Pentagon chief blocks officers from Ivy League schools and top universities

2026-02-2823:5114467fortune.com

"We will no longer invest in institutions that fail to sharpen our leaders' warfighting capabilities or that undermine the very values they are sworn to defend."

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is overhauling the list of schools that military officers can attend for professional courses and graduate programs.

In a memo on Friday on professional military education institutions, he announced the elimination of certain Senior Service College fellowship programs for the 2026-2027 academic year and beyond.

“We must develop strategic thinkers through education grounded in the founding principles and documents of the republic, embracing peace through strength and American ideals, and focused on our national strategies and grounded in realism,” he wrote. “We will no longer invest in institutions that fail to sharpen our leaders’ warfighting capabilities or that undermine the very values they are sworn to defend.”

The list of canceled institutions includes Ivy League schools Harvard, MIT, Yale, Columbia, Brown and Princeton as well as other top universities like Carnegie Mellon and Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.

That comes after the Pentagon chief said earlier this month that he would cancel professional military education, fellowships, and certificate programs with Harvard.

In his memo, Hegseth also included a list of potential new partners schools: Liberty University, George Mason University, Pepperdine, University ofTennessee, University of Michigan, University of Nebraska, University of North Carolina, Clemson, and Baylor, among others.

“For decades, the Ivy League and similar institutions have gorged themselves on a trust fund of American taxpayer dollars, only to become factories of anti-American resentment and military disdain,” Hegseth said in a video posted on X on Friday.

Despite his accusation that the schools on his banned list are “anti-American,” some of them have been partners with the military on key emerging priorities.

For example, the Army’s Artificial Intelligence Integration Center is located at Carnegie Mellon University, which has long been a top source of AI innovation.

The center is meant to increase the Army’s familiarity with AI applications and better connect the service with AI leaders in the private sector.

In addition, the Space Force partnered with the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies for officer intermediate level education and senior level education.

Representatives for the Army’s AI center and the Space Force didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on how Hegseth’s directive will affect partnerships with their respective schools.

The change comes as the Trump administration is cutting off Anthropic as a provider of AI technology to the federal government, including the Defense Department, while expanding ties with OpenAI and xAI.

Join us at the Fortune Workplace Innovation Summit May 19–20, 2026, in Atlanta. The next era of workplace innovation is here—and the old playbook is being rewritten. At this exclusive, high-energy event, the world’s most innovative leaders will convene to explore how AI, humanity, and strategy converge to redefine, again, the future of work. Register now.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By thatfrenchguy 2026-03-011:453 reply

    Half of the best engineers I know come from a random state school, from a random country, and we should work way harder than we do on finding those people.

    But also… the other half come from prestigious colleges, and the way you solve the first half is not by not hiring the second half.

    • By watwut 2026-03-017:42

      The decision has nothing to do with any of that tho. Te goal is to punish suspect liberals.

      And to give advantage to candidate from right wing and conservative institutions. Because that is the oficial state ideology now.

    • By SideQuark 2026-03-013:124 reply

      Hiring costs time, money, and other engineers time and effort. Wasting money and time reviewing a pool with less good candidates will simply lose you business over time, as you waste more resources to obtain the same result.

      • By beAbU 2026-03-029:20

        So you are saying the Ivy League pool is the one with more better candidates?

        The same pool where connections, rather than merit count? Where the candidates have (probably) been coddled by their loaded parents all their lives? Where they fake disabilities in order to get affordances such as better housing, "support" animals and so on?

      • By pyuser583 2026-03-015:421 reply

        Are American universities really turning out engineers with high GPAs and relevant coursework that are unqualified? Or even create a disadvantage for their employer?

        I mean realistically you don’t know how good an engineer is until they get on projects and you see their work. But that’s true for Harvard too,

        • By SideQuark 2026-03-021:03

          Yes. Ever do hiring, or run a significant interview system? I have. Us engineers thought the same way you did, but after a significant number of interviews, we went back over resumes versus interview performance to find ways to save costs/interview more per resource used, and surprisingly to us at that point quality of college was the biggest predictor. Lower quality schools simply had a less talented or trained pool, and it was significant.

      • By RobRivera 2026-03-0217:11

        Great! Let's just continue perpetuating institutionalized bias rooted in a non-metric driven hypothesis on candidate potential!

      • By thatfrenchguy 2026-03-020:221 reply

        And your line is thinking is how we end up with what is going on at the Pentagon, and less innovation in our industry :)

        • By SideQuark 2026-03-020:59

          Ever run a company or do a lot of hiring? It’s not a line of thinking. If can cost effectively find equivalent candidates from a weaker pool, you’ll be rich selling that service.

    • By aaron695 2026-03-019:20

      [dead]

  • By floatrock 2026-03-013:245 reply

    Remember when the Oppenheimer movie taught us how we got The Bomb even though the nazis had a significant head start because ze germans got rid of the smart people studying "jew physics" and what was left of their science took them to dead ends?

    Replace "jew physics" with "woke physics" and you see the idiocy of this.

    Foot, meet gun.

    • By conception 2026-03-014:582 reply

      Fascism always trends to incompetency because loyalty is more important than skill and knowledge.

      • By Aeolun 2026-03-017:262 reply

        So it’s just a matter of time before the US crashes?

        • By snowpid 2026-03-0110:50

          I wouldn't say crash, but more decline. But many Americans including on HN and in SV don't like to see it.

        • By foogazi 2026-03-0117:59

          They didn’t say that

      • By fifilura 2026-03-0220:05

        It is simpler than that.

        Fascism always trends to incompetency because it is stupid.

    • By olelele 2026-03-018:301 reply

      The nazi regime destroyed a lot of what today would be classified as "woke research" by the reactionary right. Sexuality studies, social studies and so on. The book burnings were not only about rooting out fiction, they destroyed research.

      • By spwa4 2026-03-0114:31

        History isn't quite so simple. Half the academic establishment, especially the human sciences, chose to side with the Nazis before they actually came to power. A lot of institutions in Europe, inside and outside of Germany, removed Jewish scientists before anyone asked them to. Ironically that mostly turned out to be the best thing that could have happened to both the Jewish scientists themselves and a number of people that chose to leave with them (there are entire cities in Europe that were founded by Jewish scientists forced to leave and the people who left with them). For example, after the UN (technically then "League of nations") fired Einstein for not being sufficiently Swiss (it's more complicated than just racism though) in 1932, he was shown why not to return to Germany and was offered a job in the US, at Princeton Institute for Advanced Study. He returned to Germany anyway and was shown why accepting the Princeton offer was a good idea, after experiencing "the degree of their brutality and cowardice". Note: he was talking about German academics and institutions, not the Nazis directly. This was before the first time the Nazis forbade Jews from teaching, which was in April 1933.

        Of course, the Nazis turned out to be anti-intellectuals to an extreme degree too and whether it was by concentration camp mistreatment or using them as cannon fodder (or just sending them to the Russian front and leaving them to freeze to death), the Nazis eventually killed most of those scientists, including outside of Germany, who chose to remove Jewish scientists before being asked.

    • By xhkkffbf 2026-03-0116:23

      It's more complicated. At many of these top universities, woke means don't hire whites. And Jews are often lumped in with whites. The Jewish percentage at top schools has dropped dramatically as wokeism appeared. At Princeton, one top professor campaigns to "eliminate whiteness" and he's very open about it.

    • By pyuser583 2026-03-015:471 reply

      That was not my takeaway from the Oppenheimer movie.

      Or from … history.

      The Germans chose to extremely underinvest in their nuclear program to maintain financial and political support for their rocket program.

      The rocket program was so fundamentally different from the Manhattan Project it’s hard to see the Germans doing anything like it.

      • By maplethorpe 2026-03-0111:431 reply

        I mean, they definitely expelled Jewish scientists, people like Einstein and Bohr and other prominent physicists, who would have ultimately been very useful to them. Maybe their funding choices would have been different if they hadn't ousted so many researchers.

        • By pyuser583 2026-03-0211:541 reply

          I read the Oppenheimer biography, so maybe that’s distorting things.

          Oppenheimer was Jewish, but very Americanized.

          Bohr was working on radar for the Nazis. Einstein had surprisingly little knowledge of nuclear physics, and famously rejected key parts of quantum physics.

          The Germans had great nuclear scientists. They simply weren’t willing to spend the money it took to cold the bomb.

          • By maplethorpe 2026-03-0221:28

            I mentioned two as an example, but they expelled significantly more. In 1933 they brought in laws that immediately ousted many Jews from public positions, which caused a mass exodus of intellectuals from the country. James Franck was another prominent physicist who left in protest, and he went on to work directly for the Manhattan Project.

            The Nazis drawing a distinction between "Jewish mathematics" and "German mathematics" was also very real.

            It's hard to imagine these policies had no effect on their ability to do research, and that it was purely a matter of funding.

            "Boris Stoicheff, wrote how the mathematician Edmund Landau was 'physically prevented from entering his classroom by about seventy of his students, some wearing SS uniforms.' They demanded 'German mathematics' instead of 'Jewish mathematics.' One estimate is that the 15% of scientists in Germany who had been fired accounted for about 60% of the country’s physics-based publications."

            https://research.usask.ca/herzberg/resources/the-person/phys...

    • By uSppiVmTFGOmala 2026-03-030:09

      [dead]

  • By AreShoesFeet000 2026-03-013:04

    This is a plain admission that the administration has lost on the merits of their arguments.

HackerNews