Trump’s West Point gives judge the 'middle finger' after ruling: legal expert

President Donald Trump's West Point faces accusations of openly defying a federal court order, leading one legal expert to call out the prestigious military academy for giving a judge the "middle finger."

A new report shows that U.S. Military Academy officials have continued to enforce speech restrictions on civilian professors even after a federal judge last month ruled the policy unconstitutional.

Documents and emails obtained by The Washington Post show the academy still requires civilian faculty to get approval before speaking at external events, even following the September ruling that effectively prohibited enforcement of its speech policy.

University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman gave a very sharp critique of the academy's behavior.

"At a minimum, it is flouting or giving the middle finger to the judge," Litman told the paper.

U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel ruled in September that West Point's restrictions were a First Amendment violation and permanently prohibited the academy from enforcing them on civilian professors.

The decision came after a lawsuit from Tim Bakken, West Point's longest-serving law professor, who claimed the restrictions amounted to censorship of views that were at odds with those of Trump, the Pentagon and the academy.

West Point introduced the policy in early 2025, following Trump's executive order directing military academies to stop promoting any ideas the administration deemed radical, divisive, or un-American. The policy required faculty to get approval prior to publishing research, speaking at conferences, or appearing on podcasts.

Yet, West Point Dean Brig. Gen. Nicholas Gist subsequently issued a memo to academy personnel requiring them to get approval through their chain of command for any external engagements.

Gist referred to a September 2025 directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that required personnel to get supervisory approval prior to any external appearances. The memo did not reference Seibel's ruling at all.

The Post also obtained an Oct. 1 email from a West Point legal official to a civilian professor stating that speaking at an outside event would require legal review and the dean's approval.

Three civilian professors confirmed to the paper that the approval process was still in place.

Legal scholars who reviewed the documents said citing a different Pentagon directive didn't resolve the apparent conflict with the court order.

Georgetown University law professor David Super said, "I think this is contempt of court." Yale military law professor Eugene Fidell also concluded that West Point was in violation of the injunction.

West Point disputed that, maintaining that it was in full compliance with both the Pentagon's directives and the federal court order.

The academy has until early November to appeal Seibel's decision, with legal experts suggesting that Bakken may well have to go back to court to enforce it.