Education
How the U.S. Naval Academy Is Bending the Knee to Trump

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.
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.”
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.’”

Education
Video: Suspect In Custody For the Shooting of Charlie Kirk

new video loaded: Suspect In Custody For the Shooting of Charlie Kirk
transcript
transcript
Suspect In Custody For the Shooting of Charlie Kirk
Gov. Spencer Cox of Utah identified the suspect in the Charlie Kirk shooting in a Friday morning news conference.
-
We got him. On the evening of Sept. 11, a family member of Tyler Robinson reached out to a family friend who contacted the Washington County Sheriff’s Office with information that Robinson had confessed to them or implied that he had committed the incident. Investigators interviewed a family member of Robinson, who stated that Robinson had become more political in recent years. Investigators identified an individual as the roommate of Robinson. Investigators interviewed that roommate. Investigators asked if he would show them the messages on Discord. The content of these messages included messages affiliated with the contact Tyler stating a need to retrieve a rifle from a drop point, leaving the rifle in a bush. Investigators noted inscriptions that had been engraved on casings found with the rifle. Inscriptions on the three unfired casings read, “Hey, fascist!” Exclamation point. “Catch!” exclamation point.
Education
Video: Ukrainian Students Start New School Year in Underground Classrooms

new video loaded: Ukrainian Students Start New School Year in Underground Classrooms
By Jiawei Wang•
With Russian attacks ongoing and peace talks stalled, some students in Ukraine are attending classes underground. For some, it is their first in-person learning in more than three years of war.
Education
What Has the Trump Administration Gotten From Law Firms and Universities?

Harvard University claimed a victory in its legal case against the Trump administration on Wednesday, when a federal judge ruled that the government broke the law by freezing billions of dollars in research funding. The ruling, which the administration has pledged to appeal, potentially gave Harvard new leverage in its battle toward a settlement to restore funding, in exchange for payments demanded by President Trump.
About a dozen other universities and major law firms have struck deals with the government in recent months — instead of taking cases to court — to unfreeze funding or avoid restrictive executive orders.
Mr. Trump has used the full force of the federal government — opening civil rights investigations, freezing federal funding and threatening to cancel government contracts — to push for these agreements. These deals have reverberated across the legal industry and academia, and they could shape how other institutions respond to Mr. Trump’s methods.
Most of the deals involve paying millions of dollars, either in cash or legal services, to the administration. But the deals also include other concessions, like commitments to redefine discrimination, acquiesce to more government oversight and assess ideology.
Below, we break down what these deals have in common.
1. Money or legal services
Much of the focus around these deals has been around the money that Mr. Trump has demanded from each entity, payable either to his administration, or to state or compensation funds.
Brown University | $50 million over 10 years |
Rhode Island work force development organizations |
Columbia University | $200 million over 3 years |
The U.S. Treasury |
$21 million | A compensation fund to resolve alleged civil rights violations against Jewish Columbia employees | |
Nine major law firms | Legal services worth: $940 million |
The Trump administration, for causes like assisting veterans and law enforcement, ensuring fairness in the justice system and combating antisemitism |
Paul Weiss | $40 million | |
Skadden | $100 million | |
Willkie | $100 million | |
Milbank | $100 million | |
Cadwalader | $100 million | |
Kirkland & Ellis | $125 million | |
Latham & Watkins | $125 million | |
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett | $125 million | |
A&O Shearman | $125 million |
The universities have taken varied approaches to their payments. Columbia agreed to pay a fine to the federal government. Brown’s payment will go to Rhode Island work force development programs, which the university’s president has said are aligned with their service and community engagement missions.
Critics have likened Mr. Trump’s methods of extracting money from these entities to extortion.
The law firms have faced internal backlash and external criticism for promising to pour resources into causes favored by the president. Shortly after the deals with them were signed, Mr. Trump publicly suggested that he might use their labor to achieve more of his own goals, including in the negotiations of trade deals or even representing him personally.
Other businesses, including Nvidia and Intel, have been drawn into making financial deals with the Trump administration in order to continue doing business or to sell their products to China. The specific details of most of those deals have not been made public.
2. Redefining discrimination
On his first day in office, Mr. Trump signed executive orders gutting racial equity policies and protections for transgender people. Those themes, along with addressing antisemitism and targeting international students, were evident in many of these agreements.
No “unlawful D.E.I. goals”: Columbia and Brown agreed to eliminate programs that aim to achieve diversity goals. (Both universities had already eliminated race-conscious affirmative action following a June 2023 Supreme Court decision outlawing it.) They promised to rely more on quantitative measures, instead of demographics, in their admissions practices.
Columbia University
“… shall maintain merit-based admissions policies. Columbia may not, by any means, unlawfully preference applicants based on race, color, or national origin in admissions throughout its programs. No proxy for racial admission will be implemented or maintained.”
Experts say relying on test scores and grades in admissions could result in wealthier, less diverse student populations at these elite institutions.
Law firms were similarly subject to these rules in their hiring practices.
Skadden | Cadwalader | Kirkland & Ellis | Latham & Watkins | A&O Shearman | Simpson Thacher & Bartlett | Milbank | Willkie
“… affirms its commitment to merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention. Accordingly, the Firm will not engage in illegal DEI discrimination and preferences.”
Transgender students: The University of Pennsylvania has been central in the debate around transgender athletes, specifically because of Lia Thomas, a transgender swimmer who graduated in 2022 and held several of Penn’s swimming records. The school’s deal with Mr. Trump revoked her records and limited how transgender students may participate in its athletic programs.
University of Pennsylvania
“… will not allow male students to compete in any athletic program restricted to women, ensuring that only female students are eligible to compete as a member of women’s athletics.”
In this way, the university bowed to the administration’s new interpretation of Title IX, a law that until recently protected transgender athletes from sex discrimination in education.
Penn and the other universities also agreed to additional rules around single-sex facilities and medical services for transgender students.
Columbia University
“… will uphold its commitment to Title IX … by providing safe and fair opportunities for women including single-sex housing for women who request such housing and all-female sports, locker rooms, and showering facilities …”
Brown University
“… will not perform gender reassignment surgery or prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to any minor child for the purpose of aligning the child’s appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex.”
According to Brown, the number of minors enrolled at the university is typically less than 10 percent of all first-year undergraduates; the campus does not have surgical facilities; and its doctors do not typically prescribe puberty blockers.
Fighting antisemitism: Columbia agreed to pay $21 million to a compensation fund to resolve alleged civil rights violations against its Jewish employees. It also agreed to a review of its regional studies programs, starting with the Middle East, to ensure that they are “comprehensive and balanced.” The agreement does not define how those terms will be applied.
The school will also appoint new faculty members who will have joint positions in both the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies and other departments, and add a student liaison to coordinate and advise on antisemitism issues.
Both Columbia’s and Brown’s agreements have provisions outlining support for Jewish life on campus.
Brown University
“… is committed to taking significant, proactive, effective steps to combat antisemitism and ensure a campus environment free from harassment and discrimination. These shall include actions to support a thriving Jewish community, research and education about Israel, and a robust Program in Judaic Studies, through outreach to Jewish Day School students to provide information about applying to Brown, resources for religiously observant Jewish community members, renewed partnerships with Israeli academics and national Jewish organizations, support for enhanced security at the Brown-RISD Hillel, and a convening of alumni, students, and faculty to celebrate 130 years of Jewish life at Brown in the 2025-2026 academic year.”
International students: Columbia’s agreement with the Trump administration outlines provisions on international students, including asking them their reasons for wanting to study in the United States and reducing the school’s reliance on international student enrollment. (Columbia has about 13,700 international students, about 38 percent of its total student body.)
Columbia University
“… will examine its business model and take steps to decrease financial dependence on international student enrollment. The reforms should be made durable by adoption of any necessary organizational and personnel changes.”
3. Government oversight
Through the deals with Columbia and Brown, the Trump administration also gained access to information about their applicants, including details on race, grades and test scores.
Columbia University | Brown University
“… shall provide … the United States with admissions data … showing both rejected and admitted students broken down by race, color, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests, in a form permitting appropriate statistical analyses by October 1 of each year …”
Both schools are also required to make anonymized information on enrolled students available to the public, including demographics and grade point averages of each class.
Columbia also agreed to pay for a monitor, approved by the school and the government, to ensure that both sides abide by their commitments. It must now also inform the Department of Homeland Security when an international student is arrested. (Universities were already required to inform Homeland Security when an international student was suspended or expelled.)
Brown agreed to hire an external organization to conduct a campus survey by the end of the year on the school’s climate for Jewish students.
Similarly, the law firms also agreed to hire outside counsel to ensure adherence.
Paul Weiss
“… will engage experts, to be mutually agreed upon within 14 days, to conduct a comprehensive audit of all of its employment practices …”
Willkie
“… will engage independent outside counsel to advise the Firm in confirming that employment practices are fully compliant with Law …”
4. Assessing ideology
Some of the law firms targeted by Mr. Trump were associated with lawyers who have previously investigated him, or who have worked closely with those who did. Other firms had prominent Democrats on staff, or employed people who frequently criticized the president.
To that end, in each of their agreements, the law firms agreed to work on a wider range of cases, regardless of the political affiliation of the lawyer or prospective client.
Paul Weiss
“… will take on a wide range of pro bono matters that represent the full spectrum of political viewpoints of our society, whether ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal.’”
Milbank
“… shall not deny representation to any clients on the basis of the political affiliation of the prospective client, or because of the opposition of any Government Official.”
Kirkland & Ellis | Latham & Watkins | A&O Shearman | Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
“… will not deny representation to clients … because of the personal political views of individual lawyers.”
In return for the concessions, Mr. Trump revoked his executive order against the law firm Paul Weiss that would have suspended its security clearances, restricted its access to federal buildings and threatened its contracts with the government. The eight other law firms struck deals pre-emptively to avoid being subject to similar executive orders.
For most of the universities, the administration restored hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding that it had previously frozen. It also closed pending investigations into the schools of antisemitism or alleged violations of civil rights. Both the presidents of Columbia and Brown have publicly stated that these deals preserve the schools’ academic freedom.
Brown University
Yes
Yes Yes
–
No
Columbia University
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
University of Pennsylvania
–
No
Yes
– No
–
No
Nine major law firms
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Concessions in deals with the Trump administration
What’s next
Like Harvard, four major law firms have fought back against the president instead of striking a deal. Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, and Jenner & Block all filed lawsuits, which resulted in federal judges temporarily blocking Mr. Trump’s executive orders targeting them. The administration has recently begun to appeal these rulings.
Several other law firms have been questioned by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on their hiring practices and potential discrimination against white candidates, raising concerns of threats from the White House.
The Trump administration has vowed to appeal the court’s ruling that its funding cuts against Harvard were illegal. It remains unclear whether the school will receive its money. Mr. Trump has also frozen federal funding to other universities, including Princeton, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern and the University of California, Los Angeles, setting the stage for potential negotiations. In August, the administration proposed that U.C.L.A. pay more than $1 billion to reach a settlement. This month, after a difficult tenure that included attacks from Republicans in Congress and funding cuts, the president of Northwestern resigned.
Several other schools are watching for funding cuts as they come under the scrutiny of the Department of Education and a government task force that says it is devoted to rooting out antisemitism.
Sources
This analysis is based on publicly available text pertaining to the agreements between the Trump administration and Brown University, Columbia University, University of Pennsylvania, A&O Shearman, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Cadwalader, Latham & Watkins, Kirkland & Ellis, Milbank, Willkie, Skadden and Paul Weiss.
-
Finance7 days ago
Reimagining Finance: Derek Kudsee on Coda’s AI-Powered Future
-
World6 days ago
Syria’s new president takes center stage at UNGA as concerns linger over terrorist past
-
North Dakota7 days ago
Board approves Brent Sanford as new ‘commissioner’ of North Dakota University System
-
Technology6 days ago
These earbuds include a tiny wired microphone you can hold
-
Culture6 days ago
Test Your Memory of These Classic Books for Young Readers
-
Crypto6 days ago
Texas brothers charged in cryptocurrency kidnapping, robbery in MN
-
Crypto7 days ago
EU Enforcers Arrest 5 Over €100M Cryptocurrency Scam – Law360
-
Rhode Island7 days ago
The Ocean State’s Bond With Robert Redford