The Iran war is not the only conflict occupying the Trump administration’s attention these days; another major front is Trump’s war against the Ivy League. It has been the administration’s longest battle to date, as they continue to fire shots at academia across the bow. The Department of War, led by Princeton alumnus Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, has launched the latest salvo, ending sponsorship for active-duty graduate students at Princeton and other Ivy League institutions. The Pentagon’s decision to sever ties with several elite universities is the new battleground in the broader fight over higher education, ideology, and the future of American institutions. As someone who has served in both the Marine Corps and the Army as an infantryman, and now being a Princeton student myself, I am cautious about this move.
While I believe that the Ivy League institutions have earned the criticism they receive for political bias and shutting out conservative viewpoints, I also believe that conservatives should be concerned by the federal government’s determination of which institutions service members can and cannot attend. That is a form of heavy-handed government intervention, and it should trouble those who claim to value limited government and freedom of thought. There is no question that elite universities have, in many cases, created the conditions for this backlash (I would also say that Princeton is not Columbia University). But acknowledging these universities’ shortcomings is not the same as endorsing all aspects of the government’s response to them.
Conservatives, in particular, should understand the danger of allowing the federal government to decide which schools are acceptable and which are not. It can become another tool of bureaucracy and political enforcement, and such decisions are likely to be reversed by the next administration, thereby punishing only those currently serving. Universities will survive. Politicians will move on. But active-duty service members who planned their futures around educational opportunities may be the ones left paying the price. That is what makes this policy so shortsighted.
These institutions are older than the United States, which approaches its 250th birthday; the country is young compared to Harvard, entering its 389th year. I wish the administration the best as it attempts to reform higher education; it is an unenviable task, and for such old institutions, four years can pass by in the blink of an eye. While the clock is ticking, the administration has done its best to hold higher education accountable. I will not say that this effort has been completely in vain; they have extracted some concessions.
The conflict’s between administrations, though, executive and academia. That’s where the fight should remain. Active-duty military members should not be barred from educational choices if given the opportunity, especially at a time when attending college is important to economic mobility, and where you have gone to school matters for one’s long term professional prospects.
It is also a blow targeting the wrong people. One of the most troubling assumptions behind this kind of policy is that military personnel are somehow uniquely vulnerable to ideological indoctrination. It must be assumed that they will simply absorb whatever worldview dominates a campus without question, or else why implement a policy like this? These are the leaders tasked with thinking critically and making the right choice even under the most stressful circumstances. This policy does not reflect the trust and fidelity the country places in these men and women, whose sacrifices we are now reminded of by the current Iran conflict. These may be the last people on earth that need to be protected from “woke” ideology. It stifles speech by assuming these institutions will indoctrinate active-duty military members, rather than recognizing their lived experiences and viewpoints as potential sources of positive change.
And there is a deeper contradiction here. The same people who rightly criticize universities for suppressing speech and viewpoint diversity should hesitate before endorsing a government policy like this. The answer to ideological gatekeeping on campus cannot be ideological gatekeeping by the state. In the quiet corners of a study hall or after class, students and professors alike will ask for opinions on topics that may seem taboo to speak about aloud. Service members would be welcome additions to these conversations, adding to the numbers that push back against campus orthodoxy.
I am especially sensitive to this decision because I went from a GED to community college, then transitioned to Princeton University. I know firsthand what education can mean for someone whose path was nontraditional. While there are times during the school term where my courses seem ideologically tendentious, I also know that higher education, despite its flaws, can open doors that might otherwise remain shut. For service members, that opportunity matters even more because it often comes after years of sacrifice and the delay of one’s own life’s ambitions. I know better than most that you cannot wear the uniform forever. I also believe that it makes the most sense to put your life on the line in defense of this nation when you can have something to look forward to.
Whatever one thinks of the war against the Ivies, policymakers and civilians alike should be careful that the costs do not fall most heavily on the men and women currently serving. They have already pledged their lives on a dotted line; it would be nice to see that name on a vaunted institution’s degree.
Image Credit: Robertson Hall, the home of SPIA, in which all but two of Princeton’s active-duty military personnel are enrolled — Wikimedia Commons
Copyright © 2026 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.