While the Corps Was Away: Inside VMI's Summer Power Struggle

While the Corps was on furlough this summer, the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) has found itself under siege, not from an external enemy, but from the consequences of partisan state politics, legal maneuvering, and reputational damage. At the heart of the storm lies the VMI Board of Visitors (BOV), where appointments and rejections, false public allegations, and a potential constitutional showdown are reshaping the future of the Corps and the Institute itself. As previously reported in The Cadet, Governor Glenn Youngkin appointed four individuals to the VMI Board of Visitors (BOV): William R. Janis '84, Quinton Elliott '85, John Foster '93, and Kate Todd (a reappointment). These appointments followed standard procedure and were slated for confirmation by the Virginia Senate in 2025. However, on January 21, 2025, the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, following a strict party-line vote, refused to confirm Elliott and Foster. The committee provided no evidence or specific explanation for their decision, sparking accusations of political retaliation and ideological discrimination. In response, Governor Youngkin appointed Lt. Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Hartsock '00 and Stephen Reardon '84 on February 26, 2025, to serve the remainder of the unexpired terms vacated by Elliott and Foster. He subsequently appointed Jose Suarez '82. The appointments were meant to restore functionality to the Board. Still, they, too, became embroiled in controversy after public comments challenged the integrity of the appointees and other alumni. Col. (Ret.) Inman, Lt. Col. (Ret.) Hartsock and Mr. Reardon were targeted by public accusations submitted to the Board by alumnus E. Sean Lanier '94. Lanier falsely claimed that Col. Inman had been "fired for insubordination" and that Hartsock had left VMI "under a cloud." These statements were later shown to be without merit. The Cadet newspaper conducted a thorough investigation and presented conclusive evidence disproving the allegations, supported by statements from former VMI leadership and members of the Corps. Despite this, VMI's administration at the time and the VMI Alumni Agencies took no public action to correct the record or defend the individuals whose reputations were harmed. On June 20, 2025 Governor Youngkin appointed five new members to the BOV including: Garrett J. Exner of Alexandria, Executive Director, The Public Interest Fellowship; former Major, United States Marines; The Honorable L. Scott Lingamfelter '73 of Woodbridge, former House of Delegates, 31st District; COL (Retired), United States Army; Ernesto Sampson '98 of Glen Allen, Financial Advisor, Ameriprise Financial; José J. Suárez, M.Eng., P.E., of Saint Augustine, Florida, President and CEO, JS Consulting; and Lloyd Taliaferro '95 of Norfolk, Executive Vice President, Mancon LLC; Principal, Gosport Ventures. Mr. Suárez is one of the previous appointees with Hartsock '00 and Mr. Reardon '84, who were previously appointed to the BOV and voted down by the General Assembly's Jun 9, 2025, action. This disagreement escalated into open conflict. On June 24, 2025, Senate Democrats filed a lawsuit (Lucas V. Rectors) against board presidents at UVA, VMI, and George Mason. The lawsuit argues that unconfirmed appointees were unlawfully seated, violating the separation of powers. Among the disputed appointees were former Trump official Ken Cuccinelli and VMI appointees Hartsock, Reardon, and Mr. Suárez. During a June 28, 2025, Democratic Caucus press conference transcript, Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell acknowledged that the Caucus was encouraging university boards - including VMI's - to defy Executive Orders EO14151, EO14173, the Department of Education's Dear Colleagues Letter on DEI, the Department of Justice's guidance following the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action, as well as the Secretary of Defense's January 2025 directive eliminating DEI offices, mandates and required trainings. He warned boards not to hire new leadership under current political conditions, stating that any long-term commitment by the sitting board could be undone once political control shifts. During the press conference, The Cadet submitted a two-part question asking whether lawmakers would use their legislative power to protect board members and presidents who chose to defy these federal orders, and whether the General Assembly believed it could override the Secretary of Defense's directive at a military college such as VMI. Senator Surovell responded only partially, reiterating that the General Assembly controls VMI but offering no apparent legal or constitutional rationale to support that claim over established federal authority. This non-answer left serious questions unresolved and raised additional legal concerns. Tensions surrounding board power came to a head when Surovell issued a direct warning to all university boards not to make any long-term presidential appointments. "This current majority is only going to be in place for about 11 months," he said. "They should not do anything that binds the university to any kind of long-term commitment." That statement was widely interpreted as a veiled threat aimed at the UVA and VMI Boards of Visitors as they approached a final decision on selecting a new president at UVA and a superintendent to replace Maj. Gen. Cedric T. Wins '85. It raised fears that even a lawful appointment could later be reversed or politically retaliated against. In addition to the question in the press conference, The Cadet submitted other questions. The press conference organizers assured attendees that written responses would follow. As of publication, none have been received, leading to renewed criticism over transparency and political accountability. Throughout this period, the BOV leadership defended the integrity of its Board. Interim BOV President Thomas E. "Teddy" Gottwald '83 wrote to Senator Surovell refuting allegations of political influence and affirming that Superintendent Wins' contract was not renewed based on performance evaluations alone. The ongoing legal and political struggle culminated in a court ruling that affirmed the Senate's interpretation of constitutional appointment procedures. In response to the ruling, Peter A. Finocchi, Press Secretary for Governor Glenn Youngkin, provided The Cadet the following statement: "The Governor respectfully disagrees with the Court's opinion and looks forward to the Attorney General's appeal to the Supreme Court." On August 12, 2025, Attorney General Jason Miyares filed his appeal with the Virginia Supreme Court. In the appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Attorney General's office, joined by private counsel, argues that the injunction rests on "an unprecedented" and legally flawed premise: that a vote by a single Senate committee can constitute a refusal "by the General Assembly" to confirm an appointment under Article V, Section 11 of the Virginia Constitution. They contend the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because the proper remedy for disputing an appointee's right to office is a writ of quo warranto against the appointee, not an injunction against university rectors who "did nothing wrong." The petitioners maintain that nine individual legislators lack standing to assert an institutional injury on behalf of the legislature, and that sovereign immunity bars the claims. The appeal further asserts that the plaintiffs failed to meet the legal prerequisites for a preliminary injunction. The defendants argue the alleged harm—committee votes they say were "nullified"—is not irreparable because any adverse decisions could later be set aside. They reject the trial court's reliance on federal cases suggesting that all constitutional injuries are inherently irreparable, warning that such reasoning "would gut Rule 3:26(c)'s threshold requirement." On the merits, the petitioners insist the Refusal Clause requires a completed, final rejection by both legislative chambers, and that the Senate committee's inaction left multiple avenues open for confirmation. As they put it, "a vote of eight legislators in one chamber is not a refusal 'by the General Assembly' while the session remains open." Finally, they argue that the injunction upends the status quo, intrudes on an ongoing legislative process, and forces rectors to take steps they lack the authority to carry out. Quoting Commonwealth v. Delaune, they urge the Court to reject a "curious, narrow or strained construction" of the Constitution in favor of its "plain, obvious and rational meaning." The petition asks the Court to vacate the injunction, emphasizing the "strong public interest in the orderly governance of public universities" and the dangers of judicial interference before the legislative process has run its course. Meanwhile, the preliminary injunction remains in effect, meaning the contested appointees Hartsock, Reardon, and Suárez must cease all board activities pending further judicial review. This decision would include all Board decisions, including the imminent vote on selecting VMI's next superintendent. While the situation remains complex and confusing, it is important to note, as VMI's official spokesperson points out, the Court's ruling does not apply to Exner, Lingamfelter, Sampson, and Taliaferro, who continue to serve on the BOV. This summer's turmoil at VMI has illuminated deep and unresolved tensions between state and federal authority, institutional governance, and political ideology. With the lawsuit appeal pending, board appointments blocked, federal compliance mandates in dispute, and different interpretations of the appointees who can and cannot serve between the parties, the stakes are higher than ever for an institution that prides itself on honor, integrity, and nonpartisan service to the Commonwealth and the nation. Court records are available with the online version of this article at www.cadetnewspaper.com, and updates are available as they occur on the Cadet Foundation website at: https://thecadetfoundation.org/bov-removals/