The United States Military Academy at West Point continues to require civilian professors to obtain prior approval from senior officials before participating in external speaking engagements, despite a federal judge’s ruling last month declaring such restrictions unconstitutional. This development emerges as West Point officials rely on a Department of War memorandum issued by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth nearly a year ago to justify ongoing oversight, according to internal documents and correspondence obtained by a news organization.
In early 2025, West Point introduced a policy mandating that both civilian and military faculty seek supervisory authorization before publishing papers, presenting at conferences, or appearing on podcasts. The guidelines followed an executive order signed by then-President Donald Trump aimed at preventing military academies from promoting what the administration described as “radical,” “divisive,” or “un-American” ideas.
The policy was challenged in September 2025 by Tim Bakken, West Point’s longest-serving law professor, who filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the restrictions violated the First Amendment rights of civilian professors by censoring dissenting viewpoints. U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel ruled in Bakken’s favor last month, declaring that the speech policy and accompanying directives restricting Bakken’s classroom discussions were unconstitutional and permanently enjoining West Point from enforcing them against civilian faculty.
Despite the ruling, West Point’s dean, Brig. Gen. Nicholas Gist, issued a memorandum this fall reaffirming that all academy personnel must seek command approval before speaking at external events. The three-page document cites a September 2025 memo from Hegseth, which broadly requires Department of War personnel to obtain supervisory consent prior to engaging with non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, and research organizations. Notably, Hegseth’s directive does not specifically mention West Point or its faculty.
Gist’s memo lists ten approved appearances by West Point staff, including engagements at universities, a discussion hosted by the French Embassy in New York, and a training session for the FBI National Academy Association in Philadelphia. The approved faculty include both military and civilian members.
Additional correspondence shows that West Point’s legal office informed at least one civilian professor that external speaking engagements require legal review and approval up the chain of command. Three civilian professors, speaking anonymously due to concerns about retaliation, confirmed that faculty members are still subject to review before participating in outside events.
Legal experts reviewing these materials characterized West Point’s continued enforcement of speech oversight as a clear attempt to circumvent the court order. University of Michigan Law School professor Leah Litman described the academy’s approach as “flouting” the judicial ruling, while Georgetown University’s David Super called it “contempt of court.” Yale Law School’s Eugene R. Fidell noted that changing the underlying justification does not alter the restrictive nature of the policy, likening it to “painting the car with a different paint job.”
The legal scholars framed West Point’s actions within a broader pattern of what Litman and her co-author have termed “legalistic noncompliance,” wherein government officials respond to adverse court decisions by altering the formal basis for their policies rather than abandoning them. Fidell suggested Bakken might need to return to court to enforce compliance with the injunction.
Bakken told reporters that West Point officials have not reviewed his speaking engagements since the ruling, but he has not sought permission to speak either. He expressed his belief that the academy continues to enforce an illegal order. West Point has until early November to decide whether to appeal the federal court ruling. The Department of Defense declined to comment on the matter.