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

Vance on LA unrest: Newsom should ‘look in mirror' and stop blaming Trump
Vance on LA unrest: Newsom should ‘look in mirror' and stop blaming Trump

The Hill

time15 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Vance on LA unrest: Newsom should ‘look in mirror' and stop blaming Trump

Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday tore into California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for suggesting the unrest in Los Angeles is a consequence of federal involvement in state and local law enforcement efforts. 'Gavin Newsom says he didn't have a problem until Trump got involved,' Vance wrote in a post on X, attaching two photos that he said were taken before Trump ordered the National Guard to protect border patrol agents in California. One depicted rioters appearing to attack a 'border patrol' van, and another depicted a car set ablaze. The Hill was not able to verify the authenticity of the photos. 'Does this look like 'no problem'?' Vance asked. Vance suggested Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass 'fomented and encouraged the riots,' with the goal of promoting mass migration into the U.S., adding, 'It is their reason for being.' 'If you want to know why illegal aliens flocked to your state, stop accusing Donald Trump. Look in the mirror,' Vance said. 'If you want to know why border patrol fear for their lives over enforcing the law, look in the mirror.' Vance pointed to California's Medicaid expansion last year to low-income undocumented immigrants as an example of a policy that has 'encouraged mass migration into California.' Newsom has since proposed ending new Medicaid enrollment for undocumented adults, but his proposal faces resistance from the state legislature. 'Your policies that protected those migrants from common sense law enforcement. Your policies that offered massive welfare benefits to reward illegal immigrants. Your policies that allowed those illegal migrants (and their sympathizers) to assault our law enforcement. Your policies that allowed Los Angeles to turn into a war zone,' Vance continued. 'You sure as hell had a problem before President Trump came along. The problem is YOU,' Vance added. Vance's post is the latest in a back-and-forth between the administration and Newsom, who has resisted Trump's extraordinary steps to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops to the area and mobilize 700 active-duty marines. Newsom has insisted that the situation was under control before the Trump administration escalated tensions by making a provocative show of force. He accused Trump of 'intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities and endangering the principles of our great democracy.' After Trump suggested his border czar arrest Newsom, the California governor responded by saying, 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America.' 'I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,' Newsom added Monday afternoon. Vance then replied to Newsom, saying, 'Do your job. That's all we're asking.' 'Do YOUR job. We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. Rescind the order. Return control to California,' Newsom responded, prompting Vance's latest response.

Impeachment wars
Impeachment wars

Axios

time18 minutes ago

  • Axios

Impeachment wars

Rep. Jasmine Crockett's mere mention of a possible impeachment inquiry into President Trump has touched off negative reactions from some colleagues. "I think she's going to turn off a lot more people than gain," a House Democrat told us. Why it matters: House Democratic leaders are staying neutral. But many Democrats are allergic to the word after they impeached Trump twice only for him to return to power with full control of the government. Crockett (D-Texas), asked in a local news interview if she would pursue impeachment if Democrats retook the House in 2026 and she became Oversight Committee chair, said she would "absolutely at least do an inquiry." The other three candidates for the ranking member job on Oversight, Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) and Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), told us they wouldn't go that far. 👿 "Turning this ranker race into a proxy for impeachment is unhelpful and unfair to her colleagues," said a House Democrat who predicted Republicans will "try to motivate their base by saying that a Democratic majority will inevitably lead to impeachment." Crockett told us the term "impeachment inquiry" would stress to the public the "next level of gravity" of the subject matter — such as Trump's pardons for big money allies and the Qatari jet scandal. "A lot of times we as Democrats can overthink stuff," Crockett said. "A lot of people ... felt like [Oversight Committee chair] James Comer was an embarrassment. But at the end of the day, who won the House?" The bottom line: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries deferred to House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), whose panel, he said, "has jurisdiction over impeachment."

Adams Team Works Behind Scenes to Try to Sway Rabbis Against Cuomo
Adams Team Works Behind Scenes to Try to Sway Rabbis Against Cuomo

New York Times

time20 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Adams Team Works Behind Scenes to Try to Sway Rabbis Against Cuomo

Mayor Eric Adams may be running an unusually low-key race for re-election in New York City, opting out of the Democratic primary and mounting an independent general election run without even a campaign manager to steer it. But behind the scenes, he is making an aggressive play to try to shape the field to his liking and hold onto a key voting bloc. A top aide to Mr. Adams has been calling Orthodox Jewish leaders in recent weeks to urge them not to back Andrew M. Cuomo in the June 24 Democratic primary, or to temper their support for him if they do, according to six people familiar with the effort. Mr. Adams's allies have indicated they believe he would have a better chance of winning the general election if Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist assemblyman now polling in second place, defeats Mr. Cuomo and becomes the Democratic nominee. At the same time, Mr. Adams has used his mayoral powers to make policy pronouncements that seem designed to resonate with some Orthodox Jews. He signed an executive order recognizing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism and created the Mayor's Office to Combat Antisemitism to address the spike in antisemitic hate crimes in the city. 'He is going around to people to ask for support for the general election,' said Rabbi Moishe Indig, a leader of one faction of the Satmar Hasidic group in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. 'He would love that everyone just ignore the primary and wait until the fall.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

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