In a recent New York Times op-ed, soon-to-be former West Point professor Graham Parsons blames the Trump administration for West Point’s failure to maintain their status as an apolitical, elite institution of the military profession. The claim is not just disingenuous — it is a deflection.
The op-ed accuses West Point of failing to resist the president’s agenda to rid the military of ideological perversion, as if insubordination is a virtue. This framing exposes the heart of the problem: West Point’s leadership opposes the president’s vision, either out of ideology or incompetence.
It is first important to understand some of the changes President Trump and Secretary Hegseth made to West Point. First, admissions officers are no longer allowed to maintain racial profiles or goals for admissions classes. Long a policy since the 1960s, West Point sought to categorize applicants and cadets based on the color of their skin. Under the Trump administration, that is no longer possible.
Furthermore, West Point is no longer able to be a venue for anti-American ideology like Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) and Critical Race Theory (CRT). In Graham Parsons’ telling, West Point now suffers from a supposed infringement on its academic freedom. As a tenured professor, he opines as much without any consideration for the distinct nature of West Point as an institution, one not bound by the typical dictates of civilian educational institutions. It would seem that West Point as an institution has failed to strike this balance in implementing President Trump’s executive orders, too.
There are only two explanations for West Point’s failure. The first is ideological subversion — malicious compliance designed to subvert the president’s orders. Consider Lieutenant General Steven Gilland, the superintendent of West Point, testified before the House Armed Services Committee in July 2023. He called DEI initiatives “operational imperatives” and insisted that racial quotas create “a stronger and more adaptable force.” These are not the words of someone reluctantly complying with DEI; they are the words of an advocate.
Yet this same man now presides over an institution tasked with dismantling the very project he praised. This is not just inconsistency — it is sabotage.
The second explanation is simpler but equally disqualifying: incompetence. Perhaps Gilland and Brigadier General Shane Reeves, West Point’s dean, are so deeply entrenched in the bureaucracy that they cannot conceive of anything outside of its conventions. In this scenario, their compliance with DEI was not ideological, it was reflexive.
Their attempts to implement the president’s orders have failed not because the orders are unclear, but because they are institutionally incapable of executing them. They know how to pass along directives, but not how to drive cultural change. Rather than use the president’s orders to clean house and restore West Point’s purpose, they have gutted the academy’s academic integrity while leaving ideological rot untouched. They have traded serious reform for paper compliance. The result is a worse institution than when they began.
Under either explanation, they must go. Malicious compliance or institutional incompetence — both are disqualifying. West Point deserves leadership that understands the mission and carries it out with conviction. The academy exists to produce warfighters loyal to the Constitution, not ideologues trained to deconstruct it.
Their defense of DEI and claims that the defense secretary’s orders are “too broad” or “unrealistic” are weak bureaucratic ploys. Professor Parsons’ New York Times op-ed dutifully repeated these lines, portraying West Point as a victim of Trump’s vague mandates. But DEI’s rise at West Point came with similarly vague orders, yet no one complained. When President Biden pushed DEI into every military branch, West Point’s leadership did not hesitate. They expanded the DEI offices, appointed DEI commissars, and rewrote curricula with zeal. No general officer stood before Congress and claimed those orders were “too broad.” What changed? Only the ideological framing of the directives. West Point’s leadership knows how to execute orders — it just chooses which ones to follow.
West Point does not exist to protect academic fiefdoms. If its leaders cannot execute Hegseth’s orders without destroying its academic structure, then they are not just ineffective; they are a threat to its mission.
Ty Seidule, a former history professor at the academy, spent over a decade at West Point whitewashing its embrace of DEI and reshaping military history through the lens of American guilt. His testimony before Congress in January of 2024 defended this ideological indoctrination and branded it as historical instruction. His writings depict America as irredeemably flawed, a view fit for Ivy League seminars, not the premier military academy of the United States. Academy leadership allowed this for years. That is not oversight; it is complicity.
West Point was never meant to serve as a vessel for elite academic experiments. Its purpose is to forge commanders of American power, not critics of its existence. For over a decade, Seidule’s curriculum taught cadets to view America through a lens of guilt and shame. West Point’s leaders allowed it. That is not leadership; it is surrender.
Execution is not optional. Orders from the Secretary of Defense are not up for academic debate. They are directives. The command to restore American values and patriotism at West Point is clear. Gilland and Reeves refused to carry it out. In any other command environment, failure to execute results in relief of command. West Point is not exempt from this standard.
Historical precedent confirms this. In 1943, General Eisenhower relieved General Lloyd Fredendall of his command after the disaster at Kasserine Pass. Fredendall’s poor preparation led to one of the worst American defeats of the war. Eisenhower did not blame the clarity of orders; he replaced the commander. The U.S. Army relieved Brigadier General Janis Karpinski after the failures at Abu Ghraib. The failure to uphold discipline and standards had consequences. Command is not a right — it is a responsibility. Incompetence results in removal.
West Point’s mission is clear: develop officers who swear an oath to defend the Constitution. When leadership fails to execute that mission, it must go. Competence matters. Execution matters. In the military, failure demands accountability. If West Point’s leaders remain captured by ideological interests, they must be removed swiftly and without apology.
The United States Military Academy now mirrors the Ivy League — not in quality, but in ideological conformity. Ambiguity has no place here. If the academy cannot produce officers loyal to the Constitution, its leadership is not just failing, it is compromising national security. There is no mission more critical than preparing America’s warfighters. Those who fail to execute that mission cannot remain in command.
Will Thibeau is a veteran of the U.S. Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment and serves as Director of the American Military Project at the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life. He comments regularly on defense policy and has twice testified in front of the House of Representatives.
Jesus Christ is King
