Staff Reports
The announcement by Joe Biden regarding the names of the next two U.S. Navy super-carriers is just another example of his questionable decision-making as he approaches the end of his presidency. In a move that leaves many scratching their heads, Biden revealed that the new Gerald R. Ford Class carriers will be named the USS William J. Clinton and the USS George W. Bush. One has to wonder whether this is an act of bipartisanship or just more confusion from an outgoing administration struggling to find its footing.
Naming the carriers after the two former presidents does raise eyebrows. While George W. Bush has at least some military background, having served as a reservist, the same cannot be said for Bill Clinton. During his presidency, Clinton made headlines for his apparent disdain for military funding and defense spending, oftentimes advocating for what he termed a “peace dividend.” The irony of naming a warship after someone who looked to cut military budgets is hard to miss, leaving many to question the rationale behind these selections.
As the Biden administration exits stage left, these ships are projected to enter service by the mid-2030s. The question that looms larger than life is why this announcement was made now. With the next Democratic president potentially vying for the spotlight, perhaps Biden thought this would be a slick way to throw the next occupant of the White House into a naming dilemma—imagine the awkwardness of the USS Donald J. Trump resting alongside these carriers in a naval yard. It offers a glimpse into Biden’s strategy of handing off a minefield of decisions to his successor.
Furthermore, the tradition of naming aircraft carriers after presidents has always been contentious, especially if they have little to no ties with the Navy itself. In the context of naval history, it seems a tad misguided to name a massive instrument of war after individuals who haven’t experienced the sacrifices or the honor of military service. George H.W. Bush served as a naval aviator and demonstrated real commitment. It would have been more fitting to consider a name that preserves the legacy of those who actively served.
Biden announces the names of the next two nuclear super-carriers, and all I can think is, "Is this really the best he can do?"
While he's busy naming ships, our enemies are sharpening their knives.
But hey, at least he’s not forgetting to throw in … https://t.co/g8pJLHj8TF
— NahBabyNah (@NahBabyNah) January 19, 2025
The ongoing discussion about the relevance of aircraft carriers themselves points to another aspect of this announcement. While aircraft carriers have long been viewed as the cornerstone of U.S. naval strength, there are lingering doubts about their future, especially against the backdrop of advanced nuclear submarines and hypersonic missiles. Perhaps it’s a good time for the Navy to reassess its naming conventions and look to the past, reviving traditional names that evoke powerful imagery and long-standing legacies, like the storied USS Enterprise.
As Biden’s presidency winds down, he certainly faces criticism from all sides, and this latest naming decision will only add to the list of grievances. A carrier’s name symbolizes strength, legacy, and the values of the nation it represents. Rethinking how these ships are named may just be the first step towards mending a military strategy that many Americans feel has been mismanaged in recent years.
