The name has already been selected, announced, and approved. It will be the USS Enterprise, announced on the date of the USS Enterprise, CVN-65’s decommissioning.
I saw the Enterprise's inactivation streaming on Navy.mil, so I'm aware. But c'mon Jeff. You and I both know that that the Harry S Truman (CVN-75) was laid down in 1993 as the
United States, but the Clinton Administration changed her name in 1995 - about two years into her actual construction.
I'd say that the point for locking in a ship's name (or at least a carrier's) is after the Christening. But the second Midway-class carrier (CVB-42) was laid down and Christened as the "Coral Sea" but nine days after her Christening President Truman changed her name to the
Franklin D. Roosevelt (Coral Sea being reassigned to CVB-43).
So there's precedent (some recent) out there for renaming a carrier well after a name has been assigned, the ship laid down and even following its Christening.
It is true that the Secretary of the Navy has the power to change the names.
And it is true that the Clinton administration 20 years ago did as you say, and 35+ years before that it happened with the Coral Sea.
However, I will be willing to state right here and now, that even if they thought about doing it with another vessel, they will not get consider doing it with the name Enterprise.
1st, a GOP administration would not consider it. 2nd, a DNC administration will not undo what Obama set in place.
Finally, the name itself and the way it came about over the last two carriers (and now this third) will be too politically charged. If they want to make a stupid name, they will do so with some other vessel...not, IMHO, the Enterprise.