Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dod Censorship topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers press DOD to halt removals and require expert review after reports of book and historical‑material removals
Summary
Members across the aisle criticized what they called ideological removals of historical materials and books from DOD web pages and service academy libraries and proposed an amendment requiring an expert panel review before destruction or censorship; amendment failed on the committee floor.
Several House Armed Services Committee members criticized recent DOD removals of historical images, biographies and books during the April 27 markup and proposed an amendment to require expert review before destruction or censorship of artifacts and records.
Representative Elfreth offered an amendment (log number 4697) to create a panel of historians and service‑history experts to review artifacts and documents flagged for destruction or removal and to notify Congress prior to irrevocable action. Supporters said recent removals included photographs and exhibits tied to Jackie Robinson, Navajo Code Talkers, women pilots, and other service members and that removing those resources undermines institutional memory and preparedness.
Representative Jacobs, a Naval Academy graduate, said the removals — citing Maya Angelou’s I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and other titles taken off academy shelves while Mein Kampf remained — looked like censorship and compared it to historical precedents of book burning. Representative Delgado (speaker name in transcript unclear) and others described the removals as harmful to service morale and argued for congressional guardrails.
The committee debated whether federal records law already provides record-retention protections; the chair said existing law requires federal records be retained appropriately and argued the amendment would have no practical effect because it would apply only to funds in the markup’s title. After a recorded vote the amendment was not agreed to (26–29).
Ending: Members from both parties who represent service academies and installations said the episode warranted further attention; the proposed expert-review mechanism failed in committee, but several members urged continued oversight.
