logo
From Book Bans to Canceled Lectures, the Naval Academy Is Bending to Trump

From Book Bans to Canceled Lectures, the Naval Academy Is Bending to Trump

New York Times24-04-2025

For 65 years, the U.S. Naval Academy's annual foreign affairs conference has been a marquee event on campus, bringing in students from around the world for a week of lectures and discussions with high-ranking diplomats and officials.
But this year, the event was abruptly canceled, just weeks before it was set to start.
The conference had two strikes against it — its theme and timing. Organized around the idea of 'The Constellation of Humanitarian Assistance: Persevering Through Conflict,' it was set for April 7 through 11, just as the Trump administration finished dismantling almost all of the federal government's foreign aid programs.
According to the academy, each foreign affairs conference takes a year to plan. But killing it off was much faster, and the decision to do so is among the many ways the school's leadership has tried to anticipate the desires of an unpredictable and vengeful president.
The moves have included Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's order last month that led to the banning of hundreds of books at the academy's library, and the school's cancellation of even more events that might attract the ire of President Trump or his supporters.
Most colleges and universities decide what courses to teach and what events to hold on their campuses. But military service academies like the Navy's in Annapolis, Md., are part of the Pentagon's chain of command, which starts with the commander in chief.
The Naval Academy said in a statement that it was reviewing all previously scheduled events to ensure that they aligned with executive orders and military directives. Representatives for the academy and for the Navy declined to comment for this article, but school officials have said privately that their institution's academic freedom is under full-scale assault by the White House and the Pentagon.
A Discussion of Coups and Corruption
Even before the presidential election, the academy began preparing for Mr. Trump's potential return to power.
In January 2024, the academy's history department had invited Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a professor of history at New York University, to give a lecture as part of a prestigious annual series that has brought eminent historians to the campus since 1980.
She was scheduled to speak on Oct. 10 about how the military in Italy and Chile had adapted to autocratic takeovers of those countries. The title of her lecture was 'Militaries and Authoritarian Regimes: Coups, Corruption and the Costs of Losing Democracy.'
Ms. Ben-Ghiat, who had written and spoken critically about Mr. Trump, said she had not intended to discuss what she considers his authoritarian tendencies in front of the students as part of the George Bancroft Memorial Lecture series at the academy. Even so, just a week before her lecture, an off-campus group formed in opposition to her invitation.
After reports about the upcoming lecture by right-wing outlets, Representative Keith Self, Republican of Texas, wrote to Vice Adm. Yvette M. Davids, the academy's superintendent, on Oct. 3 urging her to disinvite Ms. Ben-Ghiat from speaking to the midshipmen, as the students are called.
The next day the Naval Academy's dean of academics, Samara L. Firebaugh, called to say the lecture had been postponed, Ms. Ben-Ghiat recalled.
It was one month before the election.
Although victorious, the critics still were not satisfied. The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society criticized Ms. Ben-Ghiat's invitation, even after it was revoked. A group of 17 House Republicans said in a letter to Admiral Davids that the situation had raised concerns about 'the academy's process for choosing guest speakers.'
Ms. Ben-Ghiat recalled that she was told that the lecture was a potential violation of the Hatch Act, a law that limits certain political activities of federal employees.
'That would have only been true if I had been talking about current U.S. politics and Trump's attitude to the U.S. military, and that was never part of the plan,' she said.
Ms. Ben-Ghiat now assumes that the lecture will never be rescheduled.
'A small purge was orchestrated,' she wrote in February about the cancellation of her lecture, 'to make sure the Naval Academy fell into line when Trump got back into office and the real purges could take place.'
'It was a loyalty test for the Naval Academy, and they passed it, but Trump and Hegseth will surely be back for more,' she added.
A Climate Lecture
On March 10, leaders from the academy's class of 1969 got their own unwelcome message from Ms. Firebaugh.
The class, which graduated at the height of the Vietnam War, sponsors the Michelson lecture series, which has been given annually since 1981. The event brings in academic luminaries for midshipmen studying chemistry, computer science, mathematics, oceanography and physics.
This year's lecture, which was scheduled for April 14, would have welcomed Susan Solomon, a distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a recipient of the National Medal of Science.
But like Ms. Ben-Ghiat's talk, Ms. Solomon's lecture was canceled as well.
'Unfortunately, the topic that we had selected for this year was not well aligned with executive orders and other directives,' the academic dean wrote in an email, which was shared with The New York Times, 'and there was insufficient time to select a new speaker that would be of sufficient stature for this series.'
M.I.T., Ms. Solomon and Ms. Firebaugh did not respond to requests for comment.
A Book Ban
In late March, Mr. Hegseth's office directed the school to comply with a Jan. 29 executive order intended to end 'radical indoctrination' in kindergarten through 12th-grade classrooms.
According to several school officials, the academy initially tried to push back by stating the obvious: The order did not apply because the academy is a college.
Mr. Hegseth's office ordered them to comply anyway.
By April 1, 381 books had been removed from the school's Nimitz Library, which was named for Fleet Adm. Chester W. Nimitz, a five-star naval hero of World War II who graduated from the academy in 1905.
'I think he would have expected honest pushback,' his granddaughter, Sarah Nimitz Smith, said in an interview. 'He never would have thought the academy would fold.'
Soon afterward, the New Press, which publishes three of the now-removed books, offered faculty members at the academy free copies for the midshipmen they teach.
'We thought book banning had gone the way of the Third Reich, and we're very unhappy to see it again,' Diane Wachtell, the executive director of the New Press, said in an interview.
At least two members of the faculty have resigned in protest of the book ban, and 18 others at the school have opted for early retirement, according to several campus officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Around the same time that books about race, racism, gender and sexuality were being pulled from Nimitz's shelves, an award-winning filmmaker was on the chopping block as well.
A Documentary
In November, representatives for the filmmaker Ken Burns reached out to the academy with an offer to screen clips from his new six-part series on the American Revolution at the academy in a private event for a select group of midshipmen. The school accepted and booked the event for April 22.
But in late March, the school's leadership felt that Mr. Burns's criticisms of Mr. Trump before the 2024 election could cause another outcry from conservative think tanks and Republican members of Congress.
According to three Navy officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, Admiral Davids initially ordered her staff to cancel Mr. Burns's event but later decided to reschedule it for the next academic year.
An Ethics Lecture
On April 14, the academy's leaders canceled a third lecture.
The author Ryan Holiday had planned to speak to midshipmen about Stoic philosophy, and why it was important to read books that challenged their thinking. But he said a staff member at the academy's Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership screened his presentation and objected to its discussion of the school's book ban, which included screenshots of Times reporting about it.
Named for Vice Adm. James B. Stockdale, who graduated from the academy in 1947, the center pays homage to his service as a leader of American prisoners of war in Hanoi. After the war, the admiral often said his postgraduate studies on the writings of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin had offered him an edge over his interrogators.
'My father would engage in conversation with his tormentors, questioning them about Vietnam's Communist Party while they were trying to break him,' the admiral's eldest son, Jim Stockdale, recalled in an interview, noting that his father enraged one of his interrogators by besting him on the finer points of Leninism in an argument.
'I was able to do a duel in dialogue with the guy,' Mr. Stockdale recalled his father saying after the war. 'That was like a magic trick in a torture prison in an autocracy.'
An Annual Dedication
William McBride, a history professor, retired in January after 30 years at the academy.
He was invited to stand beside Admiral Davids on April 25 at the school's annual Dedication Parade, where midshipmen don their dress uniforms and march with rifles to honor retiring faculty members.
But on Saturday, Mr. McBride, who graduated from the academy in 1974, declined the honor and fired off a broadside against the admiral.
The book ban, he said, was a 'limitation on the intellectual inquiry of midshipmen' that 'is contrary to the academy's motto: 'From Knowledge, Sea Power,'' and had damaged the school's mission.
In an email sent to the admiral and shared with The Times, Mr. McBride accused the school of tarnishing its reputation by bending to political pressure.
He cited a line all incoming students had to memorize when he began his studies there 55 years ago: 'Where principle is involved, be deaf to expediency.'
'No matter what you have done before,' he wrote, 'your legacy will be that of a careerist who banned Maya Angelou but retained Hitler's 'Mein Kampf.''

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Harvard scores a temporary victory in battle against Trump administration ‘vendetta'
Harvard scores a temporary victory in battle against Trump administration ‘vendetta'

News24

time11 minutes ago

  • News24

Harvard scores a temporary victory in battle against Trump administration ‘vendetta'

A court on Thursday put a temporary stay on Donald Trump's latest effort to stop foreign students from enrolling at Harvard, as the US president's battle with one of the world's most prestigious universities intensified. A proclamation issued by the White House late Wednesday sought to bar most new international students at Harvard from entering the country, and said existing foreign enrollees risked having their visas terminated. 'Harvard's conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers,' the order said. Harvard quickly amended an existing complaint filed in federal court, saying: 'This is not the Administration's first attempt to sever Harvard from its international students.' '(It) is part of a concerted and escalating campaign of retaliation by the government in clear retribution for Harvard's exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students.' READ | 'Such a disgrace': Outrage as Trump ramps up attacks on Harvard, Columbia US District Judge Allison Burroughs on Thursday ruled the government cannot enforce Trump's proclamation. Harvard had showed, she said, that without a temporary restraining order, it risked sustaining 'immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties'. The same judge had already blocked Trump's earlier effort to bar international students from enrolling at the storied university. The government already cut around $3.2 billion of federal grants and contracts benefiting Harvard and pledged to exclude the Cambridge, Massachusetts, institution from any future federal funding. Harvard has been at the forefront of Trump's campaign against top universities after it defied his calls to submit to oversight of its curriculum, staffing, student recruitment and 'viewpoint diversity'. Trump has also singled out international students at Harvard, who accounted for 27% of total enrolment in the 2024-2025 academic year and are a major source of income. In its filing, Harvard acknowledged that Trump had the authority to bar an entire class of aliens if it was deemed to be in the public interest, but stressed that was not the case in this action. The president's actions thus are not undertaken to protect the 'interests of the United States' but instead to pursue a government vendetta against Harvard. Harvard filing Since returning to office Trump has targeted elite US universities which he and his allies accuse of being hotbeds of antisemitism, liberal bias and 'woke' ideology. Trump's education secretary also threatened on Wednesday to strip Columbia University of its accreditation. The Republican has targeted the New York Ivy League institution for allegedly ignoring harassment of Jewish students, throwing all of its federal funding into doubt. Unlike Harvard, several top institutions - including Columbia - have already bowed to far-reaching demands from the Trump administration.

Trump and Musk fell out because Trump just doesn't get principled people
Trump and Musk fell out because Trump just doesn't get principled people

The Hill

time35 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump and Musk fell out because Trump just doesn't get principled people

There are limitations to President Trump's transactional view of the world. This is evident in his growing tension with Elon Musk, which risks creating political problems that threaten his agenda. Trump usually gets his way through a mix of flattery, favors and intimidation, but Musk is less inclined than most to respond to these techniques. Musk holds a lot of cards. His Tesla factories employ tens of thousands of American workers. His SpaceX rockets underpin our national aspirations in space. He is also the wealthiest person on the planet, and his wealth facilitates a natural tendency to speak out when his principles are challenged. That was illustrated in late 2023 when he invited advertisers to stay off his social media platform. It is possible to disagree with everything Musk does and still concede that the man is principled. This is why our less principled President is struggling to understand Musk's hostility to the tax and spending bill, the oddly named One Big Beautiful Bill Act, so named after an utterance by Trump. Musk carried out his work at the Department of Government Efficiency without humanity and with childish antics. But if his methods were wrong, his beliefs were real. His opposition to a spending bill that negates his work by increasing federal debt by more than $2 trillion is rooted in deeply held principles. His life would be easier and his businesses more secure if he had stayed quiet and joined other Republicans in supporting a bill they know leads our nation one step closer to fiscal ruin. Musk is different. He was willing to alienate himself from liberal consumers by taking up his position at DOGE and supporting Trump, but equally willing to alienate himself from MAGA consumers by opposing the Trump tax bill on principle. This type of principled stand is difficult for someone like Trump to understand, and I believe he is being honest when he says he can't understand Musk's opposition to the bill. In Trump's eyes, he offered Musk a favorable transaction: Publicly support my policies, and I will maintain your access and influence. Musk refused the deal because staying quiet meant violating his principles. This is foreign to Trump, who values public appearance and profit over principles. Musk isn't the only person President Trump is struggling to understand. Chinese president Xi Jinping is equally principled and believes what he says about the 21st century belonging to China. Xi is committed to erasing the last vestiges of China's subordination to the West. He is telling the truth when he discusses the belief that China should play a central role in the world and dominate Asia. The Chinese president is committed to taking control of Taiwan because its de facto independence represents a contemporary manifestation of an earlier and weaker time in Chinese history. American power can deter Xi from invading, but there is no deal imaginable that will cause him to change his mind about the inevitability of seizing Taiwan. Xi holds the principle too deeply to let it go, and here again Trump struggles to understand. Xi cannot capitulate to American demands on either trade or Taiwan without resurrecting in his own mind the idea of a weak and subordinate China. This is one important reason among several why he hasn't acquiesced to American demands on trade and seems to be preparing for a prolonged standoff — something that probably wasn't part of Trump's initial plan. Xi's principles make it difficult for our transactional president to understand the man and predict his actions. Russian President Vladimir Putin is another example of someone Trump fundamentally fails to understand. Putin acts immorally but is still more principled than he is transactional. Trump's offer to reintegrate Russia into the world economy and deepen American economic ties with Russian companies might have worked to end the war in Ukraine if Putin were as transactional as Trump. Our president offered Putin an objectively good deal — an escape from relative isolation and a chance to increase Russia's national wealth and the personal wealth of its president and closest collaborators. But Putin is being honest when he says Ukraine should be part of Russia. He has so far been unwilling to accept Trump's generous offers because they don't comport with his principled belief. Like Xi, Putin refuses to accept even the appearance of Russian subordination to the West. His principled stand means Trump's transactional offers are unlikely to succeed. American interests are better served by forcing Putin's hand — by weaking Russia's economy and hurting it militarily by supporting Ukraine's resistance. Trump cannot easily see this because he doesn't understand how the Russian president sees the world. Putin is not primarily transactional — he pursues his principles until sufficient counterforce is applied. This is a different way of engaging with the world than Trump's dealmaking. It requires an American approach to Russia that Trump has so far failed to understand and embrace. Trump believes everyone has a price and will eventually make a deal. He has been successful because he has often been proven right in this. Consider, for example, the Republicans in Congress who sacrificed their principles to safeguard their reelections by supporting a fiscally irresponsible bill. Their actions once again affirmed Trump's instinct that everyone has a price. But not everyone is so transactional as that. Men like Musk, Xi and Putin see the world through a principled lens. As good as he is at dominating transactional people, Trump struggles to understand and then anticipate and control the actions of people who are primarily guided by principle. This has political consequences for Trump himself and geopolitical consequences for our nation. Until Trump better understands the motivations of principled people, our country will continue offering deals to people who are entirely uninterested. Trump is also risking his legacy and agenda by antagonizes potential critics like Musk by miscalculating their reactions when his actions violate their principles. One of Trump's most redeeming qualities is his honest desire for peace, but his transactional approach to America's adversaries will never create the stability he seeks. Just as he should have anticipated Musk's opposition to the spending bill, he should have anticipated Xi's intransigence on trade and Putin's desire to continue his war. The understanding that some people act on principle is a blind spot for our transactional president, and this makes it difficult for him to understand the principled parts of the world.

Musk suggests creating a new political party as feud with Trump continues to rage
Musk suggests creating a new political party as feud with Trump continues to rage

New York Post

time36 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Musk suggests creating a new political party as feud with Trump continues to rage

Elon Musk floated the idea of a new political party as his rapidly escalating feud with President Trump reached a tipping point — with more than 80% of the millions who voted wanting change. The world's richest man posted a poll on X asking followers whether they supported the idea of a party to take on the Republicans and Democrats. 'Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' the poll asked. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters as Elon Musk looks on in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025. AP Well over 4.7 million votes had been cast as of early Friday — with more than 80% agreeing a new party was needed. The poll was posted soon after Musk and Trump's once-close relationship imploded late Thursday when the men started hurling blistering attacks at each other. Musk also encouraged Republicans torn over who to back to side with him. 'Oh and some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years,' he wrote in one tweet. The verbal punches erupted after Trump criticized Musk in the Oval Office on Thursday, telling reporters he was 'very disappointed' in the Tesla founder for denouncing his sweeping tax-cut and spending bill. Elon Musk shared the poll to his X followers on June 5, 2025. @elonmusk/X Trump quickly posted on Truth Social that Musk had been 'wearing thin,' that he had 'asked him to leave' his administration and that the tech titan had 'gone CRAZY.' Trump then threatened that he could save taxpayer money by canceling government contracts and subsidies for Musk's companies. Musk, for his part, fired back by expressing support for impeaching Trump and even accused the administration of withholding documents related to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein because the president would be mentioned. 'Time to drop the really big bomb: Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Musk post on X.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store