative is an opportunity to honor and name Navy assets for Naval
heroes from all classes, races, genders and backgrounds.
Recommendations
Initiate Systematic Review to Identify and Rename Navy Assets in Need of Modernization
Consistent with Navy Core Values.
1. Review should identify assets honoring those associated with the Confederacy and
identify assets named after racist, derogatory or culturally insensitive persons, events
or language.
2. Renaming recommendations and decisions should be consistent with current naming
authorities, policies and practices, with a focus on honoring persons of historically
underrepresented demographics, including racial minorities, women and enlisted
members.
3. The method and timeline of review is flexible, however, a stakeholder-led committee
could oversee the consolidation of Navy asset names and lead the review and
recommendation process.
• The general membership, strategy and mission statement of the committee may be
subject to amendment post-enactment of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2021.
• The committee would compile the lists of names for review, delegate as needed (e.g.,
requesting installation commanders to provide lists of installations buildings and
streets named after persons pursuant to OPNAVINST 5030.12H);165 coordinate with
ethics and history experts to identify assets for renaming; serve as a central repository
for questions and renaming requests; and propose new names. This course of action
(COA) offers thoroughness and consistency. Additionally, the committee could
consist of persons who may already possess the expertise necessary to perform these
tasks, for example, personnel from OPNAV N17, NHHC, CNIC, NAVFAC and
commands possessing authority and ownership over weapons systems, afloat and
aviation assets such as NAVSEA and NAVAIR.166
• Memorialize the process and membership of the committee by either updating the
OPNAVINST 5030.12H, other relevant naming authorities or by simply crafting an
order from the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] outlining the expectations for the
committee and the period of review.
i. Success will be measured when 1) the Committee is stood up (1-3 months); 2)
the Committee produces a consolidated database or list of Navy asset names (3-6
Months); 3) when the Committee provides an overview of the current health of
the Navy’s body of asset names, including any names which are currently
problematic and a recommendation on how to upgrade them (6-9 months); 4)
when current policies/ instructions are updated to reflect the makeup of the
Committee and the expectations for future responsibilities and authorities (6-12
months); and 5) When the CNO and Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) make asset
naming decisions based on the current body of Navy asset names and
consideration of a broad range of possible names that reflect diversity and
inclusion (6-12 months).

165 An OPNAVINST is an instruction issued by the Chief of Naval Operations.
166 OPNAV N17 is the 21st Century Sailor Office (N17) within the office of the Chief of the Chief of Naval Operations
(OPNAV). NHHC is the Naval History and Heritage Command. CNIC is the Commander, Navy Installations
Command. NAVFAC is the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command. NAVSEA is the Naval Sea Systems
Command. NAVAIR is the Naval Air Systems Command.
Congressional Research Service

49

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

ii. Following the Committee’s work to create a comprehensive list or database,
efforts must be taken to keep the list up to date. That sustainment review can be
ongoing or periodic (yearly or 5-10 years). As the list/database is a living
document, updates must be made as new names come online. Updates could be
submitted through the OPNAV staff for updating or a stakeholder from the
committee could be assigned this responsibility as a running requirement.
Supporting Information
While OPNAVINST 5030.12H requires installation commanders to develop and maintain
lists of streets, facilities and structures named after persons, there is no additional process
set out in the instruction for consolidated or periodic review of such lists.167
June 9, 2020, CNO Statement Regarding Removal of Confederate
Battle Flag
On June 9, 2020, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Admiral Michael Gilday, stated
Today, I directed my staff to begin crafting an order that would prohibit the Confederate
battle flag from all public spaces and work areas aboard Navy installations, ships, aircraft
and submarines. The order is meant to ensure unit cohesion, preserve good order and
discipline, and uphold the Navy’s core values of honor, courage and commitment.168


167 U.S. Navy, Task Force One Navy, Our Navy Team—Navigating A Course To True North, Final Report, undated,
released February 3, 2021, pp. 55-56. See also Gina Harkins, “Navy Task Force Calls for Changing Ship Names that
Honor Confederacy,” Military.com, February 3, 2021.
168 USNavyCNO, tweet of June 9, 2020, accessed June 10, 2020, at https://twitter.com/USNavyCNO/status/
1270451752459010049. See also Julia Bergman, “Pressure Increases on Coast Guard to Ban Confederate Flag,” New
London Day
, July 2 (updated July 3), 2020.
Congressional Research Service

50

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Appendix D. Ex-U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Formerly
Named Taney

This appendix presents background information regarding an ex-U.S. Coast Guard cutter
formerly named Taney that is owned by the City of Baltimore and operated there as a museum
ship, and whose name was removed by the City of Baltimore. A July 1, 2020, press report states
The historic Coast Guard cutter the “Taney” will be renamed as soon as possible so that it
no longer pays tribute to the antebellum Supreme Court chief justice who delivered the
Dred Scott decision, according to a Baltimore museum in charge of the ship.
The ship is named after Roger B. Taney, the former chief justice of the Supreme Court who
delivered the Dred Scott decision in 1857 that cemented the legality of slavery.
“The time is now to fix these things. We can’t keep living with these symbols of oppression
and blatant racism,” said Chris Rowsom, executive director of Historic Ships in Baltimore,
the organization that controls and maintains the ship. Its name has drawn protests and
objections in the past.…
Historic Ships is working with Baltimore, the Coast Guard and the National Park Service,
which maintains the National Register of Historic Places, to speed removal of the Taney
name and find a suitable new name for the ship. “Taney” has already been removed from
the ship’s stern, and Historic Ships said that until a new name is decided upon, the ship
will be known by its technical name, the WHEC 37.169 Historic Ships said it doesn’t
anticipate any legal roadblocks to changing the name.
“We’d like to consider Thurgood Marshall,” said James Piper Bond, CEO of the Living
Classrooms Foundation, parent group of Historic Ships, referring to the first black Supreme
Court justice and Baltimore native.
Baltimore City Council President Brandon Scott said the city has been talking about
removing the name for years.
“The argument that changing the name would erase history is moot,” he said in a statement.
“Renaming the USCGC Taney is a small, but meaningful step towards an honest and
necessary reckoning with our past.”
Baltimore Mayor Bernard “Jack” Young said in a statement he strongly believes the name
should be changed.
The Taney is the last warship afloat that was at Pearl Harbor during the December 7, 1941,
surprise attack. The Taney was decommissioned on Dec. 7, 1986, and the Coast Guard
transferred ownership and oversight to Historic Ships in Baltimore, according to Coast
Guard spokesman Lt. Cdr. Scott McBride.
“To preserve the proud naval heritage of the ship and honor all who served aboard during
its 50 years of service, the Coast Guard recommends referring to the vessel by its hull
classification symbol of WHEC 37,” he said.
The former Coast Guard cutter now sits docked in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor as a floating
memorial and museum.

169 In the designation WHEC 37, W means it was a Coast Guard vessel, HEC means it was a high-endurance cutter, and
37 means it was the Coast Guard’s 37th such ship.
Congressional Research Service

51

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Historic Ships hasn’t determined if it will remove all Taney references inside the ship and
place artifacts in storage or a museum but said remaining references can be used to bolster
education programs on Mr. Taney’s legacy.170


Author Information

Ronald O'Rourke

Specialist in Naval Affairs



Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.


170 Ben Kesling, “Historic Coast Guard Ship ‘Taney’ to Be Renamed,” Wall Street Journal, July 1, 2020. See also
Hallie Miller, “Roger B. Taney’s Name Removed from Historic Pearl Harbor Ship in Baltimore,” Baltimore Sun, July
2, 2020; “Name of Ex-Supreme Court Justice Taken Off Historic Warship,” Associated Press, July 1, 2020; John
Kruzel, “Custodians Rename Coast Guard Ship Named After Justice Who Wrote Dred Scott Decision,” The Hill, July
1, 2020; Meg Walburn Viviano, “Name-Dropping: Coast Guard Cutter Taney’s Name Removed,” Chesapeake Bay
Magazine
, July 1, 2020; “Supreme Court Justice’s Name Removed from Retired Coast Guard Cutter,” Maritime
Executive
, July 1, 2020; “Commitment to Removing National Symbols of Racism and Educating Youth About Our
Nation’s History Leads Living Classrooms Foundation to Remove Roger B. Taney’s Racist Legacy from Former Coast
Guard Cutter in Baltimore,” Living Classrooms Foundation, July 1, 2020.
Congressional Research Service
RS22478 · VERSION 261 · UPDATED
52