
US Naval Academy ends affirmative action in admissions
The change in policy was made in February by Vice Adm. Yvette Davids, the academy's superintendent, in response to an executive order issued by President Donald Trump in January, according to a court filing by the U.S. Justice Department in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The president's order on Jan. 27 said that 'every element of the Armed Forces should operate free from any preference based on race or sex.' It also directed the secretary of defense to conduct an internal review with respect to all 'activities designed to promote a race- or sex-based preferences system,' including reviews at the service academies.
'Under revised internal guidance issued by the Superintendent on Feb. 14, 2025, neither race, ethnicity, nor sex can be considered as a factor for admission at any point during the admissions process, including qualification and acceptance,' according to the court filing made public Friday.
The decision comes after a federal judge ruled in December that the academy could continue considering race in its admissions process. In that case, the judge found that military cohesion and other national security factors mean the school should not be subjected to the same standards as civilian universities.
During a two-week bench trial in September, attorneys for the academy argued that prioritizing diversity in the military makes it stronger, more effective and more widely respected.
The case against the policy was brought by the group Students for Fair Admissions, which was appealing the judge's decision.
The Justice Department asked in the filing on Friday to suspend the current briefing schedule in the case while the parties consider the change in the academy's policy.
'The parties require a reasonable amount of time to discuss the details of the Academy's new policy and to consider the appropriate next steps for this litigation, including whether this litigation is now moot and, if so, whether the district court judgment should be vacated," the Justice Department wrote.
Students for Fair Admissions also brought the lawsuit challenging affirmative action that resulted in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2023.
The high court's conservative majority broadly prohibited the consideration of race and ethnicity in college admissions, ending a long-standing practice meant to boost opportunities for historically marginalized groups and sending shock waves through higher education. But it carved out a potential exemption for military academies, suggesting that national security interests could affect the legal analysis.
Students for Fair Admissions later sued the Annapolis-based Naval Academy, challenging the exemption. But Judge Richard Bennett rejected their arguments, saying that the school had 'established a compelling national security interest in a diverse officer corps.'
Attorneys for the group argued during trial that prioritizing minority candidates is unfair to qualified white applicants and that cohesion should arise from other sources such as training and command structure.
The academy argued in that case that its admissions process considers many factors, including grades, extracurricular activities, life experience and socioeconomic status, according to court testimony. Race often played no role in the process, but sometimes it came under consideration in a 'limited fashion,' attorneys for the academy wrote in court papers.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mirror
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Owner of Donald Trump-themed burger chain may soon be deported by president he worships
A Lebanese man who has been in the US since 2019 and started a chain of Donald Trump inspired restaurants could soon be deported by the president he worships The boss of an infamous Trump Burger chain could soon be booted out of the US by the very president he idolises. Homeland Security sources have revealed that restaurant boss Roland Beainy, 40, was arrested in May after immigration cops discovered he had overstayed his visa. Beainy, who hails from Lebanon, arrived in 2019 on a tourist visa and never left, even after it expired in February this year. Officials claim he's been living in America illegally ever since. The Trump fanatic launched his first burger joint in 2020, complete with MAGA-themed décor, and has since grown the chain to four outlets across the Houston area. It comes after Donald Trump was seen with a mystery mark in Scotland after his chronic health diagnosis. But his political loyalty isn't earning him any special treatment in the White House's sweeping crackdown on undocumented migrants, and he could soon see himself living in another country, the NY Post reports. In a fiery statement, the Department for Homeland Security said: 'This is true regardless of what restaurant you own or political beliefs you might have." Officials also claim the Lebanon native's bid for legal status was 'revoked' after his own family allegedly admitted his marriage was a sham to dodge immigration rules. Homeland Security didn't hold back, accusing Beainy of having 'no Green Card, a history of illegal marriages, and an assault charge', and even branded it a 'flagrant abuse' of US immigration law. The burger boss denies all wrongdoing, insisting the claims are 'not true' in a statement to the Houston Chronicle. He was released on bond in June while his deportation case drags on — but the fight is far from over. The Trump Burger brand has courted controversy before. A recent Facebook video showed a Trump impersonator jokingly asking Latina diners for their green cards. Adding to his troubles, Beainy is locked in a bitter legal row with the landlord of his Kemah branch. Archie Patterson claims he's owed money, while Beainy's side insists Patterson forced out staff and seized control of the site. For now, it's not known whether Beainy will be serving customers in Texas or back in Beirut in the months to come. His future is now in the hands of the courts. Earlier this year, a movement dubbed Operation Safeguard led to an increase in ICE and allied agencies to conduct mass raids across major cities, detaining tens of thousands including those with legal or pending status. At the same time, the administration dramatically expanded detention infrastructure and used military-style camps.


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Emma Thompson reveals Donald Trump asked her out on a date on the day she got divorced
has revealed that Donald Trump asked her out on a date on the same day she got divorced. The actress, 66, said the President of the US, 79, asked her out for dinner as soon as her marriage to fellow British actor Kenneth Branagh was officially over. Speaking at the Locarno Film Festival in Switzerland on Saturday, Dame Emma described how she was in her trailer while filming Primary Colours, a 1998 film inspired by Bill Clinton 's rise to the White House, when her phone rang. The award-winning actress said Trump was on the line and initially she thought it was a joke, the Telegraph reported. She said: 'It was Donald Trump. He said: "Hello, this is Donald Trump." I thought it was a joke and asked: "How can I help you?" Maybe he needed directions from someone. 'Then he said: "I'd love you to come and stay at one of my beautiful places. Maybe we could have dinner." 'I said: "Well, that's very sweet. Thank you so much. I'll get back to you".' The surprising phone call came after the president has separated from his second wife, Marla Maples, with whom he shares Tiffany Trump. At the time, the 47th US President had yet to set his sights on politics and was instead focusing on expanding his New York real estate empire. In contrast, the Harry Potter actress had announced her split from Branagh in 1995 and had begun a relationship with her co-star Greg Wise, whom she later married, after meeting on the set of Sense and Sensibility. The revelation came during a Q&A about her career at the star-studded film festival, where Dame Emma joked that had she gone on a date with the Republican politician, she may have changed the course of American history. She also suggested that she was chosen by his team as a suitable person to be seen in public dating. She added: 'I bet he's got people looking for suitable people he could take out on his arm. You know, a nice divorcee, that's what he was looking for.' The star, who is a staunch member of the Labour party and even supported Jeremy Corbyn's leadership and bid for Prime Minister in 2019, added: 'I could have changed the course of American history.' The festival gave Dame Emma Leopard Club Award for career achievements. Dame Emma has always been an outspoken political activist and last year led thousands of people on a march in London aimed at persuading politicians to prioritise nature and climate. More than 350 charities, businesses and direct action groups were taking part in the Restore Nature Now march, along with Dame Emma, businessman Dale Vince and naturalists Chris Packham and Steve Backshall.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Donald Trump must not reward Vladimir Putin's aggression
Donald Trump understands symbolism and imperial delusions, so Alaska is a fitting location for his meeting with Vladimir Putin on Friday. The US president will know that in Putin's eyes, Alaska ought to be Russian territory, sold in a moment of weakness by Alexander II. Just as, in Mr Trump's mind, Canada and Greenland ought to be part of the United States. The theatre of the summit, then, is all set. But some of the cast will be missing. By agreeing to a meeting of just the two of them, Mr Trump appears to be convening a conspiracy to carve up Ukraine in the absence of its leader, Volodymyr Zelensky. This impression was reinforced by Mr Trump talking breezily about Russia and Ukraine 'swapping' territory as part of a peace deal. To Ukrainians – or indeed to anyone who respects the principle of self-determination and the rule of law – this means Mr Putin giving up territory that he has seized by force in exchange for being rewarded for his aggression by gaining further territory that he has not yet been able to steal. No wonder Mr Zelensky has his doubts about this meeting. The Ukrainian president has made it clear that he will discuss anything with anyone anywhere, but what he will not do, rightly, is agree to the dismemberment of his country as a condition of talks. Without Mr Zelensky, it is not clear what this summit can achieve, except to demonstrate ever more clearly to the world and to Mr Trump that it is Mr Putin who is the obstacle to peace. The other cast members who will be missing in Alaska are Ukraine's allies in Europe, what Sir Keir Starmer calls the 'coalition of the willing'. But the Trump administration has at least ensured a side negotiation takes place, with a meeting of national security advisers convened on Saturday by JD Vance, the US vice president, and David Lammy, the British foreign secretary, at Chevening. Meanwhile Mr Zelensky has been canvassing support from European allies, holding phone calls today with Sir Keir, as well as leaders from Estonia, Denmark and France, including conversations about Ukraine's progress "towards EU membership". Recently, President Trump has shown some signs of recognising that Mr Putin does not want peace in Ukraine. He said that he had had enough of the Russian leader assuring him on the phone that he was ready to negotiate, only to discover the next day that Russian missiles had hit a hospital or a school in Ukraine. He set a deadline for the imposition of further sanctions on Russia, which passed this weekend with no measures announced. By agreeing to the Alaska meeting, it looks as if Mr Putin has strung Mr Trump along – again. We have no way of seeing into Mr Trump's heart, so we cannot tell if his appeasement of Mr Putin is a diplomatic ploy to allow the Russian leader to agree a deal that saves face, or if it arises from the genuine admiration for a strong leader. But Mr Trump's motive does not matter – except that, if he is as fixated on the idea of a Nobel Peace Prize as he is said to be, he should be unlikely to win the prize by securing peace through Ukraine's surrender. If it is beginning to dawn on Mr Trump that Mr Putin wants the war to continue, then that can only be a good thing, because it will then be clear exactly who is responsible for prolonging the bloodshed. It is not Mr Zelensky or the Ukrainian people who started this war or who are keeping it going. A recent Gallup poll suggested that a large majority of Ukrainians want a negotiated end to the fighting. They know that this means yielding territory, however bitterly they may resent it. They are willing to pay a price for peace. Mr Trump must ensure that Mr Putin is made to pay a price as well. The Russian aggressor must not be rewarded.