One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.
For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.
As a matter of national security, we need our service members to be well educated, and the service academies are sadly insufficient. The Air Force Operating Concept 2035 advises that future advantages belong to "bold, adaptive, and innovative leaders," yet service academies often produce officers whose “supervised and structured” experiences have consisted mainly of "responding to directions." Even the U.S. Army War College articulated the issue here: “it is assumed that the…structured, centralized system will…develop them into out-of-the-box thinkers... The probability of that happening is slim.” Outside fellowships were designed in part to correct this, injecting broader perspectives into an often conforming system. By canceling them, Hegseth all-but-ensures the upper ranks remain academy-reared echo chambers.
As Hegseth strips our officers’ access to the best research institutions in the world, China is doing the opposite. Recognizing that it is more important to outthink your enemy than to outfight him, the 2026 Chinese Five-Year Plan emphasizes investing in research and cultivating world-class talent. But while “Chinese leaders are encouraging the creation of a more innovative and creative youth…the U.S. is going towards an elitist and backward education system where conformist citizens are validated and rewarded.” It’s even worse in the U.S. military–a regimented organization historically and continuously valuing obedience and uniformity, even submissiveness, where too often successful innovation only occurs after the existing leadership and doctrine have been delegitimized by defeat. Waiting for defeat to knock enough sense into us that we finally challenge the status quo won’t keep our country safe.
The military needs these institutions. Hegseth cannot compete with the civilian research ecosystem–the Ivy League’s cutting-edge AI laboratories, semiconductor programs, or professors. While I was in ROTC at the University of Pennsylvania, Professor David Eisenhower, the grandson of President Eisenhower, became a mentor of mine. As an officer-in-training, I cherished learning from the grandson of the former Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe during World War II, because duh. By severing the military’s ties to the world’s finest institutions, Hegseth will isolate the force and weaken it.
The isolation is intentional; it is easier to indoctrinate in a bubble. Hegseth isn’t mad that servicemembers go to good schools but that they practice the kind of thinking while there that may lead them to one day challenge the Trump agenda. For the same reason, the Trump regime attacked veteran lawmakers who dared to remind service members of their legal duty to disobey unlawful orders. Hegseth now wants to avoid the influence of education. Because, as the regime flirts increasingly with lawlessness, they want troops who won’t question orders. Hegseth craves compliance, and thinking threatens that. Eliminating “wokeness” is a happy byproduct, but the goal is blind obedience. It’s a strategic lobotomy.
Given that the Secretary of War is taking the best educational opportunities away from our servicemembers, we must examine what he is giving them instead. As it turns out, Hegseth is swapping elite fellowships for extremist rhetoric from figures like Pastor Doug Wilson, cultivating a force primed for radicalization. The consequences are already surfacing: Military Religious Freedom Foundation reports indicate dozens of commanders are gleefully framing the Iran conflict as "God’s divine plan," casting the President as a messianic figure "anointed" to ignite Armageddon. This blurring of church and state is a direct assault on any oath to support and defend the Constitution.
If we continue along this path, the Trump regime will eventually reduce the ranks to an isolated horde of white Christian nationalist loyalists, rendering the American military a brute squad. Somewhere along the way, however, we may discover that a military that lacks the intellectual framework to uphold its oath to the Constitution is also not one that can outsmart an enemy. War would be a harrowing place to learn that lesson.
The transformation is not yet complete. Congress should exercise its oversight authority to protect these educational pipelines, and the targeted institutions should proactively create military-civilian education initiatives that can survive any single administration’s mandate. Harvard is allowing servicemembers to defer admission while also arranging for “expedited consideration” at non-blacklisted schools–others should follow suit. And for those currently in uniform: continue to read and be curious, to think critically, and to mentor each other to be "bold, adaptive, and innovative leaders.” The intellectual integrity of the force may be yours to preserve.Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.




















U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."