McMahon: Trump ‘dead serious' that he ‘wants me to fire myself'
'When he asked me to serve as the secretary of Education I knew exactly what his mandate was, which is to close the Department of Education,' McMahon said during a Thursday interview on WABC 770 AM's 'Cats & Cosby.'
McMahon nodded to Trump's comment at the White House last month when he noted he had told her, 'I hope you do a great job and put yourself out of a job.'
'He has joked, but he's dead serious about the fact that he wants me to fire myself,' McMahon said during the interview on the radio program hosted by John Catsimatidis and Rita Cosby.
Trump signed an executive order last week seeking to spearhead efforts to eliminate the Department of Education during an event with GOP governors in the White House East Room.
'Beyond these core necessities, my administration will take all lawful steps to shut down the department. We're going to shut it down and shut it down as quickly as possible,' Trump said.
McMahon suggested Thursday that Title I funding for schools with low-income students and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) programs for special needs scholars could be housed under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which has also undertaken mass firings.
'The Title 1 funding and the funding under IDEA, which is for our special needs and handicap children, could very well go under HHS … Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] and I have already had discussions about that. He fully believes that they would be very properly managed and funded … through HHS.'
The Education Department laid off 1,315 staffers earlier this month in an effort to comply with the president's mandate to dismantle the department while officials push for congressional approval to completely eliminate the agency.
'One of the things I've asked to have provided to me is a list of those actions that I can take without Congress, and those that I will need Congress's approval for. Clearly, shutting down the agency would be an act of Congress. It was set up by an act of Congress,' McMahon said.
'The president said in his executive order that we would be abiding by the law and in cooperation with Congress to get this done. My goal is to be completely transparent with Congress as we look to how to move these programs into different agencies,' she added.
Education advocates have filed a series of lawsuits over the Trump administration's push to close the department. The White House argues states should take a bigger role in education matters.
'The Department of Education, and the laws it is supposed to execute, has one major purpose: to level the playing field and fill opportunity gaps to help every child in America succeed,' Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers union, said in a statement.
'Trying to abolish it—which, by the way, only Congress can do—sends a message that the president doesn't care about opportunity for all kids. Maybe he cares about it for his own kids or his friends' kids or his donors' kids—but not all kids,' she added.
'No one likes bureaucracy, and everyone's in favor of more efficiency, so let's find ways to accomplish that.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
38 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
End the gerrymandering wars by enlarging the US House
Meanwhile, national Democratic Party leaders are Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up There are no saints or villains in this saga. Republicans and Democrats are engaging in a bare-knuckled fight for power, and what each side condemns is Advertisement The cause of all this drama is not inherent Republican or Democratic perfidy. It is an institutional flaw: With only 435 seats, the US House is far too small — which means each congressional district is far too large. The average district now encompasses nearly 760,000 people. That is a constituency vastly greater than any member of Congress can effectively or fairly represent. And because congressional districts are so large, each one is a political prize well worth gerrymandering. When each district must corral so many people, a single line on the map has an outsize political impact. Under such circumstances, partisan cartography becomes irresistible — and bitter, recurring fights like the one in Texas are inevitable. Happily, there is a structural remedy that would dramatically curtail the constant court fights, political retaliation, and vicious maneuvering surrounding redistricting. Congress ought to expand the size of the House from the current 435 members to 1,500. No constitutional amendment would be needed — it would require only a simple statute to restore each House district to a more manageable size, and thereby make gerrymandering far less tempting. That would be a return to what the framers of the Constitution intended. The House of Representatives was conceived as Advertisement And there it froze. Congress didn't expand the House following the 1920 census, because of a political standoff. Many members resented the A House of 435 might have been workable during the Hoover administration. It makes no sense now. If the House were expanded to 1,500 members, the average congressional district would have about 225,000 people — still larger than its counterparts in many other modern democracies, but far more manageable than today's bloated mega-districts. Granted, that would require more chairs in the House chamber and perhaps smaller offices and staffs for each member. But the payoff would be enormous: Not only would the House be more representative, it would also be less susceptible to gerrymandering. Here's why: When each congressional district contains three-quarters of a million seats, a carefully crafted border can determine the balance of thousands of votes — enough to flip a seat. That makes each boundary line a powerful political weapon. But when districts are a third or a quarter of that size, no single line carries as much weight. Shifting a few neighborhoods or towns from one district to another would affect far fewer voters, making it harder for mapmakers to engineer outcomes with surgical precision. Smaller districts mean smaller levers — reducing the scope for mischief. Advertisement And the more districts there are, the less potent those engineering tactics become. Gerrymandering works best when the map has fewer, larger pieces — which makes it easier to 'pack' opposition voters into a handful of districts, and to 'crack' the rest among multiple other districts, thinning out their numbers to ensure that they lose everywhere else. But multiply the number of districts, and that strategy loses force. The cartographer's advantage fades as the map gets more granular. When each puzzle piece covers a smaller slice of territory, the lines become less predictable and harder to weaponize. Last but definitely not least, in a 1,500-member House, voters would be likelier to know their elected representative — and to be known in return. In districts limited to 225,000 constituents, there would be room for more local voices, more diversity of all kinds, more candidates who reflect the communities they serve. Much smaller districts means much less expensive campaigns — and lower barriers to entry for challengers. It also encourages lawmakers to stay grounded in the concerns of their neighbors rather than the noise of national partisanship. Congress blundered badly when it froze the House at 435 seats. The chaos emanating from Texas is only the latest consequence of that blunder. Advertisement It doesn't have to be this way. Enlarging the House to 1,500 members would end the gerrymandering wars. Better still, it would revive the ideal of a legislature that truly speaks for the people — restoring the people's House to its constitutional roots. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Boston Globe
38 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A brief history of Trump pretending not to know things
Less than a week after the Justice Department took the highly unusual step of sending Todd Blanche, deputy attorney general and Trump's former personal lawyer, to interview Maxwell for more than nine hours over two days, she was quietly moved from a federal minimum-security prison in Florida to a less-restrictive facility in Texas. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But according to Trump, that decision was news to him. Advertisement Perhaps the president really has no clue as to what's happening in his administration. But Trump's pleas of ignorance are an escape hatch he has deployed for years. Here's a brief history of notable moments in Trump's performative ignorance. The David Duke endorsement (2016): After Trump launched his first presidential campaign by excoriating Mexican immigrants and later promising to enact a Advertisement James Comey's firing (2017): Months into his first term, Trump dumped James Comey as FBI director. At the time, White House officials claimed that Trump fired Comey solely on the recommendation of deputy attorney general Hush money paid to Stormy Daniels (2018): Trump Advertisement Project 2025 (2024): At a Heritage Foundation event in 2022, Trump said the conservative group 'would lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.' Two years later, Trump Trump seems to treat ignorance — saying 'I don't know' or 'I didn't know'— as evidence of his innocence. He's testing that theory again as his self-inflicted Epstein scandal refuses to go away. But whether this tactic will allow him to dodge accountability this time, no one knows. Advertisement Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
NBC News
39 minutes ago
- NBC News
Why U.S. politicians are up in arms about new internet rules in Britain
A growing number of U.S. politicians are condemning a new British law that requires some websites and apps — including some based in the United States — to check the ages of users across the pond. A bipartisan group of members of Congress visited London recently to meet counterparts and air their concerns about the U.K.'s Online Safety Act, which went into effect July 25. Vice President JD Vance has been criticizing the law for months, as have privacy advocates who argue that the law infringes on free expression and disproportionately hurts vulnerable groups. Vance criticized the U.K. again on Friday, this time in person at the start of a visit to the country. Sitting alongside British Foreign Secretary David Lammy and speaking to reporters, Vance warned the U.K. against going down a 'very dark path' of online 'censorship' that he said was trod earlier by the Biden administration. The U.K. Online Safety Act is aimed at preventing children from accessing potentially harmful material online, and internet companies are now asking British users to verify their ages in a variety of ways, including with photos of their IDs, through a credit card provider or with selfies analyzed via age-check software. But the sweeping nature of the law has caught some Britons by surprise. They're being asked to prove their age not only for pornography websites but also before they can listen to songs with explicit lyrics or access message boards to discuss sensitive subjects. Reddit, for example, is restricting access to various pages including r/stopsmoking, r/STD and r/aljazeera. Reddit said in a post about its enforcement of the law that for people in the U.K., it was now verifying ages before they can 'view certain mature content.' A spokesperson for the company said r/STD — a message board focused on questions of sexual health — is restricted because of explicit images. They said r/stopsmoking is restricted because it deals with harmful substances and that r/aljazeera — which is not affiliated with the news organization of the same name but deals with similar topics — is restricted because it depicts serious injury or violence. To get around the new law, the use of virtual private network software that can mask a person's location, also known as VPNs, has surged in the U.K. The primary argument of U.S. politicians who oppose the law is that they don't want American tech companies to have to comply, even if they're serving British customers. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said he raised his objections with U.K. government officials during meetings in London at the end of July. In a statement after his return, he said the law and other European regulations 'create a serious chilling effect on free expression and threaten the First Amendment rights of American citizens and companies.' 'We absolutely need to protect children and keep harmful, illegal content off these platforms — but when governments or bureaucracies suppress speech in the name of safety or regulation, it sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the core of Western democratic values,' Jordan said. The issue may come to a head in a couple of different venues. That could be the courts if any tech companies file lawsuits over the law, or it could come up in trade negotiations if President Donald Trump decides to press the issue with British politicians, although they say it's not open to debate in trade talks. Marc Andreessen, a venture capitalist and Meta board member with close ties to the Trump administration, recently called U.K. leaders to complain about the law, the Financial Times reported Friday. A spokesperson for Andreessen said the report was not true. The U.K.'s Online Safety Act is one of the most comprehensive national laws that any democracy has ever passed to try to curtail potentially harmful content online in the name of children. Parliament passed the law in 2023, and the government went through two years of writing detailed rules before putting the law into effect last month. The law is notable for a combination of reasons: the variety of content it applies to, the potential fines and the possible international reach. A wide array of content is at issue. While the 'primary' focus of the law is online material such as pornography and suicide, it also requires websites to age-gate content with bullying, serious violence, 'dangerous stunts' and 'exposure to harmful substances.' That has covered relatively mainstream services such as Spotify and Microsoft's Xbox gaming system. Companies that don't comply face potential fines of up to 10% of their global revenue, which for the biggest companies could be billions of dollars. The British regulator Ofcom, short for Office of Communications, says companies must use ' highly effective age assurance ' to restrict the riskiest types of content. And the U.K. has not been adamant that it won't allow international borders to stymie enforcement. Ofcom says it plans to apply the law to services with 'a significant number' of U.K. users, services where U.K. users 'are a target market' and services that are 'capable of being accessed' by U.K. users with a 'material risk of significant harm' to such users. The law appears to retain strong support among the British public. About 69% said they supported the new rules in a YouGov poll taken after implementation began, and 46% said they supported it 'strongly.' But 52% said they do not think the law will be very effective at preventing minors from accessing pornography. The law was passed during a previous, Conservative-led government and took effect under the current, Labour-led government. But the far-right party Reform U.K. is pushing for a repeal of the law. Party leader Nigel Farage, a former member of Parliament, has called it 'state suppression of genuine free speech,' and his party is running high in polls. 'Millions of people have noticed that what they're getting on their feeds is different to what it was,' Farage said at a recent news conference. Farage also met with visiting members of Congress last week, and the talks turned heated with Farage and Democrats exchanging insults, according to Politico, although the dispute appeared to be more about Trump's free speech restrictions than about the U.K. law. Most U.S.-based tech companies say they are complying with the new law. Microsoft said in a blog post that Xbox users in the U.K. would begin seeing notifications 'encouraging them to verify their age' as a 'one-time process,' with actual enforcement starting next year. If users don't comply, Microsoft warned, they'll lose access to social features of Xbox but will still be able to play games. Discord said it was implementing new default settings for all U.K. users, in effect treating everyone like a minor with heavy content filtering unless they verify that they're adults. Discord says users can choose to verify their age either with a face scan or an ID upload. Elon Musk's X has also restricted posts, including information about the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, according to the BBC. X and Musk did not respond to requests for comment. But a few services are not complying. The far-right social media site Gab, which allows white supremacist views and other extremist content, said in a notice on its website that it had received notices from Ofcom and, rather than comply, decided to block the entire U.K. from accessing its site. The company said in the notice: 'We refuse to comply with this tyranny.' Preston Byrne, a U.S. lawyer who specializes in technology issues, has said on X that he plans to file a lawsuit soon on behalf of an unnamed client seeking to quash possible enforcement of the British law within the United States. The subject has been simmering for months ahead of the law's implementation, and it came up in February when British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited the White House. In an Oval Office meeting, a reporter asked Trump what he thought of the U.K. approach to free speech, and Trump tossed the question to Vance, who expressed concern. 'We do have, of course, a special relationship with our friends in the U.K. and also with some of our European allies. But we also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British — of course, what the British do in their own country is up to them — but also affect American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens,' he said. Starmer defended his government's approach. 'We've had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very, very long time. Certainly, we wouldn't want to reach across U.S. systems and we don't, and that's absolutely right,' he said. British Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy later said the U.K. would not make any changes to the Online Safety Act as part of trade negotiations with the Trump administration. American privacy advocates are watching the debate play out with alarm, concerned that similar age verification laws — like new state laws targeting the Apple and Google app stores — would upend the internet closer to home. 'Young people should be able to access information, speak to each other and to the world, play games, and express themselves online without the government making decisions about what speech is permissible,' wrote Paige Collings, a senior speech and privacy activist at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, in a blog post Tuesday.
