Last Updated on May 11, 2025 by Bertrand Clarke
In a move that has ignited widespread discussion across military and civilian spheres, the Pentagon has issued a directive ordering military educational institutions to review and potentially remove library books addressing diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI), anti-racism, and gender-related topics. Announced on May 10, 2025, the directive, spearheaded by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, aims to refocus military education on what the Department of Defense (DoD) describes as its “core mission.” The decision, coupled with a separate memo emphasizing merit-based admissions, signals a significant shift in the Pentagon’s approach to shaping the intellectual environment of future military leaders. While supporters argue it streamlines training to prioritize operational readiness, critics warn it risks stifling critical thinking and alienating diverse talent in an already strained recruitment landscape.
A Directive Rooted in Mission Focus
The Pentagon’s six-page memo, signed by Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Timothy Dill, instructs military academies, including the U.S. Naval Academy, West Point, and War Colleges, to identify and sequester library materials by May 21, 2025. The directive targets books associated with 20 Library of Congress subject headings, such as “affirmative action,” “critical race theory,” “gender identity,” “transgender people,” and “white privilege.” According to Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell, the goal is to ensure that instructional materials remain “mission-focused” and avoid promoting what the DoD labels as “divisive concepts and gender ideology.” A temporary Academic Libraries Committee will oversee the review process, with experts in education slated to make final decisions on which books to remove by June 2025.
This initiative follows a prior order that led to the removal of nearly 400 books from the U.S. Naval Academy’s library, including Maya Angelou’s I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and Etaf Rum’s novels exploring race and identity. Other titles flagged include Half American, which chronicles African American contributions to World War II, and Pursuing Trayvon Martin, an analysis of the 2012 shooting that sparked national debates on racial profiling. The DoD argues that such materials, while valuable in other contexts, distract from the military’s primary objective of preparing leaders for combat and national defense.
Hegseth, a former Fox News host who assumed the role of Defense Secretary in January 2025, has been vocal about his intent to eliminate DEI initiatives within the Pentagon. In a February address to DoD staff, he criticized past celebrations of diversity, famously calling the phrase “our diversity is our strength” the “single dumbest phrase in military history.” His stance aligns with broader efforts by the Trump administration to roll back DEI programs across federal agencies, including the termination of Black History Month commemorations and other identity-based initiatives.
A Parallel Push for Merit-Based Admissions
Alongside the book review directive, the Pentagon issued a separate memo to military training academies, mandating that admissions processes focus “exclusively on merit” and disregard race, ethnicity, or sex. The memo, also dated May 10, 2025, allows exceptions for candidates with “unique athletic talent,” a clause that has raised eyebrows among observers. Critics argue that this provision could disproportionately benefit certain groups, potentially undermining the merit-based principle it claims to uphold.
The admissions policy shift comes at a time when military academies are under scrutiny for their diversity metrics. According to a 2024 DoD report, Black and Hispanic cadets make up approximately 12% and 15% of West Point’s student body, respectively, compared to 40% and 18% of the broader U.S. population. Women constitute about 25% of cadets, despite comprising 51% of the national demographic. Proponents of the new policy argue that merit-based admissions will level the playing field, while detractors warn it could exacerbate underrepresentation, particularly as the military struggles to meet recruitment goals.
The Broader Context: Recruitment and Retention Challenges
The Pentagon’s directives arrive against a backdrop of significant recruitment challenges. In 2024, the U.S. Army missed its recruitment goal by 15,000 soldiers, while the Navy and Air Force reported shortfalls of 10,000 and 8,000 personnel, respectively. A 2025 Gallup poll revealed that only 60% of Americans aged 18–24 view military service favorably, down from 75% a decade ago. Factors such as a strong economy, declining trust in institutions, and cultural shifts have been cited as contributors to the decline.
Critics of the book review policy argue that removing DEI-related materials could further alienate potential recruits from underrepresented groups. “The military is already struggling to attract diverse talent,” said Dr. Aisha Thompson, a military sociologist at Georgetown University. “Signaling that discussions of race, gender, or inclusion are unwelcome risks pushing away the very demographics the DoD needs to bolster its ranks.” Thompson points to studies showing that inclusive environments improve unit cohesion and operational effectiveness, countering claims that DEI initiatives are divisive.
Supporters, however, contend that the focus on mission-critical education will enhance readiness. “Our adversaries aren’t reading books on gender ideology,” said retired Colonel James Carver, a vocal advocate for the policy. “They’re training for war. The Pentagon is right to prioritize skills over social debates.” Carver argues that the military’s primary role is to defend the nation, not to serve as a forum for ideological exploration.
Public and Political Reactions
The directive has sparked polarized reactions. On X, posts from May 10, 2025, reflect a mix of support and outrage. Users like @HexdlineNews and @kylegriffin1 reported the Pentagon’s actions neutrally, while @realTuckFrumper condemned the move as an attack on intellectual freedom. Conservative commentators have praised Hegseth’s leadership, with some calling the book review a “long-overdue correction” to what they see as ideological overreach. Progressive groups, including the NAACP and Human Rights Campaign, have decried the policy as a step toward erasing marginalized voices from military education.
Civil rights advocates argue that DEI programs address systemic inequities that persist in the military. A 2023 DoD survey found that 20% of active-duty personnel reported experiencing discrimination based on race or gender, with higher rates among women and minorities. “These books provide context for understanding those challenges,” said Maria Gonzales, a retired Navy captain and advocate for diversity in the armed forces. “Removing them doesn’t make the issues disappear—it just silences the conversation.”
Global and Historical Perspectives
The Pentagon’s actions resonate beyond U.S. borders, particularly as global tensions escalate. On May 10, 2025, India and Pakistan announced a fragile ceasefire after exchanging missile strikes, while Russia and Ukraine continued fighting despite a Moscow-proposed truce. In this context, some analysts argue that a laser focus on military readiness is prudent. Others, however, draw parallels to historical efforts to control intellectual discourse, such as book bans during the McCarthy era or Nazi Germany’s censorship of “degenerate” literature. “Censoring ideas, even in the name of focus, sets a dangerous precedent,” said historian Dr. Emily Chen, who studies military education.
What Lies Ahead
As the May 21 deadline approaches, military academies are scrambling to comply with the directive. The Academic Libraries Committee’s decisions will likely face legal and public scrutiny, particularly if iconic works like Angelou’s memoir remain targeted. Meanwhile, the merit-based admissions policy could prompt lawsuits from advocacy groups alleging discrimination.
The Pentagon’s moves reflect a broader cultural and political battle over the role of diversity and inclusion in institutions. Whether these changes strengthen or undermine the military’s effectiveness remains to be seen. For now, the debate underscores a fundamental question: Can the armed forces prepare for future conflicts while navigating the complex social dynamics of the present?
