Bill Clinton Doesn’t Deserve A Navy Carrier

On Jan. 13, 2025, the Biden administration announced that the future CVN-82 will be named the William J. Clinton, after the 42^nd President of the United States. The timing of the announcement — one week before President Joe Biden left office — was bad enough. But naming a carrier after President Clinton is an insult to every sailor who served during his presidency.

Clinton’s Presidency was marked by a draconian downsizing of the Navy, the sacking of several admirals and generals for conducting extramarital affairs — while the Commander-in-Chief was philandering himself — the withdrawal of Admiral Stan Arthur’s name for confirmation to Commander in Chief U.S. Pacific Command and culminated in the suicide of the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Michael Boorda. 

When Bill Clinton came to office as the Tailhook scandal was still roiling the Navy. He stated he was determined to stamp out sexism and sexual harassment in the services.

Admittedly, a noble goal, but the methods used to achieve it were broad and indiscriminate.  Often, it seemed to be more sending a message of some sort and, to get the few guilty, the Administration callously and needlessly destroyed the careers of hundreds of naval aviators.

The preceding administration had planned to downsize the fleet from roughly 600 ships to 450 ships, centered on 12 carrier battle groups. That goal, however, was to be reached over seven years through attrition. The Clinton administration went farther and faster, shrinking the fleet to 330 ships in just two years.

And it wasn’t just ships and aircraft that were subject to these rapid cuts. In the 1990s, many of the men and women in uniform from the Reagan build-up expected to hit the career wickets and would make them eligible for retirement and health care benefits.

Clinton-era budgeteers figured that getting as many of these people off active duty before they could hit those wickets would help balance future defense budgets in the out-years. And, so, a deliberate cull began.

Selective Early Retirement Boards, VSI/SSB buyouts, and promotion boards that fell far short of Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) minimum requirements became the order of the day. Indeed, the cuts were so deep that, by 1998, the Navy officer corps was 2,500 short of end-strength.

Beyond that, however, is President Clinton’s character. He was a draft dodger, plain and simple. He was a serial sexual harasser (e.g., Paula Jones, Kathleeen Willey, Juanita Broderick, Monica Lewinski, et al.).

Just the accusation of such conduct would get people bounced out of the Navy. But when Paula Jones sued him for sexual harassment, he had the audacity of exploring using the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act to shield himself. Now, he’s tarnished by his association with convicted sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.

Some might assert that it’s too late to change the name of CVN-82. But it’s not. In fact, Clinton himself ordered the name of CVN-75 changed from the United States to the Harry Truman. Once the ship is commissioned, however, that’s when it’ll be too late.

Rather than name one of the country’s most powerful warships after a man of dubious character and certainly no friend to the Navy, I suggest we name it after President William McKinley.

McKinley is an entirely fitting namesake for CVN-82. McKinley served in the Union Army during the Civil War and was recognized for his heroism at Antietam. In fact, he was the last veteran of the Civil War to serve as president.

More important, McKinley was President during the Spanish-American War. It was that war — highlighted by decisive naval victories at Manila Bay and Santiago — that made the United States a global power and, with the ceding of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines firmly established the United States as a power in the Pacific.

Let’s not look back 10 years from now and lament naming CVN-82 after Bill Clinton. McKinley is far more deserving and honorable.

Michael Collins retired from the U.S. Naval Reserve with the rank of Commander.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.