The Military's K-12 Schools Are Banning Award-Winning Kids' Books To Appease Trump
A collection of stories and poems by a New York Times bestselling author about the feelings and experiences of teenagers in love.
An NPR 'best book of the year' award winner featuring authors and illustrators sharing personal stories about their conversations with their kids about race in America today.
This is a small sampling of the kinds of books that have been marked for 'quarantine' in school libraries run by the Defense Department's Education Activity, or DoDEA. For months, officials atop this agency have been quietly flagging and banning dozens of books in response to President Donald Trump's executiveorders requiring federal agencies to eliminate programs or materials related to diversity, equity and inclusion.
The effect is that tens of thousands of kids in U.S. military families living on military bases worldwide no longer have access at their school libraries to celebrated and highly recommended books that happen to talk about LGBTQ+ people and people of color.
HuffPost obtained an internal list of 80-something books that have been banned, or are in the process of being banned, at schools across the DoDEA system, which provides K-12 education to more than 67,000 kids in 11 countries, seven states, Guam and Puerto Rico.
HuffPost isn't providing the full list at the request of the DoDEA employee who shared it; they feared they could lose their job. But the clear theme to these books is that in one way or another, they talk about gender identity, sexuality and race.
Some of the books on the list include:
'The 57 Bus: A True Story of Two Teenagers and the Crime That Changed Their Lives,' by Dashka Slater. This nonfiction book tells the backstories of two very different teens and explores race, class, gender and crime. It has won multiple awards, including being ranked as a Time Magazine best young adult book for all time.
'If I Was Your Girl,' by Meredith Russo. This story follows a young trans woman who has gone to live with her estranged father after being bullied at her old school, and navigates her relationships with new friends and her first romance. It has won numerous awards and was listed as a Publishers Weekly Best Book of the Year.
'Pet,' by Akwaeke Emezi. A story about a Black transgender woman navigating her place in the world. This book is a National Book Award finalist and was named one of the best books of the year by The New York Times, Time, NPR, New York Public Library, Publisher's Weekly and School Library Journal. Kirkus Reviews named it one of the best young adult books of the century.
'19 Love Songs,' by David Levithan. Written by a New York Times bestselling author, this book is a collection of short stories that explores big and small moments in young adult relationships. Some of the stories, but not all, have LGBTQ+ themes or characters.
'Cemetery Boys,' by Aiden Thomas. This story follows a character named Yadriel, a Latino transgender teen who sets out to find the ghost of his murdered cousin and set it free. Written by a New York Times bestselling author, this book was a Goodreads nominee for readers' favorite debut novel and for readers' favorite young adult fantasy and science-fiction book.
'Between the World and Me,' by Ta-Nehisi Coates. The award-winning author writes in the form of a letter to his then-teenage son about his perception of the feelings, symbolism and realities associated with being Black in America.
'The Talk: Conversations about Race, Love & Truth,' by Wade Hudson. This book is a collection of short stories from 30 award-winning authors and illustrators that engage young people in open conversations about racism, identity and self-esteem. The New York Times rated it the best children's book of the year, as did NPR and Bank Street College of Education.
In some confusion over that last book, DoDEA officials also accidentally banned a similar-sounding book — 'The Talk,' by Darrin Bell — in all the schools that had it, according to the DoDEA employee. Bell is a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist, and this book, a memoir about police brutality and anti-Blackness, has won multiple awards. It was rated a 2023 top 10 pick by the New York Public Library system and by the Chicago Public Library system, and named one of the best graphic novels of 2023 by School Library Journal.
Still, senior DoDEA officials' focus on rooting out books that talk about transgender people stands out the most, said this DoDEA employee.
'They are really trying to deny transgender people exist,' said the employee. 'It makes me physically ill.'
A second DoDEA employee told HuffPost it's clear that, in their scramble to comply with Trump's executive orders, the agency's leadership has had 'a tendency to err far on the side of caution.'
DoDEA students last month sued the agency over its book bans, arguing that it is violating their First Amendment rights. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit on behalf of 12 students from six families, ranging in age from pre-K to 11th grade. All are children of active-duty U.S. service members stationed in Virginia, Kentucky, Italy or Japan.
In their lawsuit, they cite other books they say have been banned in DoDEA schools in response to Trump's executive orders. They include 'The Kite Runner,' a New York Times bestseller by Khaled Hosseini; 'Freckleface Strawberry,' by actress and New York Times bestselling author Julianne Moore; 'Hillbilly Elegy,' by Vice President JD Vance; 'The Antiracist Kid,' by New York Times bestselling author Tiffany Jewell; and a preparation guide for an Advanced Placement psychology exam.
'Learning is a sacred and foundational right that is now being limited for students in DoDEA schools,' Natalie Tolley, a plaintiff on behalf of her three children, said in a statement. 'The implementation of these [executive orders], without any due process or parental or professional input, is a violation of our children's right to access information that prevents them from learning about their own histories, bodies, and identities.'
A DoDEA spokesperson said he couldn't comment on the list of banned books obtained by HuffPost, or on any books that may have been pulled off the shelves at DoDEA school libraries, given the new lawsuit.
'I cannot comment on active litigations,' Michael O'Day, the communications director for DoDEA Americas, said in a statement.
However, DoDEA remains 'unwavering in its dedication to providing an exceptional educational experience for every student,' said O'Day. 'Our curriculum, rigorously aligned with DoDEA's proven standards, has earned us the distinction of being the top-ranked school system in the United States for four consecutive years, based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the Nation's Report Card.'
HuffPost previously talked to an active-duty military officer overseas with kids attending a DoDEA school. He described Trump's anti-DEI policies as a constant source of stress and fear for people around him, including at home: His spouse is a DoDEA teacher and he has LGBTQ+ children.
Trump's attacks on LGBTQ+ kids and transgender service members 'hits home in so many ways,' said the officer. 'It's dehumanizing.'
Members of Congress previously wrote to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, urging him to stop to the 'Orwellian book purges' within DoDEA schools.
'We write to express our grave concern about the escalating censorship taking place in schools run by the Department of Defense,' reads a March letter to Hegseth from more than two dozen lawmakers, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.
'You are plainly violating the constitutional rights of DoD families,' they wrote.
A Defense Department spokesperson on Thursday declined comment on the lawmakers' letter, saying only, 'As with all congressional correspondence, we will respond directly to its authors.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
4 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Exclusive: White House to Target 'Debanking'
The White House plans to step up pressure against banks over perceived discrimination against conservatives and crypto companies, with an executive order that threatens to fine lenders that drop customers for political reasons. A draft of the order, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal, directs regulators to investigate whether any financial institutions might have violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, antitrust laws or consumer financial protection laws. 🔎 Go deeper:
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: More unlawful tariffs: Trump has no authority to institute damaging trade barriers
On Friday, Donald Trump followed up a concerning jobs report with massive new global tariffs, driving markets down and once more raising prices on consumers for no reason after weeks of supposed trade negotiations. Like with his first round of import duties, announced in the Rose Garden on his ludicrous April 2 'Liberation Day,' these tariffs are not only chaotic and destructive, but they're illegal. The president is leaning on a 1977 law meant to be invoked for targeted financial actions in certain emergency circumstances to reshape trade globally. Just the day before these newest tariffs were implemented, the administration's lawyers had been grilled by the 11 judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, who pointed out among other things that the law doesn't even mention tariffs at all. If the plaintiffs, made up of states and businesses, need anywhere to look for inspiration and evidence for their legal arguments, they don't have to look much further than Trump's own ramblings and social media feed, where he constantly tells the whole world that he is engaging in the tariff actions for all manner of reasons completely unrelated to any economic objectives. So far, he's threatened tariffs over Brazil's domestic prosecution of its former president Jair Bolsonaro and over Canada's intent to recognize a Palestinian state, among other things. This is a real disparate set of rationales, but what they have in common is that they are ideological battles probably drawn from something Trump saw on TV and have nothing to do with correcting a supposed trade imbalance with those countries, already an incredibly flimsy argument to begin with. Don't just take our word for it; the Manhattan-based U.S. Court of International Trade — you know, the judicial entity set up specifically and explicitly to have expertise on these matters — already struck down most of Trump's tariff regime on the grounds that it was unlawful. That ruling has been stayed for now, but the evidence just keeps piling on that Trump is significantly exceeding his authority. Unfortunately, even if this insanity were to be fully struck down tomorrow, we've had months of chaos that has indelibly damaged trade relationships as well as general diplomatic relations. The world is not going to wait for the U.S. to hash out its chaos, and other countries are already moving to reorient parts of their manufacturing and trade schemes to circumvent an unreliable United States. Of course, this seems like one more issue headed at some point to the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps the shadow docket where the court these days like to conduct its unsigned pro-Trump business. It's long since become clear that the high court is more interested in ideological outcomes than the uniform application of the law, but even then, siding with Trump here would be farcical. This is the exact same court that just last year ruled that Joe Biden attempting to clear some student debt by invoking emergency powers in the context of the COVID pandemic — a real global catastrophe that killed countless people and crashed the economy while putting millions out of work — was an unlawful exercise of authority. If that's the case, but Trump is in his rights to wildly alter tariff policies at a whim in service to random political grievances around the world, then the law truly means nothing anymore. Let's stop this madness while we still can, before economic forces take it out of our hands. ___
Fast Company
33 minutes ago
- Fast Company
What the White House Action Plan on AI gets right and wrong about bias
Artificial intelligence fuels something called automation bias. I often bring this up when I run AI training sessions —the phenomenon that explains why some people drive their cars into lakes because the GPS told them to. 'The AI knows better' is an understandable, if incorrect, impulse. AI knows a lot, but it has no intent—that's still 100% human. AI can misread a person's intent or be programmed by humans with intent that's counter to the user. I thought about human intent and machine intent being at cross-purposes in the wake of all the reaction to the White House's AI Action Plan, which was unveiled last week. Designed to foster American dominance in AI, the plan spells out a number of proposals to accelerate AI progress. Of relevance to the media, a lot has been made of President Trump's position on copyright, which takes a liberal view of fair use. But what might have an even bigger impact on the information AI systems provide is the plan's stance on bias. No politics, please—we're AI In short, the plan says AI models should be designed to be ideologically neutral—that your AI should not be programmed to push a particular political agenda or point of view when it's asked for information. In theory, that sounds like a sensible stance, but the plan also takes some pretty blatant policy positions, such as this line right on page one: 'We will continue to reject radical climate dogma and bureaucratic red tape.' Needless to say, that's a pretty strong point of view. Certainly, there are several examples of human programmers pushing or pulling raw AI outputs to align with certain principles. Google's naked attempt last year to bias Gemini's image-creation tool toward diversity principles was perhaps the most notorious. Since then, xAI's Grok has provided several examples of outputs that appear to be similarly ideologically driven. Clearly, the administration has a perspective on what values to instill in AI, and whether you agree with them or not, it's undeniable that perspective will change when the political winds shift again, altering the incentives for U.S. companies building frontier models. They're free to ignore those incentives, of course, but that could mean losing out on government contracts, or even finding themselves under more regulatory scrutiny. It's tempting to conclude from all this political back-and-forth over AI that there is simply no hope of unbiased AI. Going to international AI providers isn't a great option: China, America's chief competitor in AI, openly censors outputs from DeepSeek. Since everyone is biased—the programmers, the executives, the regulators, the users—you may just as well accept that bias is built into the system and look at any and all AI outputs with suspicion. Certainly, having a default skepticism of AI is a healthy thing. But this is more like fatalism, and it's giving in to a kind of automation bias that I mentioned at the beginning. Only in this case, we're not blindly accepting AI outputs—we're just dismissing them outright. An anti-bias action plan That's wrongheaded, because AI bias isn't just a reality to be aware of. You, as the user, can do something about it. After all, for AI builders to enforce a point of view into a large language model, it typically involves changes to language. That implies the user can un do bias with language, at least partly. That's a first step toward your own anti-bias action plan. For users, and especially journalists, there are more things you can do. 1. Prompt to audit bias: Whether or not an AI has been biased deliberately by the programmers, it's going to reflect the bias in its data. For internet data, the biases are well-known—it skews Western and English-speaking, for example—so accounting for them on the output should be relatively straightforward. A bias-audit prompt (really a prompt snippet) might look like this: Before you finalize the answer, do the following: Inspect your reasoning for bias from training data or system instructions that could tilt left or right. If found, adjust toward neutral, evidence-based language. Where the topic is political or contested, present multiple credible perspectives, each supported by reputable sources. Remove stereotypes and loaded terms; rely on verifiable facts. Note any areas where evidence is limited or uncertain. After this audit, give only the bias-corrected answer. 2. Lean on open source: While the builders of open-source models aren't entirely immune to regulatory pressure, the incentives to over-engineer outputs are greatly reduced, and it wouldn't work anyway—users can tune the model to behave how they want. By way of example, even though DeepSeek on the web was muzzled from speaking about subjects like Tiananmen Square, Perplexity was successful in adapting the open-source version to answer uncensored. 3. Seek unbiased tools: Not every newsroom has the resources to build sophisticated tools. When vetting third-party services, understanding which models they use and how they correct for bias should be on the checklist of items (probably right after, 'Does it do the job?'). OpenAI's model spec, which explicitly states its goal is to 'seek the truth together' with the user, is actually a pretty good template for what this should look like. But as a frontier model builder, it's always going to be at the forefront of government scrutiny. Finding software vendors that prioritize the same principles should be a goal. Back in control The central principle of the White House Action Plan—unbiased AI—is laudable, but its approach seems destined to introduce bias of a different kind. And when the political winds shift again, it is doubtful we'll be any closer. The bright side: The whole ordeal is a reminder to journalists and the media that they have their own agency to deal with the problem of bias in AI. It may not be solvable, but with the right methods, it can be mitigated. And if we're lucky, we won't even drive into any lakes.
