United States Navy ships are named by the Secretary of the Navy, who chooses from recommendations compiled by the Naval History and Heritage Command and forwarded through the Chief of Naval Operations. The command's ship-naming page, reviewed August 20, 2026, traces that responsibility to an act of Congress of 1819.
Who has the authority to name a U.S. Navy ship?
The Secretary of the Navy makes the final choice. The Naval History and Heritage Command page states that the 1819 act provided that "all of the ships, of the Navy of the United States, now building, or hereafter to be built, shall be named by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President of the United States."
The modern statute is less explicit. The Congressional Research Service report Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress (RS22478), by naval affairs specialist Ronald O'Rourke and dated January 21, 2016, notes that the codified provision then at 10 U.S.C. 7292 does not expressly assign the naming responsibility, and that the Secretary is understood to hold that authority implicitly.
The Navy's own report to Congress on naming policies, prepared in accordance with Public Law 112-81, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, is direct on the point: "the final selection of a ship's name is the Secretary's to make." The same report describes the choice of a name as "the first step in the solemn process that brings a US Navy warship into service."
How does a proposed name reach the Secretary?
Names are staffed upward. According to the Naval History and Heritage Command, the command compiles annual naming recommendations drawn from "research into the history of the Navy and by suggestions submitted by service members, Navy veterans, and the public." Those recommendations move through the chain of command to the Chief of Naval Operations, who forwards them to the Secretary of the Navy.
The command lists the considerations that shape its recommendations. They include the distribution of geographic names, names borne by previous ships that distinguished themselves in service, and the names of naval leaders, national figures, and deceased members of the Navy and Marine Corps honored for heroism in war or for extraordinary achievement in peace.
The Navy's report to Congress frames the resulting tension as one between two schools. It describes "orthodox traditionalists," who favor fixed conventions strict enough that a ship's type can be inferred from its name alone, and "pragmatic traditionalists," who hold that changing technology and circumstances require flexibility. The report concludes that fixing naming policy in place would be "highly inadvisable."
What does federal law actually require?
Very little. The naming provision now codified at 10 U.S.C. 8662, as published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel and retrieved August 20, 2026, contains two sentences: no more than one vessel of the Navy may bear the same name, and the Secretary of the Navy may change the name of any vessel bought for the Navy.
The section's source credits record a longer legislative history. The provision was enacted August 10, 1956 as 10 U.S.C. 7292 and renumbered as section 8662 by Public Law 115-232 of August 13, 2018.
A congressional reporting requirement was added by Public Law 112-239 of January 2, 2013, obliging the Secretary to notify the Senate and House Armed Services Committees before announcing a naming proposal and to justify it against stated standards. That requirement was repealed by Public Law 118-31 of December 22, 2023, which also removed the provision directing that battleships be named for states.
How are names assigned by ship type?
By convention rather than by statute. The conventions below are those stated in the January 21, 2016 version of CRS report RS22478; because conventions are set by practice and can be departed from, they should be treated as accurate as of that date rather than as standing rules.
| Ship type | Naming convention, per RS22478 (January 21, 2016) |
|---|---|
| CVN, aircraft carriers | Generally named for past U.S. presidents |
| SSBN, ballistic missile submarines | Named for states |
| SSN, Virginia-class attack submarines | Named for states |
| DDG, guided missile destroyers | Named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard |
| LCS, littoral combat ships | Named for regionally important U.S. cities and communities |
| LPD, amphibious transport docks | Named for major U.S. cities and communities |
| LHA, amphibious assault ships | Named for important battles and famous earlier Navy ships |
| T-AKE, dry cargo and ammunition ships | Named for famous American explorers, trailblazers, and pioneers |
| T-AO, fleet oilers | Named for people who fought for civil rights and human rights |
Conventions have shifted before. The Navy's report to Congress records that Los Angeles-class attack submarines were named for cities, while the Virginia class returned the type to state names.
What happens to a name after the Secretary selects it?
The name enters a sequence of ceremonies that the Navy's report to Congress describes as the process bringing a warship into service. The report sets out the following steps.
- The Secretary of the Navy selects and announces the ship's name.
- A sponsor is selected for the ship, traditionally a living woman.
- The keel is laid at the building yard.
- The ship is christened and launched.
- The ship is commissioned into the fleet.
What role does Congress play?
Congress influences names without ordinarily choosing them. CRS report RS22478 of January 21, 2016 states that "Congress has long maintained an interest in how Navy ships are named, and has influenced the naming of certain Navy ships," and that Congress may pass legislation relating to ship names, though recent measures have taken the form of sense-of-the-Congress provisions.
The same report advises that congressional offices wishing to express support for a particular name contact the office of the Secretary of the Navy. The 2013 reporting requirement and its 2023 repeal, both recorded in the source credits to 10 U.S.C. 8662, show the other route: Congress can adjust the procedural obligations attached to the naming power rather than exercise it.
How does the Secretary's discretion appear in practice?
A single announcement illustrates the latitude. In a press release dated January 4, 2025, the Department of the Navy announced that Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro had named the future USS Robert Kerrey (DDG-146), an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, in Washington, D.C.
Del Toro is quoted in that release saying, "One of the great privileges I have as Secretary of the Navy is to name ships, and it is my honor to name the future USS Robert Kerrey (DDG 146)." The release states that Del Toro met with Kerrey in New York on January 3, 2025 to tell him of the decision, a detail that sits alongside the destroyer convention recorded by CRS in 2016 and illustrates the flexibility the Navy's report to Congress defends.
The material in this primer is current as of August 20, 2026, and reflects the statutory text and Navy and Congressional Research Service documents cited above as of the dates given for each.
For a related maritime news perspective, read How U.S. Navy Ships Move From Keel to Commissioning.
For more context, read How A Navy Warship Moves From Keel To Commissioning.
For more context, read How a Pentagon Program Moves From Requirement to Fielding.
For more context, read What Actually Happens When CFIUS Reviews a Foreign Deal.