War Secretary Pete Hegseth has taken a bold step by addressing the issues within America’s top universities, which, he argues, have become detrimental to military values. His announcement on February 27 indicates that the Department of War will no longer provide funding for graduate programs and fellowships at institutions like Princeton, Columbia, MIT, Brown, and Yale, starting in the 2026-2027 academic year. He labels these schools as “factories of anti-American resentment and military disdain.” I agree with this broad critique. It feels like a necessary change, and I genuinely hope it leads to positive outcomes.
However, I want to make a specific point about the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). I share this perspective as someone with a background in the Air Force—a retired lieutenant colonel, specifically. During my time, I commanded a drone squadron and flew combat missions in AC-130 gunships, but I’m also an MIT graduate. I founded VICTUS Technologies while at MIT, aiming to develop resilient systems for scenarios where GPS is unreliable. The expertise and culture at MIT were crucial for building my company.
While I was on campus from 2023 to 2025, I felt both respect for my service and a rigorous academic environment. Faculty upheld high standards, treating all students equally. In May 2024, MIT even became the first elite university to prohibit diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements in faculty hiring, underlining President Sally Kornbluth’s view that such mandates hinder freedom of expression. Although progress is still needed, MIT was proactive, unlike some other prominent institutions.
This commitment to merit and military service is longstanding. MIT has been training American military officers since 1865 and has commissioned over 12,000 of them, including notable figures like General James Doolittle and Buzz Aldrin. Furthermore, the university played a pivotal role during World War II, contributing to radar technology that was crucial for the Allies. In the early 1950s, MIT was tasked with developing the first integrated air defense system, marking significant advancements in computing.
Looking ahead, the next conflict will heavily rely on artificial intelligence and autonomous systems. MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory houses an advanced AI supercomputer, TX-GAIN, which is essential for training autonomous navigation models. The Air Force-MIT collaboration has already yielded innovative recovery systems. Meanwhile, China is investing heavily in AI with ambitions for global dominance by 2030. Excluding MIT from the Department of War’s funding now would be a serious misstep in the ongoing technological battle.
The defense innovation landscape is closely tied to MIT’s contributions. Since 2002, its Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies has generated numerous patents and startups that disrupt traditional defense contracting. My own venture succeeded because of the unique blend of academic expertise and practical experience MIT offers.
Observing the cultural climate on campus underscores this argument. In April 2025, I attended a national security conference at both MIT and Harvard. The first year was marred by protests, but by 2026, the same conference at MIT drew a dedicated audience focused on crucial defense technologies, showcasing a shift toward proactive solutions rather than protests like those happening at other schools.
The concerns raised in Secretary Hegseth’s memo — about institutions that inhibit critical thinking and allow significant external influence — do not apply to MIT. It is a prime example of the kind of exception to his broader initiative. MIT actively trains military officers, develops defense technology, and is vital to creating innovation in air defense systems. Thus, it should remain an exception in funding decisions.
The Department of War needs to maintain stringent criteria for funding and support for universities. Conversely, it should recognize the strategic importance of MIT and include it in its initiatives.
