Senators Asked Linda McMahon the Right Questions Yesterday. They Just Didn't Get Answers.
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump EPA moves to repeal climate rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from US power plants
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas, an action that Administrator Lee Zeldin said would remove billions of dollars in costs for industry and help 'unleash' American energy. The EPA also proposed weakening a regulation that requires power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants that can harm brain development of young children and contribute to heart attacks and other health problems in adults. The rollbacks are meant to fulfill Republican President Donald Trump's repeated pledge to 'unleash American energy' and make it more affordable for Americans to power their homes and operate businesses. If approved and made final, the plans would reverse efforts by Democratic President Joe Biden's administration to address climate change and improve conditions in areas heavily burdened by industrial pollution, mostly in low-income and majority Black or Hispanic communities. The power plant rules are among about 30 environmental regulations that Zeldin targeted in March when he announced what he called the 'most consequential day of deregulation in American history.' Zeldin said Wednesday the new rules would help end what he called the Biden and Obama administration's 'war on so much of our U.S. domestic energy supply.' 'The American public spoke loudly and clearly last November,' he added in a speech at EPA headquarters. 'They wanted to make sure that … no matter what agency anybody might be confirmed to lead, we are finding opportunities to pursue common-sense, pragmatic solutions that will help reduce the cost of living … create jobs and usher in a golden era of American prosperity.' Environmental and public health groups called the rollbacks dangerous and vowed to challenge the rules in court. Dr. Lisa Patel, a pediatrician and executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health, called the proposals 'yet another in a series of attacks' by the Trump administration on the nation's 'health, our children, our climate and the basic idea of clean air and water.' She called it 'unconscionable to think that our country would move backwards on something as common sense as protecting children from mercury and our planet from worsening hurricanes, wildfires, floods and poor air quality driven by climate change.' 'Ignoring the immense harm to public health from power plant pollution is a clear violation of the law,' added Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'If EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we'll see them in court.' The EPA-targeted rules could prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect, according to an Associated Press examination that included the agency's own prior assessments and a wide range of other research. It's by no means guaranteed that the rules will be entirely eliminated — they can't be changed without going through a federal rulemaking process that can take years and requires public comment and scientific justification. Even a partial dismantling of the rules would mean more pollutants such as smog, mercury and lead — and especially more tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs and cause health problems, the AP analysis found. It would also mean higher emissions of the greenhouse gases driving Earth's warming to deadlier levels. Biden, a Democrat, had made fighting climate change a hallmark of his presidency. Coal-fired power plants would be forced to capture smokestack emissions or shut down under a strict EPA rule issued last year. Then-EPA head Michael Regan said the power plant rules would reduce pollution and improve public health while supporting a reliable, long-term supply of electricity. The power sector is the nation's second-largest contributor to climate change, after transportation. In its proposed regulation, the Trump EPA argues that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from fossil fuel-fired power plants 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution' or climate change and therefore do not meet a threshold under the Clean Air Act for regulatory action. Greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired plants 'are a small and decreasing part of global emissions,' the EPA said, adding: 'this Administration's priority is to promote the public health or welfare through energy dominance and independence secured by using fossil fuels to generate power.' The Clean Air Act allows the EPA to limit emissions from power plants and other industrial sources if those emissions significantly contribute to air pollution that endangers public health. If fossil fuel plants no longer meet the EPA's threshold, the Trump administration may later argue that other pollutants from other industrial sectors don't either and therefore shouldn't be regulated, said Meghan Greenfield, a former EPA and Justice Department lawyer now in private practice. The EPA proposal 'has the potential to have much, much broader implications,' she said. Zeldin, a former New York congressman, said the Biden-era rules were designed to 'suffocate our economy in order to protect the environment,' with the intent to regulate the coal industry 'out of existence' and make it 'disappear.' National Mining Association president and CEO Rich Nolan applauded the new rules, saying they remove 'deliberately unattainable standards' for clean air while 'leveling the playing field for reliable power sources, instead of stacking the deck against them.' But Dr. Howard Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health and professor emeritus at the University of Washington School of Public Health, said Zeldin and Trump were trying to deny reality. 'The world is round, the sun rises in the east, coal-and gas-fired power plants contribute significantly to climate change, and climate change increases the risk of heat waves, catastrophic storms and many other health threats,' Frumkin said. 'These are indisputable facts. If you torpedo regulations on power plant greenhouse gas emissions, you torpedo the health and well-being of the American public and contribute to leaving a world of risk and suffering to our children and grandchildren.' A paper published earlier this year in the journal Science found the Biden-era rules could reduce U.S. power sector carbon emissions by 73% to 86% below 2005 levels by 2040, compared with a reduction of 60% to 83% without the rules. 'Carbon emissions in the power sector drop at a faster rate with the (Biden-era) rules in place than without them,' said Aaron Bergman, a fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research institution and a co-author of the Science paper. The Biden rule also would result in 'significant reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, pollutants that harm human health,' he said.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump is under water on some of his top issues — including immigration, poll shows
President Donald Trump is under water on some of his most favorable issues — immigration and the economy — according to a new Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday. The poll shows Trump's approval rating at 38 percent among registered voters, a three point drop from April. He's also losing support on subjects that were crucial to his November victory. On immigration — an issue that the president hammered on the campaign trail — Trump's approval rating dropped five points from April, to 43 percent. His already low approval rating on the economy did not budge, remaining at 40 percent. The results show a majority of voters, 54 percent, disapprove of Trump's handling of the issue. The poll surveyed 1,265 self-identified registered voters from June 5-9, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent. The results come as Trump's approval has been steadily picking up since it dropped significantly in April, according to RealClearPolitics' polling average. The negative polling did not stop at the president himself. A majority of the voters polled also had objections to his premier piece of legislation, the 'big, beautiful bill' making its way through Congress. Fifty-three percent of the voters polled did not support the legislation. Divided among party lines, 67 percent of Republicans supported, while 89 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of independents opposed it. On Medicaid funding, an issue that has become Democratic messaging priority, 47 percent of those surveyed thought funding should increase, while 40 percent think it should stay about the same, and just 10 percent think federal funding should decrease. The bill as passed by the House is estimated to end Medicaid coverage for millions of people. Quinnipiac also asked voters what they think of billionaire Elon Musk, and his approval rating is crashing among Republicans following his very public breakup with Trump. Among Republicans, 62 percent had a favorable view of Musk, a 16 point drop from April. But while Trump's approval languishes, it's not clear Democrats will be able to take advantage of it. A vast majority of voters — 70 percent — disapprove of the way Democrats in Congress are doing their jobs, while 20 percent approved. That's 12 points lower than how voters viewed Republicans in the survey.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
General Trump has entered the fray and this is just the beginning
Donald Trump has long had a keen fascination with swashbuckling generals from the Second World War. His rally speeches are peppered with anecdotes about General Douglas MacArthur and he used a clip from one of his favourite war movies to open his event at Manhattan's Madison Square a week before last year's election. 'Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser,' says George C Scott, playing Gen George Patton in the 1970 movie Patton. What could be more Trumpian? The president's first administration was packed with generals and retired generals. Mr Trump made no secret of his admiration for their can-do attitude and straightforward command structure until, that is, he soured on their adherence to rules and legal norms. This time around, his flood-the-zone strategy of bamboozling the media and Democratic opponents with a constant stream of executive orders, public comments, and proclamations could come from one of Patton's real-life quotes: 'As long as you attack them, they cannot find the time to attack you.' This week, Mr Trump is leaning into his role of commander-in-chief in a much more literal sense. He has deployed active service personnel as an arm of domestic policy to back his massive deportation push. As protests grew in response to immigration raids around Los Angeles, he took the highly unusual step of deploying National Guard troops at the weekend despite the opposition of the California governor. On Tuesday he used a speech honouring soldiers to defend his decision against charges it was a politically motivated stunt. 'Generations of army heroes did not shed their blood on distant shores only to watch our country be destroyed by invasion and third-world lawlessness,' he said at the army base in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. A day later, the first of 700 Marines arrived in Los Angeles. And he has left open the possibility of going even further, using the Insurrection Act, which authorises the president to deploy military forces on American soil to suppress domestic violence in certain scenarios. 'If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it. We'll see,' he said from the Oval Office. And then there is Saturday's military parade. More than 100 military vehicles and thousands of soldiers are set to roll or march down Constitution Avenue in front of the White House. Black Hawk and Apache helicopters will fill the skies. It will be the $50 million fulfilment of a dream Mr Trump has had since 2017, when he was a guest of Emmanuel Macron, the French president, at a Bastille Day parade. Hundreds of troops marching down the Champs-Élysées beneath plumes of red, white and blue smoke trailing behind fighter jets, left a deep impression on Mr Trump. 'It was one of the greatest parades I've ever seen,' he later said. 'We're going to have to try and top it.' A parade during his visit to China in 2017 also got the Trump seal of approval. He called it 'magnificent'. Then, he was quietly advised then that it would not be appropriate to parade the nation's military might through the capital. But like so much of his thwarted first-term agenda, he has spent the past four years staffing up with officials who can make his dreams come true. Officially, Saturday's parade will mark the 250th birthday of the army. And it doesn't hurt that it falls on the 79th birthday of Mr Trump. Critics say he is abusing the nation's armed forces for his own ends. 'He views the military as political props,' said John Bolton, who worked as Trump's national security adviser in his first term before falling out with him. 'He thinks they make him look good.' The event could serve another purpose, illustrating how Mr Trump is bringing the nation's biggest and strongest institutions into line. And as commander-in-chief he is the one to call the shots, illustrating his hold on power. Members of Washington's diplomatic corps will be in the audience on Saturday. 'He just likes the pomp and circumstance,' said one, speaking on condition of anonymity. 'I don't see an attack on democracy. Mr Trump looks around at other leaders and thinks that this is the sort of thing that a head of state gets.' In the meantime, polls suggest a limit to what he can do as commander-in-chief. A new YouGov survey found that 47 per cent of Americans disapprove of deploying the Marines to Los Angeles, with only 34 per cent approving, despite other polls showing that voters approve of the broader deportation operation. And while legal scholars will debate whether Mr Trump's decision to deploy troops stands up to scrutiny, and whether it breaches a federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prevents the use of American forces to enforce domestic laws, the president sees things in black and white. He knows where the battle lines are drawn as he made clear in his Fort Bragg speech. He used highly partisan language to slam the Los Angeles protesters and to champion the armed forces. 'They're heroes. They're fighting for us,' he said. 'They're stopping an invasion, just like you'd stop an invasion.' His armed forces are all part of Mr Trump's us-against-them view of the world. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
