Books sit on the shelves at a school in Djibouti.

Children's biographies of trailblazing transgender public figures. An award-winning novel reflecting on what it is like to be Black in America. A series of graphic novels about the love story between a teenage gay couple.

Those are some of the 596 books that have been pulled from shelves in the Defense Department schools that serve military children as part of the Trump administration's broader effort to censor LGBTQ+ and racial issues from official government materials.

The full list[1] was released by the order of a federal judge as part of the American Civil Liberties Union's lawsuit against the Department of Defense Education Activity's implementation of President Donald Trump's anti-diversity and anti-LGBTQ+ executive orders.

Read Next: Drill Sergeant Under Investigation After Having Soldiers Do Push-Ups Under MAGA Flag[2]

"The amount of titles banned by the Trump administration is astonishing, and the list provided by DoDEA perfectly illustrates how the administration is putting politics above pedagogy," Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, said in an emailed statement to Military.com. "Kids on military bases have the same First Amendment rights that we all enjoy, and that their parents swore an oath to defend. Yet the administration has forced schools to remove titles like 'A Is for Activist' and 'Julian Is a Mermaid' that reflect the vibrant and diverse world we live in. All 596 of these books must be returned to shelves immediately."

"A Is for Activist" is an ABC board book about progressive terms and values, while "Julian Is a Mermaid" is a picture book about a boy who wants to become a mermaid.

Among his first acts in office, Trump ordered every federal agency to get rid of all policies and materials related to "gender ideology," a right-wing term for being transgender, and the ill-defined concept of "diversity, equity and inclusion."

At the Pentagon, the orders spurred a widespread, sometimes erratic effort to scrub minorities, women and LGBTQ+ people from public websites and databases, some of which were restored after public outrage. Books were also pulled from libraries across the Defense Department, including at the service academies that educate future military officers and the DoDEA schools that serve military children in pre-kindergarten through high school.

In April, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a dozen[3] DoDEA students and their families alleging that the book bans and other actions to implement Trump's executive orders at the schools violate the First Amendment.

During a June hearing in the lawsuit, Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles, a Biden appointee in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, ordered the Trump administration to provide the full list of books removed from the DoDEA.

The Trump administration requested Giles reconsider her order, arguing that the list can't be released because it is "pre-decisional" since officials are still deciding the final fate of the books.

But on Friday, Giles reaffirmed her order and released the full list.

The majority of books on the list appear to be related to LGBTQ+ themes and issues.

They include several biographies written for children about transgender icons, including actor Chaz Bono, director Lana Wachowski, actress Laverne Cox and former public health official Rachel Levine, the first openly transgender person confirmed by the Senate who has been a particular target of derision[4] from conservative politicians and commentators.

"With Honor and Integrity: Transgender Troops in Their Own Words," a collection of essays from transgender service members and veterans edited by Air Force[5] Col. Bree Fram and Army[6] veteran Mael Embser-Herbert, was also removed.

Also on the list are several volumes of "Heartstopper," an acclaimed series of graphic novels that was adapted into an acclaimed Netflix series about two British teenage boys who fall in love. The series, which features characters with a broad range of sexualities and gender identities, is a common[7] target for[8] book bans[9].

A few books about the history of the Stonewall riots, which are considered the start of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement and the history of which the Trump administration has been rewriting[10] to remove transgender people; multiple study guides for Advanced Placement Psychology, which includes lessons on gender identity; and a couple of books to help kids going through puberty that online summaries show include references to gender identity have also been pulled.

Another sizable chunk of the banned books discuss race and racism in America.

One such book is Ta-Nehisi Coates' "Between the World and Me," a National Book Award winner that is written as a series of letters to his son reflecting on racism and being Black in America.

"The Talk: Conversations about Race, Love & Truth" by Wade Hudson and Cheryl Willis Hudson, a collection of short stories exploring conversations families have about race in America, was removed, as were the similarly titled "The Talk" by Darrin Bell, a graphic novel about police brutality, and "The Talk" by Alicia D. Williams, a picture book about a family's advice to a young Black boy about how to navigate racism.

Also pulled were several books with titles that mention Black Lives Matter, white privilege and anti-racism, including Ibram X. Kendi and Jason Reynolds' young adult novel "Stamped: Racism, Antiracism and You."

Military Families for Free Expression, a group formed earlier this year[11] to push back against Defense Department book bans, decried DoDEA's book removals.

"This list reflects a sweeping effort to silence voices, particularly those centering on Black, brown and LGBTQ+ experiences," Libby Jamison, the group's spokesperson, said in an emailed statement. "These bans aren't about protecting children; they're about restricting what young people are allowed to know, feel and question."

DoDEA spokesperson Jessica Tackaberry declined to comment on the list on Monday, citing the fact it is part of ongoing litigation, but said in an email generally that the school system "remains committed to providing a high-quality, standards-based education for all military-connected students and will continue to follow established procedures as the legal process moves forward."

Pentagon officials have previously maintained that removed books have not been banned and are in the process of being reviewed for a final decision on their fate. Under a memo the Pentagon issued[12] in May, the review was supposed to be completed in June.

A Pentagon spokesperson did not respond to a question about the status of the review by Military.com's deadline Monday.

Trump administration administration officials have also argued that banning books is not a First Amendment violation.

"Government speech is immune from scrutiny under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause because when the government engages in speech, it is constitutionally permissible for it to select the message it wishes to convey," Justice Department lawyers wrote in a motion last month seeking to have the lawsuit against the bans dismissed.

The full list of banned books is included in the court documents below:

Related: Military Families Sue over Defense Department School Book Bans, Other Anti-Diversity Measures[13]

© Copyright 2025 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[14].

Read more

Fort Rucker in Alabama

Fort Rucker is making its name change official Thursday - its second in two years’ time.

An installation redesignation ceremony is scheduled for 9 a.m. at the U.S. Army Aviation Museum at the newly-renamed Fort Rucker in Dale County.

Only this time, the installation takes its name not from a Confederate figure but a World War I aviator.

Fort Rucker was originally named for Confederate Col. Edmund W. Rucker, a brigade commander during the Civil War who fought at Chickamauga, Franklin and Nashville. After the war, he was an industrial figure in Birmingham who made his home in Five Points. He died in 1924

Then in 2023, the name was changed to Fort Novosel after Enterprise resident Michael Novosel Sr.[1] Under then-President Joe Biden, the Defense Department changed the names of several military bases that honored Confederate figures in the wake of the 2020 George Floyd protests.

Novosel was a military aviator for more than 40 years and received the highest military honor for his service in Vietnam. He died in 2006.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signed a memorandum reversing the naming of Fort Liberty back to Fort Bragg.[2]

The base’s new namesake is Capt. Edward W. Rucker, a Missouri native who was called into service in 1916 and saw action in France during World War I.

He was credited with helping to down several German planes near Luneville, France on June 13, 1918, according to the Masonic Great War Project.[3]

He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross along with 21 other officers and enlisted men, as well as the Croix de Guerre with palm.

“Flying deep behind enemy lines, then-1st Lt. Rucker and his fellow aviators engaged a numerically superior enemy force in a daring aerial battle over France, disrupting enemy movements and completing their mission against overwhelming odds,” the Army said in a statement last month.

After World War I, he relocated to New York before moving to St. Louis. He died in 1945.

A descendant of Edmund Rucker[4] has spoken out against the renaming.

“Rucker family members support naming Army bases for individuals who fought for the United States….we don’t want our name back on an Alabama base,” K. Denise Rucker Krepp, a former House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee senior counsel, posted to X on Tuesday.

“Novosel is a Medal of Honor recipient,” Rucker Krepp said in another post to X.[5]

“His name should remain on an Alabama base.”

©2025 Advance Local Media LLC. Visit al.com[6]. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.[7]

© Copyright 2025 al.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more

Secretary of Defense Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Caine

Top officials at the Pentagon office that played a key role in designing the bombs used in the strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities more than two weeks ago cannot say whether the weapons were successful in reaching the deeply buried bunkers.

At a press briefing days after the strike, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that "for more than 15 years" a pair of officers at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency "lived and breathed this single target -- Fordo -- a critical element of Iran's covert nuclear weapons program" and hailed the agency as "the world's leading expert on deeply buried underground targets."

However, in a press briefing Thursday, a senior defense official at the agency told reporters that they didn't know whether the bombs they designed specifically for this strike reached the depths for which they were engineered. They also defined the effects of the strike in incredibly narrow terms that boiled down to the bombs falling where they were intended.

Read Next: Tim Kennedy, Green Beret and Army Hype Man, Under Investigation for Lying About Combat Valor[1]

The officials, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity, argued that the historic U.S. strikes on three key Iranian nuclear facilities[2] were successful and their 30,000-pound bombs, 14 of which were dropped on two sites, accomplished their goals.

Top political appointees in the Trump administration, along with President Donald Trump himself[3], have asserted that the strike left Iran's nuclear program "obliterated." However, since then, reporting has indicated that that may not have been the case.

Reports emerged days after the strike that initial assessments by the Defense Intelligence Agency found that the airstrikes on Iran had likely not eliminated its nuclear program and only set it back months.

Days later, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth spent a large portion of a press conference[4] berating the media over what he felt was bad coverage of the report and the strikes as a whole -- even as lawmakers, following a classified briefing, told reporters that it was too early to know the damage.

When a reporter pushed the DTRA officials Thursday on their claims of success, the senior defense official deferred to Caine's remarks and said that "we achieved the objective that we had set. ... They achieved the effects intended."

"That's the success I was claiming."

When asked whether those effects included the destruction of the facilities, the senior defense official said that the agency was still "awaiting full battle damage assessment."

Under further questioning, the senior official said that the achieved effects that they were referring to were simply that "we were able to strike the facilities as planned and strike where intended."

While such fine parsing of language would be typical for officials of any highly specialized and technical office, it comes at a time when both the White House and Pentagon leaders, eager to convince the American public of the resounding success of the Iranian strikes, have spoken in sweeping and dramatic terms.

Last Wednesday, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell told reporters[5] the bombing led to "the total obliteration of Iran's nuclear ambitions."

Yet later in the same briefing, Parnell also said that the nuclear program was degraded -- not obliterated -- "by one to two years I think. ... We're thinking probably closer to two years."

Furthermore, in the weeks after the strike, experts were quick to note that the type of argument the Pentagon was employing -- that the mission was successful because it matched the models and plans -- was flawed.

"A strike can go 'precisely as planned' and still fail, if the model of the facility is wrong," Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, said on social media two weeks ago[6].

Meanwhile, on Thursday, The New York Times, citing an Israeli official, reported[7] that at least some of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium -- a key component of a nuclear weapon -- survived the U.S. and Israeli attacks last month.

Related: Pentagon Presses Iran Strike Claims as Briefed Senators Point to Unknown Effects[8]

© Copyright 2025 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[9].

Read more

More Articles …