logo
Senators Asked Linda McMahon the Right Questions Yesterday. They Just Didn't Get Answers.

Senators Asked Linda McMahon the Right Questions Yesterday. They Just Didn't Get Answers.

Yahoo14-02-2025

Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.
In her Thursday Senate confirmation hearing to be education secretary, Linda McMahon seemed to make some promising basic commitments. Notably, when pressed on whether she would support the dismantling of the Department of Education by the Department of Government Efficiency or whether she would tie up funding for programs that had been allocated through Congress, she in both instances insisted that she would defer to Congress' decisions, and that the lawmakers were in control. (She also asserted that 'the president will not ask me to do anything that will break the law.') McMahon, at least, didn't seem to want to throw the nation's entire education system into lawless chaos.
But with any deeper digging, Democratic senators on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions ran into a more troubling sign of what McMahon's agenda could mean for students who wouldn't necessarily benefit from school choice.
McMahon is a prominent defender of 'parental rights,' including school choice, and she has advocated for publicly funded vouchers that students can use for education outside the public school system. In the hearing, McMahon stressed that school choice helps poor and Black students by giving them the opportunity for better education; she did not address what this meant for the children who would be left in the public schools.
The moment that clarified the implications of the federal government fully throwing its support behind private and religious schools came in an exchange with Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester, a Democrat from Delaware. Already in the hearing, senators had discussed the importance of a federal education department in ensuring that students with disabilities are accommodated by local schools. Blunt Rochester took that a step further.
Blunt Rochester: Do you believe that any school benefiting from taxpayer dollars should be required to follow federal civil rights laws?
McMahon: Schools should be required to follow the laws.
Blunt Rochester: Anybody getting taxpayer dollars. That's good. So private schools shouldn't be able to turn away a student with a disability? Or a student based on their religion, or their ethnicity or race?
McMahon: Well, private schools aren't taking federal dollars. So they have the ability to say that if they do not believe—
Blunt Rochester: They do receive them. They should not.
McMahon: Well, if they believe that they cannot best serve that student, and they are not taking federal dollars, then they have the right not to accept that student.
Blunt Rochester: But I'm speaking specifically, when we talk about—there's a lot of conversation about vouchers. If private schools take federal dollars, can they turn away a child based on a disability or religion or race?
McMahon: Well I think that there are also some public schools who are saying that they don't have the—
Blunt Rochester: It's really just a yes or no.
McMahon: No it's not. It really isn't.
Unfortunately, Blunt Rochester, rather than pressing McMahon, asked the nominee to follow up with her privately, noting her limited time for questioning. But this was one of the most pointed moments of the day, and it got to a very urgent question in education: How can a government claim to represent all its citizens if the private schools it sends money to turn out to be discriminatory, or to teach damaging or anti-scientific curricula? How can it fund schools freed from federal oversight and still protect the rights of vulnerable children who won't be naturally welcomed into those alternate institutions? Whether it is because the senators rushed through this line of questioning or because McMahon stonewalled successfully, we never got an answer.
McMahon faced other moments of pressure over the Trump education agenda, and was obligated to defend, with some discomfort, the administration's stances, including its assault on anything that appeared to promote diversity. As a result, when Sen. Chris Murphy asked if there was a 'possibility that if a school has a club for Vietnamese American students, or Black students, where they meet after school, that they could be potentially in jeopardy of receiving federal funding,' McMahon equivocated. 'Again, I would like to fully look into what the [executive] order is and what those clubs are doing.'
Those moments highlighted the threats of disruptive, sweeping changes that have caused experts who focus on civil rights and inequality in education to worry about a Trump Department of Education. But the strange thing about those threats is that they imagine a functioning Department of Education at all.
And that is not a given. President Donald Trump has said he wants the department gone, and Republican members of Congress periodically introduce bills to eliminate it. In this second Trump era, the momentum to abolish the department seems more real than ever. So during the hearing, a bizarre fact hung over the entire event: Trump might shut down the very department McMahon is nominated to lead. As Sen. Maggie Hassan put it: 'The whole hearing right now feels kind of surreal to me. It's almost like we're being subjected to a very elegant gaslighting.'
For McMahon, caught between the actual obligations of the department and these Republican ambitions, this meant she had to both promise to fight cultural battles and emphasize the superfluousness of her department.
You could see this in her response to Republican questions. To Sen. Josh Hawley, she vowed to enforce the interpretation of Title IX as protecting women 'in their spaces' by banning transgender women from sports teams and female dorms; to pull funding from universities that tolerated 'antisemitism' (whether this term meant simply violence against Jewish students or, more broadly, anti-Israel protests was unclear); and to revoke the visas of international students 'who have supported terrorist organizations by trespassing or vandalism or acts of violence.' To Sen. Jim Banks, she promised to 'take the ideology out of education' by cracking down on DEI programs and to force universities to be more transparent about donations from China and other 'anti-American influences.' To Sen. Ashley Moody, she promised to look into the accreditation process for higher education, considering complaints that the independent accreditation agencies had been overly critical of conservative curricula and programming.
These were promises McMahon made under the assumption that she would have the power to exert any control over the nation's education system. In those answers, she didn't mention the possibility she would have none.
At other times, she worked to explain how her department's absence would be just fine. The federal programs would still function, just under other departments. Grants and other funding would still go out. Health and Human Services could look after students with disabilities and the Department of Justice could police civil rights violations in schools. 'I am all for the president's mission, which is to return education to the states,' she said.
But anyone watching could tell that she was in a bind. Republicans were asking her to disappear, to let the states take charge. But they also wanted a ruthless, firm hand to guide the country's education toward their conservative vision. To do both is impossible, but if McMahon holds off the calls for her department's elimination, she has shown, at least in her nonanswer to Blunt Rochester, that her concern is for a certain type of imagined student—the child of heavily involved parents; a bright, able-bodied kid, one without any difficulties in their home life, learning differences or disabilities, or any other complicating factors—and not of the millions of children who fall outside that vision.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

State Department reveals plan to deliver 'life-saving' meals to 1.4M starving children
State Department reveals plan to deliver 'life-saving' meals to 1.4M starving children

Fox News

time17 minutes ago

  • Fox News

State Department reveals plan to deliver 'life-saving' meals to 1.4M starving children

FIRST ON FOX: The U.S. State Department and Secretary Marco Rubio punched back at claims that contracts providing Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Foods (RUTFs) have been halted and affirmed the agency will continue its commitment to "delivering critical humanitarian aid." "As USAID transitions under the State Department, our commitment to delivering critical humanitarian aid remains steadfast and aligned with America's foreign policy priorities," a senior State Department official told Fox News Digital in an exclusive statement. "We are proud to continue working with our local partners to deliver life-saving ready-to-use therapeutic food. Most recently, an additional $50 million in RUTFs was approved. This is enough to nourish over one million of the world's most vulnerable children." RUFTs' contracts and operations were previously overseen by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). However, oversight now lies with the State Department after USAID merged into the agency in February, largely influenced by then-Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Elon Musk. RUTFs are pre-packaged, nutrient-rich, ready-to-eat meals that help prevent malnutrition, mainly in children. Some countries even refer to RUTFs as a form of medicine. The State Department's comments come after Secretary Rubio faced questions from lawmakers on Capitol Hill in a May hearing, when Democratic Rep. Gabe Amo of Rhode Island confronted Rubio in a heated exchange, saying the agency was intentionally "freezing" RUTF aid to countries in need. "You need to figure out why they're not moving, because it isn't an impediment for us," Rubio fired back. Amo responded, "No, you need to figure [that] out, sir," and said that the secretary "refused to make" a commitment to ensuring effective RUTF distribution. "We're going to continue to do food aid," Rubio answered. "We're going to do more food aid than any other country on the planet, times 10." A source at the State Department revealed to Fox News Digital that key partnerships with non-profit RUTF producers, MANA and Edesia, have been active since March 2. Additionally, 1.4 million boxes of RUTFs were approved on May 26. Fox also obtained an internal document and action memorandum for Jeremy Lewin, a former DOGE employee now overseeing the transition of merging USAID with the State Department, from USAID's Dianna Darney de Salcedo. The document called for urgent approval to move food commodities and RUFTs that were stored in warehouses to be shipped for use. The sensitive but unclassified document also revealed a request to approve a new Title II award, valued at $35 million, which sources say was several times less than initially estimated, to cover the costs of warehouses, shipping overseas, transporting inland, programming and distribution. Fox News Digital spoke to MANA CEO Mark Moore, who outlined a detailed timeline of RUTF federal contract negotiations and the challenges the non-profit faced as USAID merged into the State Department at the beginning of 2025. At one point, before the State Department and the Trump administration proposed contracts in May, Moore told Fox News, "We're all looking at June and July running out of these old contracts and saying we're just going to have to close the doors." He noted that "if this new order didn't come out, we'd really be screwed going into the summer." "It is trending the right way, and we're thrilled," Moore added. Fox News Digital reached out to Rep. Gabe Amo and Edesia but did not receive a response. Preston Mizell is a writer with Fox News Digital covering breaking news. Story tips can be sent to and on X @MizellPreston

Hegseth Defends Move to Deploy National Guard and Marines to LA
Hegseth Defends Move to Deploy National Guard and Marines to LA

Bloomberg

time20 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Hegseth Defends Move to Deploy National Guard and Marines to LA

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pushed back against Democrats' criticism of the decision to deploy troops to Los Angeles, telling Congress that the Trump administration wants to protect immigration agents and keep demonstrations there from getting out of control. Asked by Representative Betty McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat, how much the deployment would cost, Hegseth criticized Governor Tim Walz's handling of protests that erupted after the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis 2020.

Hegseth filibusters on cost of Trump's Los Angeles deployments
Hegseth filibusters on cost of Trump's Los Angeles deployments

The Hill

time21 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Hegseth filibusters on cost of Trump's Los Angeles deployments

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday declined to discuss the expected cost of deploying National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles to suppress immigration raid protests, instead attacking Democratic leaders for their handling of current and previous incidents of civil unrest. Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), House Appropriations defense subcommittee ranking member, asked Hegseth about funding the deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles. He instead defended Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as having 'the right to safely conduct operations in any state and any jurisdiction in the country.' He also referenced the George Floyd murder protests in 2020 in Minneapolis, attacking Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) for his actions at that time and arguing that the National Guard was 'eventually far too late mobilized.' 'President Trump recognizes a situation like that, improperly handled by a governor, like it was by Governor Walz, if it gets out of control, it's a bad situation for the citizens,' Hegseth said. The answer prompted McCollum to interrupt him to press him to address her original question. 'Chairman, I have limited time, I asked a budget question,' McCollum interjected. McCollum also asked Hegseth whether any trainings were being pushed off due to the troop deployment, but grew frustrated at his lack of answer. 'I will yield back my time if the secretary refuses to answer the budgetary questions I put before him. They're important,' she said. 'What training missions aren't happening? Where are you pulling the money from? And how are you planning this moving forward? These are budget questions that affect this committee and the decisions we're going to be making in a couple of hours.' Hegseth only replied that the Pentagon has the funding 'to cover down on contingencies, especially ones as important as maintaining law and order in major American city.' In her opening remarks, McCollum criticized President Trump's decision to call in some 4,000 California National Guard troops as 'premature,' and the decision to deploy 700 active duty Marines as 'downright escalatory.' 'I ask you Mr. Secretary, and I ask the president, follow the law,' she said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store