Latest news with #NavalWarCollege
Atlantic
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Atlantic
A Military Ethics Professor Resigns in Protest
Seven years ago, Pauline Shanks Kaurin left a good job as a tenured professor at a university, uprooted her family, and moved across the country to teach military ethics at the Naval War College, in Newport, Rhode Island. She did so, she told me, not only to help educate American military officers, but with a promise from the institution that she would have 'the academic freedom to do my job.' But now she's leaving her position and the institution because orders from President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, she said, have made staying both morally and practically untenable. Remaining on the faculty, she believes, would mean implicitly lending her approval to policies she cannot support. And she said that the kind of teaching and research the Navy once hired her to do will now be impossible. The Naval War College is one of many institutions—along with the Army War College, the Air War College, and others—that provide graduate-level instruction in national-security issues and award master's degrees to the men and women of the U.S. armed forces. The Naval War College is also home to a widely respected civilian academic post, the James B. Stockdale Chair in Professional Military Ethics, named for the famous admiral and American prisoner of war in Vietnam. Pauline has held the Stockdale Chair since 2018. (I taught for many years at the Naval War College, where I knew Pauline as a colleague.) Her last day will be at the end of this month. In January, Trump issued an executive order, Restoring America's Fighting Force, that prohibits the Department of Defense and the entire armed forces from 'promoting, advancing, or otherwise inculcating the following un-American, divisive, discriminatory, radical, extremist, and irrational theories,' such as 'gender ideology,' 'race or sex stereotyping,' and, of course, anything to do with DEI. Given the potential breadth of the order, the military quickly engaged in a panicky slash-and-burn approach rather than risk running afoul of the new ideological line. The U.S. Military Academy at West Point, in New York, for example, disbanded several clubs, including the local chapter of the National Society of Black Engineers. Other military installations, apparently anticipating a wider crackdown on anything to do with race or gender, removed important pages of American history about women and minorities from their websites. All of this was done by bureaucrats and administrators as they tried to comply with Trump's vague order, banning and erasing anything that the president and Hegseth might construe as even remotely related to DEI or other banned concepts. Some Defense Department workers 'deemed to be affiliated with DEI programs or activities' were warned that Trump's orders 'required' their jobs to be eliminated. Many professors at military institutions began to see signs that they might soon be prohibited from researching and publishing in their fields of study. Phillip Atiba Solomon: Am I still allowed to tell the truth in my class? At first, Pauline was cautious. She knew that her work in the field of military ethics could be controversial—particularly on the issues of oaths and obedience. In the military, where discipline and the chain of command rule daily life, investigating the meaning of oath-taking and obedience is a necessary but touchy exercise. The military is sworn to obey all legal orders in the chain of command, but when that obedience becomes absolute, the results can be ghastly: Pauline wrote her doctoral dissertation at Temple University on oaths, obedience, and the 1969 My Lai massacre in Vietnam, in which a young U.S. officer and his men believed that their orders allowed them to slay hundreds of unarmed civilians. For more than 20 years, she taught these matters in the philosophy department at Pacific Lutheran University, and once at Newport, she wrote a book on the contrasting notions of obedience in military and civilian life. When the Trump order came down, Pauline told me that Naval War College administrators gave her 'vague assurances' that the college would not interfere with ongoing work by her or other faculty, or with academic freedom in general. But one day, shortly after the executive order in January, she was walking through the main lobby, which proudly features display cases with books by the faculty, and she noticed that a volume on LGBTQ issues in the military had vanished. The disappearance of that book led Pauline to seek more clarity from the college's administration about nonpartisanship, and especially about academic freedom. Academic freedom is an often-misunderstood term. Many people outside academia encounter the idea only when some professor abuses the concept as a license to be an offensive jerk. (A famous case many years ago involved a Colorado professor who compared the victims of 9/11 to Nazis who deserved what they got.) Like tenure, however, academic freedom serves crucial educational purposes, protecting controversial research and encouraging the free exchange of even the most unpopular ideas without fear of political pressure or interference. It is essential to any serious educational institution, and necessary to a healthy democracy. Conor Friedersdorf: In defense of academic freedom Professors who teach for the military, as I did for many years, do have to abide by some restrictions not found in civilian schools. They have a duty, as sworn federal employees, to protect classified information. They may not use academic freedom to disrupt government operations. (Leading a protest that would prevent other government workers from getting to their duty stations might be one example.) And, of course, they must refrain from violating the Hatch Act: They cannot use government time or resources to engage in partisan political activity. But they otherwise have—or are supposed to have—the same freedoms as their colleagues in civilian institutions. Soon, however, jumpy military bureaucrats started tossing books and backing out of conferences. Pauline became more concerned. Newport's senior administrators began to send informal signals that included, as she put it, the warning that 'academic freedom as many of us understood it was not a thing anymore.' Based on those messages, Pauline came to believe that her and other faculty members' freedom to comment publicly on national issues and choose research topics without institutional interference was soon to be restricted. During an all-hands meeting with senior college leaders in February, Pauline said that she and other Naval War College faculty were told that the college would comply with Hegseth's directives and that, in Pauline's words, 'if we were thinking we had academic freedom in our scholarship and in the classroom, we were mistaken.' (Other faculty present at the meeting confirmed to me that they interpreted the message from the college's leadership the same way; one of them later told me that the implication was that the Defense Department could now rule any subject out of bounds for classroom discussion or scholarly research at will.) Pauline said there were audible gasps in the room, and such visible anger that it seemed to her that even the administrators hosting the meeting were taken aback. 'I've been in academia for 31 years,' she told me, and that gathering 'was the most horrifying meeting I've ever been a part of.' I contacted the college's provost, Stephen Mariano, who told me in an email that these issues were 'nuanced' but that the college had not changed its policies on academic freedom. (He also denied any changes relating to tenure, a practice predicated on academic freedom.) At the same time, he added, the college is 'complying with all directives issued by the President and Department of Defense and following Department of the Navy policy.' This language leaves Pauline and other civilian faculty at America's military schools facing a paradox: They are told that academic freedom still exists, but that their institutions are following directives from Hegseth that, at least on their face, seem aimed at ending academic freedom. In March, Pauline again sought clarity from college leaders. They were clearly anxious to appear compliant with the new political line. ('We don't want to end up on Fox News,' she said one administrator told her.) She was told her work was valued, but she didn't believe it. 'Talk is cheap,' she said. 'Actions matter.' She said she asked the provost point-blank: What if a faculty member has a book or an article coming out on some controversial topic? His answer, according to her: Hypothetically, they might consider pulling the work from publication. (Mariano denies saying this and told me that there is no change in college policy on faculty publication.) Every government employee knows the bureaucratic importance of putting things on paper. Pauline's current project is about the concept of honor, which necessarily involves questions regarding masculinity and gender—issues that could turn the DOD's new McCarthyites toward her and her work. So she now proposed that she and the college administration work up a new contract, laying out more clearly—in writing—what the limits on her work and academic freedom would look like. She might as well have asked for a pony. Administrators, she said, told her that they hoped she wouldn't resign, but that no one was going to put anything in writing. 'The upshot,' according to her, was a message from the administration that boiled down to: We hope you can just suck it up and not need your integrity for your final year as the ethics chair. After that, she told me, her choices were clear. 'As they say in the military: Salute and execute—or resign.' Until then, she had 'hoped maybe people would still come to their senses.' The promises of seven years ago were gone; the institution now apparently expected her and other faculty to self-censor in the classroom and preemptively bowdlerize their own research. 'I don't do DEI work,' she said, 'but I do moral philosophy, and now I can't do it. I'd have to take out discussions of race and gender and not do philosophy as I think it should be done.' In April, she submitted a formal letter of resignation. Initially, she had no interest in saying anything publicly. Pauline is a native Montanan and single mom of two, and by nature not the type of person to engage in public food fights. (She used to joke with me when we were colleagues that I was the college's resident lightning rod, and she had no interest in taking over that job.) She's a philosopher who admires quiet stoicism, and she was resolved to employ it in her final months. But she also thought about what she owed her chair's namesake. 'Stockdale thought philosophy was important for officers. The Stockdale course was created so that officers would wrestle with moral obligations. He was a personal model of integrity.' Even so, she did not try to invoke him as a patron saint when she decided to resign. 'I'm not saying he would agree with the choice that I made,' she told me. 'But his model of moral integrity is part of the chair.' She kept her resignation private until early May, when a professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Graham Parsons—another scholar who teaches ethics in a military school, and a friend of Pauline's—likewise decided to resign in protest and said that he would leave West Point after 13 years. Hegseth's changes 'prevent me from doing my job responsibly,' he wrote in The New York Times. 'I am ashamed to be associated with the academy in its current form.' Hegseth responded on X, sounding more like a smug internet troll than a concerned superior: 'You will not be missed Professor Parsons.' The episode changed Pauline's mind. She felt she owed her friends and colleagues whatever public support and solidarity she could offer them. Nor are she and Parsons alone. Tom McCarthy, a professor at the U.S. Naval Academy, in Annapolis, Maryland, recently resigned as chair of the history department rather than remove a paper from an upcoming symposium. And last month, a senior scholar at the Army War College, in Pennsylvania, Carrie Lee, also handed in her resignation, a decision she announced to her friends and followers on Bluesky. Jason Dempsey: Hegseth has all the wrong enemies Lee told me in an email that she'd been thinking of leaving after Trump was elected, because it was apparent to her that the Trump administration was 'going to try and politicize the military and use military assets/personnel to suppress democratic rights,' and that academic freedom in military schools was soon to 'become untenable.' Like Pauline, Lee felt like she was at a dead end: 'To speak from within the institution itself will also do more harm than good. So to dissent, I have little choice but to leave,' she said in a farewell letter to her colleagues in April. I asked Pauline what she thinks might have happened if she had decided to stay and just tough it out from the inside. She 'absolutely' thinks she'd have been fired at some point, and she didn't want such a firing 'to be part of the legacy of the Stockdale Chair.' But then I asked her if by resigning, she was giving people in the Trump administration, such as Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought—who once said that his goal was to make federal workers feel 'trauma' to the point where they will quit their jobs—exactly what they want: Americans leaving federal service. She didn't care. 'When you make a moral decision, there are always costs.' She dismissed what people like Vought want or think. 'I'm not accountable to him. I'm accountable to the Lord, to my father, to my legacy, to my children, to my profession, to members of the military-ethics community. So I decided that I needed to resign. Not that it would change anyone's mind, but to say: This is not okay. That is my message.' At the end of our discussion, I asked an uncomfortable question I'd been avoiding. Pauline, I know, is only in her mid-50s, in mid-career, and too young simply to retire. She has raised two sons who will soon enter young adulthood. I asked her if she was worried about her future. 'Sure,' she said. 'But at the end of the day, as we say in Montana, sometimes you just have to saddle up and ride scared.'
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump axes senior U.S. military official at NATO
President Trump has fired a top U.S. military officer at NATO headquarters in Brussels, drawing ire from Democrat lawmakers. Trump relieved of duty without explanation Navy Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield, the U.S. representative to NATO's military committee. A combat veteran, helicopter pilot and the first female president of the Naval War College, she had been serving in the alliance role since December 2023. Chatfield's firing, first reported by Reuters, was quickly criticized by Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Mark Warner, who posted to social media that he was 'deeply disturbed' by the act. 'Trump's relentless attacks on our alliances and his careless dismissal of decorated military officials make us less safe and weaken our position across the world,' Warner wrote on X. Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed (D-R.I), said Trump's dismissal of Chatfield is 'unjustified' and 'disgraceful.' Chatfield's '38-year career as a Navy pilot, foreign policy expert, and preeminent military educator—including as President of the Naval War College—will leave a lasting legacy on the Navy and throughout the military,' he said in a statement. 'Admiral Chatfield's record of selfless service is unblemished by President Trump's behavior.' Reed also called on his Republican colleagues to demand an explanation for the firing, calling it 'deeply troubling' considering Trump has fired 10 senior defense officials without explanation in the past three months. 'I cannot fathom how anyone could stand silently by while the President causes great harm to our military and our nation,' Reed writes. Chatfield's ouster further calls into question the United States' future role in NATO, the transnational military organization founded in 1949. Trump has expressed skepticism about the alliance for some time and has often called on allies to invest more in defense spending. The Trump's administration's ire at its European allies was on full display in the leak of a Signal chat – revealed last month when the journalist accidentally invited to the unsecured messaging app group of senior officials posted the texts – with Vice President Vance said he hated 'bailing Europe out again.' Vance had been discussing the administration's plans to bomb Houthi rebels in Yemen. Chatfield also has been a target for conservatives, with critics labeling her as 'woke' for comments she made in 2019 when taking on the role as president of the Naval War College. 'I want to see members of this team offer each other respect for differences, for diversity, for the dialogue from which ideas and collaboration emerge,' she said at the time. Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have sought to purge the military of all diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, claiming it distracts from the Pentagon's warfighting mission. Chatfield is at least the 10th high level defense official pushed out by Trump since he took office in January. The commander-in-chief suddenly terminated Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. C.Q. Brown Jr. along with Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the first female in that role, as well as Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James Slife, Hegseth's senior military assistant Air Force Lt. Gen. Jennifer Short and the judge advocate generals for the Army, Navy and Air Force. And last week, Trump terminated the head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command, Gen. Timothy Haugh. All firings were handed down with no explanation given. Chatfield's removal comes as NATO's defense ministers are set to gather in Brussels at the end of this week for a series of meetings to coordinate military support for Ukraine and strengthen Europe's defenses. Hegseth reportedly will not attend the gathering — the first time the group of more than 50 country representatives will meet without the Pentagon chief also participating. There are also concerns over whether Trump could give up the U.S.'s leadership role within the alliance. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
USA Today
08-04-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Trump administration fires admiral in ongoing purge of senior military officers
Trump administration fires admiral in ongoing purge of senior military officers Show Caption Hide Caption Trump fires top military leaders President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth announced they are replacing several top military officials linked to the Biden administration. WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has fired Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield, the U.S. military's representative to NATO, the latest in an ongoing purge of senior officers. The Pentagon had no comment on the dismissal of Chatfield, the former president of the Naval War College and a Navy pilot. Last Thursday, the Trump administration fired the director of the National Security Agency, Air Force Gen. Timothy Haugh. Defense secretary Pete Hegseth, who has derided diversity efforts for weakening the military, also has fired a series of senior officers including the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. CQ Brown. Brown, who is Black, had been outspoken about his career challenges and the need for racial reconciliation after the police murder of George Floyd in 2020. Like Chatfield's firing, Brown's dismissal and others came without explanation from the Pentagon. Sen. Jack Reed, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee from Rhode Island, called Chatfield's firing 'disgraceful' and castigated his Republican colleagues for their complicity. 'The silence from my Republican colleagues is deeply troubling,' Reed said in a statement. 'In less than three months, President Trump has fired 10 generals and admirals without explanation, including our most experienced combat leaders. I cannot fathom how anyone could stand silently by while the President causes great harm to our military and our nation." The Senate confirmed Chatfield to the NATO post in a unanimous vote in December 2023. Reuters first reported her firing. The Trump administration has also fired two other women admirals, the commandant of the Coast Guard, Linda Fagan, and the Chief of Naval Operations, Lisa Franchetti. In a Jan. 29 memo, Hegseth directed a task force to identify and eliminate Biden-era diversity programs in the military. At a Pentagon town hall earlier this year, Hegseth told a civilian and military audience that diversity efforts divided the military rather than uniting it. 'I think the single dumbest phrase in military history is our diversity is our strength,' Hegseth said. 'I think our strength is our unity. I think our strength is our shared history.' About 32% of the Pentagon's 1.2 million troops on active duty identify with a racial minority group. More than 17% are women.
The Hill
08-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump axes senior U.S. military official at NATO
President Trump has fired a top U.S. military officer at NATO headquarters in Brussels, drawing ire from Democrat lawmakers. Trump relieved of duty without explanation Navy Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield, the U.S. representative to NATO's military committee. A combat veteran, helicopter pilot and the first female president of the Naval War College, she had been serving in the alliance role since December 2023. Chatfield's firing, first reported by Reuters, was quickly criticized by Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Mark Warner, who posted to social media that he was 'deeply disturbed' by the act. 'Trump's relentless attacks on our alliances and his careless dismissal of decorated military officials make us less safe and weaken our position across the world,' Warner wrote on X. Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed (D-R.I), said Trump's dismissal of Chatfield is 'unjustified' and 'disgraceful.' Chatfield's '38-year career as a Navy pilot, foreign policy expert, and preeminent military educator—including as President of the Naval War College—will leave a lasting legacy on the Navy and throughout the military,' he said in a statement. 'Admiral Chatfield's record of selfless service is unblemished by President Trump's behavior.' Reed also called on his Republican colleagues to demand an explanation for the firing, calling it 'deeply troubling' considering Trump has fired 10 senior defense officials without explanation in the past three months. 'I cannot fathom how anyone could stand silently by while the President causes great harm to our military and our nation,' Reed writes. Chatfield's ouster further calls into question the United States' future role in NATO, the transnational military organization founded in 1949. Trump has expressed skepticism about the alliance for some time and has often called on allies to invest more in defense spending. The Trump's administration's ire at its European allies was on full display in the leak of a Signal chat – revealed last month when the journalist accidentally invited to the unsecured messaging app group of senior officials posted the texts – with Vice President Vance said he hated 'bailing Europe out again.' Vance had been discussing the administration's plans to bomb Houthi rebels in Yemen. Chatfield also has been a target for conservatives, with critics labeling her as 'woke' for comments she made in 2019 when taking on the role as president of the Naval War College. 'I want to see members of this team offer each other respect for differences, for diversity, for the dialogue from which ideas and collaboration emerge,' she said at the time. Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have sought to purge the military of all diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, claiming it distracts from the Pentagon's warfighting mission. Chatfield is at least the 10th high level defense official pushed out by Trump since he took office in January. The commander-in-chief suddenly terminated Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. C.Q. Brown Jr. along with Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the first female in that role, as well as Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James Slife, Hegseth's senior military assistant Air Force Lt. Gen. Jennifer Short and the judge advocate generals for the Army, Navy and Air Force. And last week, Trump terminated the head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command, Gen. Timothy Haugh. All firings were handed down with no explanation given. Chatfield's removal comes as NATO's defense ministers are set to gather in Brussels at the end of this week for a series of meetings to coordinate military support for Ukraine and strengthen Europe's defenses. Hegseth reportedly will not attend the gathering — the first time the group of more than 50 country representatives will meet without the Pentagon chief also participating. There are also concerns over whether Trump could give up the U.S.'s leadership role within the alliance.
Politico
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Trump fires a top US military official to NATO
President Donald Trump has fired one of the top U.S. military officers at NATO headquarters in Brussels, adding greater uncertainty over America's role in the nearly eight-decade alliance. Navy Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield, the U.S. representative to NATO's military committee, was relieved of her duties, according to two NATO officials and a diplomat from a NATO country, who were granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic. They did not say why. The ouster of such a prominent U.S. officer at NATO adds more tension to Washington's increasingly shaky relationship with the alliance. The administration's antagonistic rhetoric against longtime NATO allies — including Vice President JD Vance's criticisms of European cultural issues, Trump's continued insistence the U.S. should own Greenland, and huge tariffs slapped on some of America's closest trading partners — are part of a widening rift in the transatlantic alliance. Reuters first reported Chatfield's firing. Chatfield came to the attention of conservative media in 2023, soon after taking the role. Critics labeled her 'woke' for comments she made when starting as president of the Naval War College in 2019. 'I want to see members of this team offer each other respect for differences, for diversity, for the dialogue from which ideas and collaboration emerge,' she said. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has denounced diversity efforts in the military as divisive within the ranks and distracting from the Pentagon's ability to win wars. Sean Parnell, the Pentagon spokesperson, did not respond to requests for comment. The firing follows Senate confirmation last week of Matthew Whitaker, the new U.S. ambassador to NATO. It also comes as defense ministers from across the alliance prepare to gather for a series of meetings on strengthening European defense efforts and planning more military aid for Ukraine. Chatfield was among about 200 military officer promotions blocked by Sen. Tommy Tuberville, (R-Ala.) in 2023 over his objection to the Pentagon's abortion travel policy. A career helicopter pilot with several overseas deployments, she was the first female president of the Naval War College. She was promoted to vice admiral and to the NATO job after Tuberville lifted his hold on nominations. Chatfield had extensive experience with the alliance prior to her latest role. She held the deputy military representative job in Brussels from 2015 to 2017. Prior to that, she was a senior military aide at NATO's military headquarters in Mons, Belgium. The NATO Military Committee, composed of military chiefs from all 32 members, holds a similar role to the joint chiefs of staff chair. The group advises allies on military matters and nuclear planning. She's not the first high level official the Trump administration has suddenly terminated. Trump fired Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. C.Q. Brown in February without any stated cause. The Air Force vice chief of staff, Gen. James Slife, and Hegseth's senior military assistant Air Force Lt. Gen. Jennifer Short were also fired in the February purge. Trump last week terminated Gen. Timothy Haugh, the head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command, without announcing a reason. The changes in U.S. military leadership come as Europe and the NATO alliance consider a new coalition in which Washington plays a smaller role. Hegseth will not attend an in-person meeting at NATO headquarters where more than 50 nations will discuss military aid to Ukraine — although he may attend virtually. The meeting, known as the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, had been chaired by former Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin until Hegseth handed the reins to Germany and the U.K. this year. One U.S defense official said there are ongoing discussions over Hegseth's participation, while two NATO officials said they hoped if he didn't attend, Whitaker were granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations. Instead of heading to the monthly meeting, Hegseth is expected to visit Panama and Army Special Forces troops assigned to Central and South America. Trump has repeatedly mentioned 'reclaiming' the Panama canal.
