Army and Air Force libraries are ordered to review books for DEI material
The memos suggest that any removal of books will only happen after the initial lists are reviewed more closely. That slower pace may reflect a desire to be more careful about what books are pulled from shelves after the Navy faced criticism over some of those it removed.
Advertisement
Books on the Holocaust, histories of feminism, civil rights and racism, as well as Maya Angelou's famous autobiography, 'I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,' were among the 381 books that were removed from the U.S. Naval Academy's Nimitz Library.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The Army memo was sent to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, the Army War College in Pennsylvania and several other service departments. It says they must review their collections and any books promoting DEI, gender ideology and critical race theory 'in a manner that subverts meritocracy and unity' must be removed 'pending additional guidance.'
The memo — signed by Derrick Anderson, acting assistant Army secretary for manpower — says a list must be provided to the Army's chief librarian by Wednesday. The order also applies to libraries under the authority of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command, Army Special Operations Command and the Army Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School.
Advertisement
The Air Force memo, meanwhile, directs the Air Force Academy near Colorado Springs, Colorado, to review all of its titles for anything related to DEI, gender ideology and critical race theory. The school must provide an interim list by April 30 and a final list by May 30.
That memo was signed by Gwendolyn DeFilippi, the acting assistant secretary for manpower, and did not specify other libraries within the Air Force.
The three military academies had not been included in President Donald Trump's executive order in January that banned DEI instruction, programs or curriculum in kindergarten through 12th grade in schools that receive federal funding. That is because the academies are colleges.
But when Pentagon leaders realized that gap, they initially ordered the Naval Academy to review and remove books and soon after gave the same directive to the other services.
In a statement, the Air Force said the academy is 'conducting a deliberate review' of the library to comply with department policies.
Army Col. Terry Kelley, West Point spokesman, said the school 'will complete the directed review with the utmost professionalism and efficiency.'
Hegseth has aggressively pushed the department to erase DEI programs and online content, but the campaign has been met with questions from angry lawmakers, local leaders and citizens over the removal of military heroes and historic mentions from Defense Department websites and social media pages.
In response, the department has scrambled to restore some of those posts as their removals have come to light.
Advertisement
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
37 minutes ago
- The Hill
The ‘Trump did it' defense: Colleges' and companies' new excuse to roll back wokeness
'Trump made me do it.' Across the country, this is a virtual mantra being mouthed everywhere from businesses to higher education. Corporations are eliminating woke programs. Why? Trump did it. Universities are eliminating DEI offices and cracking down on campus extremism. Trump did it. Democratic politicians are abandoning far-left policies. Trump did it. For those who lack both courage or conviction, the claim of coercion is often the next best thing. The 'TDI defense' is born. They did not invent Trump, but they needed him. For years, schools like Harvard and Columbia ignored warnings about the rising antisemitism on campuses. They refused to punish students engaged in criminal conduct, including occupying and trashing buildings. These administrators did not want to risk being tagged by the far-left mob for taking meaningful action. Then the election occurred, and suddenly they were able to blame Trump for doing what they should have been doing all along. Administrators are now cracking down on extreme elements on campuses. At the same time, hundreds of schools are closing DEI offices around the country. Again, most are not challenging the Trump administration's orders on DEI or seeking to adopt more limited responses. They are all in with the move, while professing that they have little choice. In other words, schools are increasingly turning to TDI to end DEI. The legal landscape has changed with an administration committed to opposing many DEI programs as discriminatory and unlawful. However, it is the speed and general lack of resistance that is so notable. In most cases, the Trump administration did not have to ask twice. Trump seemed to 'have them at hello,' as if they were longing for a reason to reverse these trends. Many will continue to fight this fight surreptitiously. For example, shortly before the Trump election, the University of North Carolina System Board of Governors voted to ban DEI and focus on 'institutional neutrality.' But then UNC Asheville Dean of Students Megan Pugh was caught on videotape, saying that eliminating these offices means nothing: 'I mean we probably still do anyway… but you gotta keep it quiet.' She added, 'I love breaking rules.' The Board, perhaps not feeling the same thrill, reportedly responded by firing her. However, Pugh's approach to rules in general has long been followed by college administrators. After the Supreme Court declared that universities like Harvard and UNC were engaging in racial discrimination in admissions, some schools set out to eliminate the overt uses of race while seeking to achieve the same results covertly. The same pattern is playing out in businesses. Over the last few weeks, companies ranging from Amazon to IBM have removed references to DEI programs or policies. Bank of America explained, 'We evaluate and adjust our programs in light of new laws, court decisions, and, more recently, executive orders from the new administration.' Once established, these DEI offices tended to expand as an irresistible force within their institutions and companies. Full-time diversity experts demanded additional hirings and policies on hiring, promotion, and public campaigns. Since these experts were tasked with finding areas for 'reform,' their proposals were treated as extensions of that mandate. To oppose the reforms was to oppose the cause. While some executives and administrators supported such efforts, others simply lacked the courage to oppose them. No one wanted to be accused of being opposed to 'equity' or being racist, sexist, or homophobic. The results were continually expanding programs impacting every level of businesses and institutions. Then Trump showed up. Suddenly, these executives and administrators had an excuse to reverse this trend. They could also rely on court decisions that have undermined longstanding claims of advocates that favoring certain groups at the expense of others was entirely lawful. This week, the Supreme Court added to these cases with its unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, to remove impediments to lawsuits by members of majorities who are discriminated against. For many years, lower courts have required members of majority groups (white, male, or heterosexual) to shoulder an added burden before they could establish claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In a decision written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court rejected that additional burden and ordered that everyone must be treated similarly under the law. Many commentators noted that the ruling further undermined the rationales for disparate treatment based on race or other criteria within DEI. In other words, more of these programs are likely to be the subject of federal investigations and lawsuits. Of course, if these executives and administrators were truly committed to the programs in principle, they could resolve to fight in the courts. The alternative is just to blame Trump and restore prior policies that enforce federal standards against all discriminatory or preferred treatment given to employees based on race, sex, religion, or other classifications. Former Vice President Hubert Humphrey once observed that 'to err is human. To blame someone else is politics.' That is evident among politicians. For years, many moderate Democrats voted to support far-left agendas during the Biden administration, lacking the courage or principles to oppose the radical wing of the Democratic Party. Now, some are coming forward to say that the party has 'lost touch with voters.' Rather than admit that their years of supporting these policies were wrong, they blame Trump and argue that the party must move toward the center to survive. The calculus is simple: You never act on principle when you can blame a villain instead. It is not a profile of courage but one of simple convenience. No need for admissions or responsibility — just TDI and done. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sometimes a Parade Is Just a Parade
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. President Donald Trump has gotten his way and will oversee a military parade in Washington, D.C., this summer on the Army's birthday, which also happens to be his own. Plans call for nearly 7,000 troops to march through the streets as 50 helicopters buzz overhead and tanks chew up the pavement. One option has the president presiding from a viewing stand on Constitution Avenue as the Army's parachute team lands to present him with an American flag. The prospect of all this martial pomp, scheduled for June 14, has elicited criticism from many quarters. Some of it is fair—this president does not shy away from celebrating himself or flexing executive power, and the parade could be seen as an example of both—but some of it is misguided. Trump has a genius for showmanship, and showcasing the American military can be, and should be, a patriotic celebration. The president wanted just such a tribute during his first term, after seeing France's impressive Bastille Day celebrations. Then–Secretary of Defense James Mattis reportedly refused, effectively threatening to resign by telling the president to ask his next secretary of defense. Three secretaries of defense later, Trump has gotten enthusiastic agreement from current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Criticism of the display begins with its price tag, estimated as high as $45 million. The projected outlay comes at a time of draconian budget cuts elsewhere: 'Cutting cancer research while wasting money on this? Shameful,' Republicans Against Trump posted on X. 'Peanuts compared to the value of doing it,' Trump replied when asked about the expense. 'We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we're going to celebrate it.' [Read: The case for a big, beautiful military parade] Other prominent critics of the Trump administration have expressed concern that the parade's real purpose is to use the military to intimidate the president's critics. The historian Heather Cox Richardson wrote on her Substack, 'Trump's aspirations to authoritarianism are showing today in the announcement that there will be a military parade on Trump's 79th birthday.' Ron Filipkowski, the editor in chief of the progressive media company MeidasTouch, posted, 'The Fuhrer wants a Nuremberg style parade on his birthday.' Experts on civil-military relations in the United States also expressed consternation. 'Having tanks rolling down streets of the capital doesn't look like something consistent with the tradition of a professional, highly capable military,' the scholar Risa Brooks told The New York Times. 'It looks instead like a military that is politicized and turning inwardly, focusing on domestic-oriented adversaries instead of external ones.' Even the military leadership has been chary. During Trump's first term, then–Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Paul Selva reflected that military parades are 'what dictators do.' But these critics may well be projecting more general concerns about Trump onto a parade. Not everything the Trump administration does is destructive to democracy—and the French example suggests that dictatorships are not the only governments to hold military displays. The U.S. itself has been known to mount victory parades after successful military campaigns. In today's climate, a military parade could offer an opportunity to counter misperceptions about the armed forces. It could bring Americans closer to service members and juice military recruitment—all of which is sorely needed. The American military is shrinking, not due to a policy determination about the size of the force needed, but because the services cannot recruit enough Americans to defend the country. In 2022, 77 percent of American youth did not qualify for military service, for reasons that included physical or mental-health problems, misconduct, inaptitude, being overweight, abuse of drugs or alcohol, or being a dependent. Just 9 percent of Americans ages of 16 to 24 (a prime recruitment window) are even interested in signing up. In 2023, only the Marine Corps and Space Force met their recruiting goals; the Army and Navy recruited less than 70 percent of their goals and fell 41,000 recruits short of sustaining their current force. Recruiting picked up dramatically in 2024 but remains cause for concern. One possible reason for this is that most Americans have little exposure to men and women in uniform. Less than 0.5 percent of Americans are currently serving in the military—and many who do so live, shop, and worship on cordoned military bases. Misperceptions about military service are therefore rife. One is that the U.S. military primarily recruits from minority groups and the poor. In fact, 17 percent of the poorest quintile of Americans serve, as do 12 percent of the richest quintile. The rest of the military is from middle-income families. Those who live near military bases and come from military families are disproportionately represented. The Army's polling indicates that concerns about being injured, killed, or suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder are major impediments to recruitment. Women worry that they will be sexually harassed or assaulted (the known figures on this in the U.S. military are 6.2 percent of women and 0.7 percent of men). Additionally, a Wall Street Journal–NORC poll found that far fewer American adults considered patriotism important in 2023 (23 percent) than did in 1998 (70 percent)—another possible reason that enthusiasm for joining up has dampened. [Read: The all-volunteer force is in crisis] A celebratory parade could be helpful here, and it does not have to set the country on edge. Americans seem comfortable with thanking military men and women for their service, having them pre-board airplanes, applauding them at sporting events, and admiring military-aircraft flybys. None of those practices is suspected of corroding America's democracy or militarizing its society. Surely the nation can bear up under a military parade once every decade or two, especially if the parade serves to reconnect veterans of recent wars, who often—rightly—grumble that the country tends to disown its wars as matters of concern to only those who serve in them. The risk, of course, is that Trump will use the occasion not to celebrate the troops but to corrode their professionalism by proclaiming them his military and his generals. This is, after all, the president who claimed that Dan Caine, his nominee to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wore a MAGA hat and attested his willingness to kill for Trump, all of which Caine denies. This is also a president known to mix politics with honoring the military, as he did in Michigan, at Arlington National Cemetery, at West Point's commencement, and in a Memorial Day post on Truth Social calling his opponents 'scum.' Even so, the commander in chief has a right to engage with the military that Americans elected him to lead. The responsibility of the military—and of the country—is to look past the president's hollow solipsism and embrace the men and women who defend the United States. Being from a military family or living near a military base has been shown to predispose people toward military service. This suggests that the more exposure people have to the military, the likelier they are to serve in it. A big celebration of the country's armed forces—with static displays on the National Mall afterward, and opportunities for soldiers to mix with civilians—could familiarize civilians with their armed forces and, in doing so, draw talented young Americans to serve. A version of this essay originally appeared on AEIdeas from the American Enterprise Institute. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Scoop: Rocket launchers, missiles to be featured in Army's D.C. parade
Army officials are preparing to display rocket launchers and missiles along with more than a hundred military aircraft and vehicles next weekend at the D.C. parade celebrating the Army's 250th anniversary, Axios has learned. Why it matters: President Trump has envisioned the June 14 parade — which is scheduled on his 79th birthday — as a show of U.S. military might. Zoom in: Such a display of military equipment is rare in the United States, and critics of the event have expressed concerns about that imagery as well as the damage that heavy military vehicles could pose to the city's streets. But officials are eager to showcase U.S. weaponry such as the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), which is used to launch rockets. The launchers have been used in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. There also will be a static display of precision-guided missiles, the officials said, and a flyover by F-22 fighter jets. About 7,000 military personnel will be involved in the parade, which will run along Constitution Avenue NW. It's projected to cost about $45 million — roughly one-third of that for post-parade street repairs. Zoom out: The parade is set to begin at 6:30 pm, and will start at 23rd Street and Constitution Avenue NW and end at 15th and Constitution Avenue NW. Trump will have a review stand on the Ellipse. What they're saying: "When the president came into office on Jan. 20, he made it clear that he wanted to ... feature the United States Army as the first branch of the United States military to be constituted of the American republic, and he wanted to give the U.S. Army a very special birthday parade," Ambassador Monica Crowley, chief of protocol of the United States, told Axios. By the numbers: The parade will include 28 M1A1 Abrams tanks, 28 M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and four Paladin Howitzers.
