On March 3, 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the renaming of Fort Moore back to its previous designation of Fort Benning, marking the second time the name change has occurred for this military installation, located near Columbus, Georgia. The decision reverses the Biden administration's 2023 initiative to eliminate names honoring Confederate officers—an effort many viewed as part of addressing long-standing issues of racial injustice within the military.
Originally named for Brig. Gen. Henry L. Benning, a Confederate officer during the Civil War, the base saw its name changed to Fort Moore about two years ago, honoring the legacy of Lt. Gen. Hal Moore and his wife, Julia. Lt. Gen. Moore gained prominence as one of the first military leaders to utilize air assault tactics effectively during the Vietnam War, particularly at the historic Battle of Ia Drang Valley. Meanwhile, Julia Moore's contributions reshaped the military's approach to notifying families of fallen service members, advocating for more compassionate communication methods.
Hegseth's recent announcement reflects his commitment to restoring military base names to their earlier, often controversial labels, citing the warrior heritage associated with the namesakes he is reinstancing. This latest move aligns with his previous directive, which reinstated the name of Fort Bragg, North Carolina, also honoring a World War II veteran named Pfc. Roland L. Bragg, rather than the Confederate general for whom the base was initially named.
Decision-making at the Pentagon involves adhering to legislation passed by Congress, which prohibits naming military installations after Confederates. Consequently, for Fort Benning, the current namesake chosen is Cpl. Fred G. Benning, who received the Distinguished Service Cross after performing valorously during World War I. Specifically, Cpl. Benning demonstrated extraordinary bravery during the Meuse-Argonne offensive on October 9, 1918, when he led his unit under heavy fire to accomplish their mission.
Major logistical and financial questions linger over these name changes, particularly concerning the costs associated with removing signs, updating documents, and restructuring various materials reflecting the new name. The Naming Commission's 2022 report had initially estimated it would take approximately $4.9 million to rename Fort Benning to Fort Moore, with Bragg's name change costing around $8 million.
Despite the potential costs, Hegseth stands firm upon his assertion made on his first day within the Pentagon, where he called for the restoration of traditional names. “There’s a reason I said Bragg and Benning when I walked through the doors of the Pentagon on day one. But it’s not just Bragg and Benning,” he emphasized, indicating this is merely the beginning of his name restoration campaign.
The shift back to calling Fort Benning as such signals not only a direct reversal of prior efforts aimed at dismantling monuments celebrating the Confederacy but also appears to represent broader cultural conflicts within the military. Since Hegseth's appointment, critics, including retired Army Brigadier General Ty Seidule—a co-chairman of the commission responsible for the renaming process—have expressed disappointment toward the decision to reverse honorees, including Lt. Gen. Hal Moore and his wife Julia.
Seidule criticized Hegseth’s intentions as “capricious and cruel,” not fully recognizing the Moores as symbolizing the best of military values and emphasizing the importance of their legacy. Their influence reaches far beyond the name change and exemplifies the significant role spouses and families play within military success. “Commemoration reflects our values and nobody embodies the values of Fort Moore like the Moore family,” said Seidule.
Currently, the military continues to grapple with the far-sweeping consequences of these naming changes and their deeply rooted connections to U.S. history. According to many, the practice of honoring Confederate officers runs counter to contemporary efforts pushing for inclusivity, diversity, and sensitivity to historical racial injustices. Beyond the immediate choices of names, this debate encompasses the acknowledgment of past practices and future commitments to building equality within the armed forces.
The change to Fort Benning is paired with heightened scrutiny of symbolic gestures the military employs concerning its history, particularly with the raids occurring at numerous installations across the U.S. It paints a picture of shifting attitudes toward military naming traditions. The transformations at Fort Benning are indicative of increased military introspection, and observers will be watching closely to see if actions will lead to substantive changes alongside chatter about current practices surrounding diversity within the ranks.
With the U.S. Army's Fort Benning being central to much of the Army’s ground combat training, it remains one of the most recognized military installations. Encompassing elements such as basic infantry training alongside its legendary Ranger School, the fort may soon become embroiled once more within contentious debates as communities and leaders assess the ramifications of such name-changing decisions.
For Fort Benning, the duality of its names embodies the complexity of U.S. military history and the challenging iterations of inclusivity and recognition as personnel navigate the legacy's attributes. Many individuals are left contemplating the significance of these names as continuations of challenging legacies continue to resonate within broader societal narratives.
Whether future decisions surrounding additional bases—like Fort Hood, Fort Pickett, Fort Lee, and Fort A.P. Hill—will head down the same path remains untold. These installations, which underwent renaming, highlighted direct connections to Confederate history with varied reactions, raising questions about whether the military is prepared to undertake necessary changes or revert to familiar names steeped within historical ties.
Time will tell whether the changes made today will herald new legacies for the next generations, or if they are simply symbols devoid of resolution amid cultural dialogues striving for representation, equity, and healing.