Ban on naming defense assets after sitting presidents

Summary#

The DORIE Act of 2026 would amend title 10 of the United States Code, which covers the armed forces. Its stated purpose is to prohibit naming Department of Defense (DoD) assets for sitting Presidents; it is not yet law, and passage is uncertain.

  • DoD assets—including facilities, aircraft, vessels, and other assets—could not be named or renamed for a sitting President.
  • DoD funds could not be used to name or rename an asset for a sitting President.
  • When the Act takes effect, any DoD asset named for the person who is President on that date must be restored to the name it had immediately before it was named for that President.
  • The bill does not ban naming assets for former Presidents or require other existing names to be changed.

What it means for you#

  • DoD: The bill would bar naming an asset for a sitting President and using DoD funds for that purpose. It also requires restoring the previous name of assets named for the President in office when the Act takes effect.
  • Taxpayers and the public: The bill does not create a tax, fee, fine, or direct public service. The cost of renaming affected assets is not stated.
  • People who use or work at affected assets: The bill does not explain how a name change would be carried out or whether signs, records, or other materials would also have to change.

Money#

The bill provides no cost estimate and does not authorize a specific amount of spending.

  • DoD funds could not be used to name or rename an asset for a sitting President.
  • The required restoration of names could involve costs, but the bill does not say how much or provide a separate source of funding.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define “asset” or explain how broad the term “other asset” is.
  • It does not identify who must carry out the required restoration, or set a process or deadline beyond saying it must happen “immediately.”
  • It does not explain how to determine the previous name if an asset has had more than one.
  • It does not say how the naming ban relates to any existing DoD naming rules.
  • No cost estimate or implementation details are provided.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that it would prevent the federal government from using military names and funds to honor a President while that person is in office.
  • Applying the same restriction to all sitting Presidents could reduce the appearance that a current President can receive official recognition before leaving office.
  • Requiring the previous name to be restored would make the ban apply to assets already renamed for the President in office when the Act takes effect.

Case against#

  • The required renaming could cause costs or practical disruption, but the bill provides no estimate or funding plan.
  • The bill does not explain who decides which assets are covered or how the restoration requirement would be carried out.
  • The term “other asset” is not defined, so the scope of the ban may be unclear.