Washington, June 2025 – It was a statement that struck the Senate like a slap in the face: US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared that renaming several US military bases after Confederate generals was "important for troop morale." A sentence that shocked, divided - and laid bare the contours of a profound ideological realignment of the US Armed Forces under President Donald Trump. Because behind this decision lies more than just a symbolic act. It is part of an executive order - Executive Order 14253 - signed on March 31, 2025. Its goal: the restoration of supposedly "authentic historical designations" for bases, monuments, and military infrastructure that had been renamed since 2021 as part of the Naming Commission Act to end the glorification of slavery and its apologists.
On June 10, 2025, Trump finally announced in a speech at Fort Bragg that eight US bases would regain their original names - names once dedicated to generals who fought for the Confederacy and thus for the preservation of slavery: Fort Bragg, Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort A.P. Hill, and Fort Lee. Only two years earlier, these locations had been renamed based on bipartisan decisions - for example, to Fort Gregg-Adams in honor of General Arthur Gregg, the first African American three-star general in the history of the US Army. Now all of this is to be undone. Hegseth justified this step not only with an "emotional connection" many veterans have to the old names but also with a need for "tradition." A dangerous rhetoric, critics warn, one that confuses historical continuity with historical distortion.
To soften the impression of openly glorifying racism and slavery, the Pentagon developed a PR strategy based on semantic shifting: the bases would bear the same names as before, but they would now be named after different individuals. These would be "modern heroes" with the same last names. Fort Bragg, for instance, is now dedicated to Roland L. Bragg - a Silver Star recipient from the Battle of the Bulge. Fort Pickett is to be rededicated to Vernon W. Pickett, a highly decorated World War II soldier. Fort Hood no longer honors the Confederate John B. Hood but instead World War I officer Robert B. Hood. Fort Gordon, once named after a prominent racist and supporter of the Ku Klux Klan, now bears the name of Gary I. Gordon, a Medal of Honor recipient who died in Somalia in 1993. Fort Rucker is to honor Edward W. Rucker, a World War I cavalry officer. Fort Polk goes to James H. Polk, commander of US Army Europe in World War II. Fort A.P. Hill is to honor three African American Civil War veterans: Edward Hill, Robert A. Pinn, and Bruce Anderson. And finally, Fort Lee is renamed for Fitz Lee, a "Buffalo Soldier" recognized for his bravery in the Spanish-American War in 1898.
But these cosmetic adjustments do not change the fundamental direction of the rollback. Democratic Senator Angus King posed a central question to Hegseth during the Senate hearing: "Why are you even looking for living or dead soldiers with the same last names? Lee is the classic definition of a traitor." Hegseth deflected. Tammy Duckworth, wounded in Iraq, accused him of cynically distorting commemorative culture: "I trained at Fort Rucker. But I would rather be associated with Mike Novosel than with a failed Confederate traitor." Senator Tim Kaine was particularly outraged that the family of Arthur Gregg learned from the media that the honor bestowed upon him had been revoked. "It's not just tasteless. It's a direct attack on the dignity of those who have fought for this country."
Executive Order 14253 gives the whole thing a constitutional wrapping - and an ideological foundation. It not only mandates the restoration of original base names but also the reinstallation of "false reconstructions" at monuments, public memorials, and military-historical institutions. The term is a code - a signal to those who oppose reconciliation and diversity, who see history not as development but as entitlement. This executive order stands in opposition to democratically enacted laws - such as the Naming Commission Act - and constitutes an attempt to impose a conservative identity narrative by presidential decree.
In truth, it is not about troop morale. It is about symbolic reclamation. About restoring a Southern narrative that depoliticizes the Civil War and rehabilitates its perpetrators. About devaluing those who sought to make the military more diverse, just, and historically honest. It is about who is remembered - and how. These renamings are not a bureaucratic technique. They are an ideological statement. And they answer a fundamental question with brutal clarity: What does it say about a country when it honors those who fought against it?
English 
German 
