Pete Hegseth Spurns Biden Admin's Woke Military Base Names as He Enters Pentagon

Southern Democrats instigated the American Civil War in defense of slavery, seeking to oppose President Abraham Lincoln and the emerging Republican Party. This historical reality is indisputable for anyone familiar with the evidence.

Equally undeniable is how the authoritarian, pro-slavery Democrats of the 19th century would likely find ideological allies in today's "woke" movement. On Monday morning, newly-confirmed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared poised to challenge the modern woke agenda, signaling a return to tradition within the U.S. military.

Hegseth’s remarks at the Pentagon followed a period of significant changes under the Biden administration, including the renaming of military installations once tied to Confederate figures.

These changes stemmed from the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, which tasked a Naming Commission with identifying bases for renaming and removing Confederate-linked symbols. As a result, Fort Benning became "Fort Moore," and Fort Bragg was renamed "Fort Liberty."

Speaking to reporters, Hegseth referred to the original base names, saying, “Every moment that I’m here, I’m thinking about the guys and gals in Guam, in Germany, in Fort Benning, in Fort Bragg.” Notably, his comments came shortly after he announced his support for executive orders targeting woke initiatives, including the removal of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

One enthusiastic veteran responded to Hegseth’s remarks on social media, writing in all caps, “ARE WE ALSO CANCELLING THE WOKE DEI MILITARY INSTALLATION NAME CHANGES?”

For many Americans, the push to dismantle "wokeness" in the military is about preserving tradition, not defending the Confederacy. The Naming Commission’s 2021 report justified its recommendations by highlighting the problematic histories of figures like Henry L. Benning and Braxton Bragg.

Benning was described as an ardent secessionist and opponent of abolition, while Bragg, a Confederate general, was noted for his divisive personality and lack of military success.

Yet critics argue that this approach fails to acknowledge the complexity of history. While the Confederate affiliations of these figures are undeniable, their inclusion in military base names was also part of a broader effort at post-Civil War reconciliation. Confederate soldiers returned home defeated, yet they were welcomed back as Americans.

Figures like Confederate General James Longstreet complicate the narrative. A trusted ally of Robert E. Lee during the war, Longstreet later joined the Republican Party and even commanded African-American troops in New Orleans.

Should his memory also be erased under the banner of wokeness? Critics warn that judging historical figures solely by contemporary standards risks erasing important lessons from the past.

Moreover, the timing of the Biden administration’s renaming initiatives drew criticism, coinciding with the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. Many argued that the military had more pressing concerns than symbolic changes to base names.

Hegseth and others contend that the woke agenda prioritizes moral posturing over practical governance. They view the push to rename military installations as emblematic of a broader cultural shift that seeks to erase history rather than engage with it thoughtfully.

Comparisons have even been made to China’s Cultural Revolution, during which Mao Zedong’s regime sought to destroy traditional symbols to create a new ideological order.

Patriotic Americans, Hegseth argues, value tradition, nuance, and humility. By contrast, woke activists, driven by a sense of moral superiority, aim to dismantle anything that conflicts with their worldview. The result, critics warn, is a divisive cultural movement that mirrors the authoritarian impulses of regimes like Maoist China.

In summary, the debate over renaming military bases reflects a larger cultural clash between preserving tradition and embracing radical change. For leaders like Hegseth, the choice is clear: respect history while focusing on the military’s core mission, rather than allowing ideological movements to dictate its priorities.