What legal authority allows a president to rename military bases and installations?
Executive summary
The primary legal vehicle that set in motion the removal of Confederate names from military assets was Congress’s 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, which created the Naming Commission and directed the Department of Defense to review and change names [1]. Presidents and Defense Secretaries have authority to approve or implement renaming inside the Pentagon’s chain of command, but major changes tied to law or funding — and the legal name of departments — remain subject to statutes Congress passed or could pass [1] [2].
1. Congress set the baseline: the 2021 NDAA created the Naming Commission
Congress used its annual defense policy bill to require a systematic renaming: the fiscal 2021 National Defense Authorization Act authorized a congressionally chartered Naming Commission to review and recommend new names for installations, ships and other DOD assets with Confederate ties [1]. That statute is the clearest example in the record of Congress exercising its lawmaking power to direct how military assets should be named and remediated [1].
2. Executive branch execution: Defense officials implement, sometimes swiftly
Once Congress created the Commission, Defense Department officials and service secretaries implemented recommendations and executed redesignations. Pentagon leaders accepted the commission’s recommendations and the Defense Secretary has publicly approved renamings — the executive branch carries out the statutory direction [3] [4]. News coverage shows the Department of Defense and the Army moved to implement Commission recommendations and effect name changes after the NDAA mandate [3] [4].
3. Presidential and secretary-level authority — practical but constrained
The president and secretary of defense can direct the military and issue orders that change names within the Defense Department’s authority, as the Trump administration’s 2025 actions to restore prior names demonstrate: President Trump announced restorations and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made name changes official in several cases [5] [6]. But those executive actions sit alongside, and can conflict with, congressional statutes like the NDAA; Congress can push back via law or funding and has done so in past NDAA debates [1] [7].
4. Money, process and statutory limits matter in practice
Renaming carries financial and procedural costs — Congress and Pentagon officials repeatedly invoked expense and logistics when arguing over renaming moves. The 2023 implementation of the Commission’s recommendations was described as “tedious, time-consuming and expensive,” and Congress has leverage through funding and written mandates [1] [8]. Where renamings implicate statutory names created by Congress — for example, the legal name of the Department of Defense — presidents cannot unilaterally change those legal names without congressional action [2].
5. Political reality: statutes, executive orders and partisan fights collide
The record shows naming decisions are intensely political and litigated between branches. President Trump vetoed the 2021 NDAA (partly over the base-renaming provision) and Congress overrode him; later presidents and secretaries have tried to reverse or alter outcomes, prompting new congressional responses and potential legislative fixes [1] [7]. Roll Call and other outlets chronicle ongoing attempts in Congress in 2025 to counter or codify changes made by the executive branch [7].
6. What sources do not say — legal precedents and court rulings
Available sources do not mention a definitive Supreme Court precedent that settles whether a president alone can permanently rename military installations that Congress has legislated upon; reporting focuses on statutory authority (the NDAA), Defense Department implementation and political maneuvering rather than a final judicial ruling (not found in current reporting).
7. Bottom line: authority is shared, but Congress controls the baseline
Congress exercised clear authority in 2020–2021 to order a renaming process through the NDAA and the Naming Commission [1]. The executive branch executes, and presidents and defense secretaries can effect name changes administratively — but those actions are constrained when statutes, funding or explicitly codified names are implicated; Congress can and has reasserted control through legislation and appropriations battles [1] [2] [7].
Limitations and competing viewpoints are central: reporting documents a statutory path (Congress → NDAA → Naming Commission → DoD action) and also shows that presidential directives and Defense Department decisions can reverse or alter implementation — a process shaped as much by politics and budgeting as by neat lines of legal authority [1] [5] [7].