What the bill does: The bill prohibits the Secretary of the Navy from changing the name of any naval vessel that, as of the date of enactment, is named after one of eight individuals: Cesar Chavez, Medgar Evers, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Dolores Huerta, Thurgood Marshall, Harvey Milk, Lucy Stone, or Harriet Tubman. It uses a Notwithstanding clause to override existing law (10 U.S.C. 8662(b)) for these vessels.
Why it matters: By locking in these names, the bill preserves historical legacies within the Navy’s fleet and constrains future renaming actions. It signals a legislative preference for maintaining certain public-figure names in active-service assets, independent of broader naming-policy reforms.
At a Glance
What It Does
Prohibits the Secretary of the Navy from changing the name of any naval vessel that, as of enactment, is named after one of eight listed individuals, notwithstanding 10 U.S.C. 8662(b).
Who It Affects
The Navy’s naming decisions and fleet heritage programs, plus communities and organizations tied to the eight individuals named.
Why It Matters
Preserves historical legacies in the naval fleet and constrains future naming changes, illustrating how Congress views symbolic naming as a component of military identity.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act is narrowly focused on the names of U.S. Navy ships. It identifies eight individuals whose names cannot be changed on any current naval vessel, even if existing law would ordinarily allow a rename.
The mechanism uses a Notwithstanding clause to override a prior statute (10 U.S.C. 8662(b)) for those specific ships as of the date of enactment. The scope is deliberately limited to vessels already bearing those names, and it does not authorize renaming of other ships or provide broader reform to the Navy’s ship-naming process.
In practice, the bill creates a fixed set of names that remain on active-war and support ships, reinforcing a legacy-focused approach to symbolic assets. Implementers—Navy leadership, historians, and legal counsel—will need to ensure compliance for any future naming actions related to these vessels and document the rationale for keeping these particular names intact.
The bill leaves untouched other naming decisions outside this enumerated list, so it does not restructure the broader policy framework for how ships are named or renamed in general.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill prohibits renaming any naval vessel named after Cesar Chavez, Medgar Evers, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Dolores Huerta, Thurgood Marshall, Harvey Milk, Lucy Stone, or Harriet Tubman.
It uses a Notwithstanding clause to override 10 U.S.C. 8662(b) for these specific vessels.
The act is titled the Preserving Great Americans’ Legacies Act of 2025.
The prohibition applies to vessels as of the date of enactment.
The bill does not address renaming of vessels not named after the eight listed individuals.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This section designates the act as the Preserving Great Americans’ Legacies Act of 2025, establishing its official naming convention for citation and reference.
Prohibition on name change of certain naval vessels
This section prohibits the Secretary of the Navy from changing the name of any naval vessel that, as of the enactment date, is named after one of the individuals listed in subsection (b). It overrides 10 U.S.C. 8662(b) for those vessels. The subsection also enumerates the eight individuals who trigger the prohibition: Cesar Chavez, Medgar Evers, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Dolores Huerta, Thurgood Marshall, Harvey Milk, Lucy Stone, and Harriet Tubman.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Defense across all five countries.
Explore Defense in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Navy historians and heritage programs gain stability in archival records and public-facing ship-name narratives, supporting ongoing commemoration and research.
- Communities and advocacy groups tied to the eight named figures benefit from continued public recognition and visibility in the fleet’s identity.
- Civil rights and social justice organizations that champion the legacies of the eight individuals gain enduring symbolic acknowledgment within national defense institutions.
- The broader American public gains from a predictable, enduring symbolic landscape in military assets that reflects certain historical narratives.
Who Bears the Cost
- Navy naming and legal offices incur compliance costs and must monitor and enforce the prohibition across the fleet.
- Sailors and command leadership may have reduced flexibility to pursue renaming opportunities that some stakeholders might support for modern resonance or inclusivity.
- Future renaming proposals for other ships could be delayed or foregone due to the intrusion of a fixed-name policy for these vessels.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Preserve legacy names on eight ships now versus maintaining flexibility to reflect current values in the Navy’s broader naming program.
The bill’s narrow focus creates a clear tension between honoring historical legacies and maintaining flexibility in symbolic naming. While memory preservation can reinforce tradition and public identity, it may also limit the Navy’s ability to adjust its fleet’s imagery to reflect evolving values or new historical assessments.
Implementation will require careful documentation to avoid disputes over what constitutes an eligible vessel and to ensure that the “as of enactment” trigger is consistently interpreted across the fleet. The act also leaves intact the broader framework for naming, while carving out a fixed subset that cannot be altered, which could influence future policy discussions about how ships are named or renamed.
A practical question is how this interacts with vessel lifecycles and potential name changes under other authorities. It also raises questions about how to handle new ships that might be named after additional figures if the policy were later amended.
These tensions illustrate the ongoing balance between preserving legacy and enabling adaptive, values-based renaming when necessary.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.