A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Navy Accountability and Military Eponym Standards Act, or the NAMES Act. It requires the Secretary of the Navy to set up a clear process for naming and renaming Navy vessels. Under this bill, the Secretary must get a written historical assessment from the Naval History and Heritage Command before naming or renaming any ship. The Secretary must also provide a written reason for the name chosen and explain if they choose a different name than what the Naval History and Heritage Command primarily recommended. Additionally, if a ship is being renamed, the Secretary must explain the history of the current name and why it is being removed. Finally, these written determinations must be given to the congressional defense committees and made available to the public.
Yes· 3 of 4
- Scored +5
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Section 2(b) requires the Secretary of the Navy to make written determinations and naming rationales publicly available.
- Scored +3
Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together?
The legislation provides formal historical justifications and transparency when honoring military figures and naval history.
- Scored +2
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill mandates specific federal administrative and reporting procedures for the Secretary of the Navy.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Transparency in Government: Section 2(b) requires the Secretary of the Navy to make their written determinations publicly available. This is positive because it lets everyday people see the reasoning behind how our public military assets are named.
-
Accountability for Officials: Section 2(a)(3), (4), and (5) requires the Secretary to provide written reasons for chosen names, explain any departures from expert historical recommendations, and justify the removal of existing names. This is positive because it holds our elected and appointed officials accountable for their decisions by forcing them to explain their choices in writing.
-
Informed Leadership: Section 2(a)(2) requires the Secretary to obtain a written historical assessment from the Naval History and Heritage Command before naming a vessel. This is positive because it ensures decisions are backed by professional historical expertise.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- The provided text does not contain any specific sections or provisions that outline potential negative impacts, consequences, or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Section 2(b) requires the Secretary of the Navy to make written determinations and naming rationales publicly available. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill mandates specific federal administrative and reporting procedures for the Secretary of the Navy.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — The legislation provides formal historical justifications and transparency when honoring military figures and naval history.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — The bill ensures greater historical diligence and accountability in honoring military heritage through naval vessel naming.
- 9/30/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
- Introduced in Senate