What People Working in Education Are Watching For in the Linda McMahon Hearing
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.
What with all the Trump administration's activity at the end of January, you might not have noticed that it also launched its promised assault on U.S. public education with a pair of executive orders. 'Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families' focuses on school choice, while 'Ending Radical Indoctrination in K–12 Schooling' covers conservatives' culture wars around race and gender. On Thursday, Linda McMahon's confirmation hearing in the Senate begins. Here's what we're looking for as we try to understand how these two orders might be implemented in a future McMahon Department of Education.
The orders are jammed with red meat for conservatives: threats to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; attacks on transgender kids; efforts to mandate a national 'patriotic' history curriculum; and a generalized push to defund public schools. 'Ending Radical Indoctrination' opens by warping common educational terms through a conservative looking glass. Many of the ideas in here are familiar from the past few years of school-related culture wars. For instance, programs that focus on redressing persistent biases against kids of color are, in this document, part of 'discriminatory equity ideology.' This probably includes things like Black History Month, which faces an uncertain future in schools, given the stated goals of Trump's administration. It also likely includes civics lessons that are insufficiently 'patriotic' in their retelling of American history. And the order accuses schools who let trans kids use the bathrooms where they feel safest of promoting 'gender ideology.'
'Ending Radical Indoctrination' requires the secretary of education to produce a plan for defunding any school, district, or state advancing these 'ideologies.' Under this order, schools that are trying to become fairer or more welcoming to children of color and/or transgender kids could lose funding. Similarly, 'Expanding Educational Freedom' directs the secretary to come up with ideas for how to repurpose existing federal K–12 funding for 'educational choice initiatives.'
Sounds pretty direct, and pretty bad, to the many people nationwide who are invested in the goal of fairer, better public schools. And yet, at the end of both orders, there's a provision that makes things considerably less clear. It reads, 'Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect … the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency.' In plain terms, this is the White House acknowledging—or at least pretending to acknowledge—that the department's existing funding is spoken for. Those dollars are bound by legislative limits.
Congress passed laws creating the DOE and its different programs. It appropriated public funds to support those programs for specific, legislatively delineated purposes. No matter how much Donald Trump—or his secretary of education—wants to mandate the history curriculum for public schools in Evanston, Illinois, he can't just repurpose existing federal K–12 funding to do it. No matter how badly Trump and McMahon want to convert $18 billion in federal Title I funds into a school voucher scheme, they legally can't: Those funds are dedicated to supporting public schools serving large numbers of low-income families. The same, by the way, goes for impending efforts to close the department by executive fiat. They may have promised to do it, and they may want very badly to do it, but these deep yearnings don't make it legal to do so without the passage of legislation.
Basically, the core tension in Trump's K–12 education proposals is similar to the core tension in his administration's broader approach to governance. The White House wants things, but it doesn't have the power or the authority to actually get them in the ways or at the pace that it'd like. On the one hand, these two executive orders tell the secretary of education to steal funding from various current programs and use it for conservative priorities that are way outside those programs' designated purposes. On the other, the orders explicitly promise not to do anything outside the law.
In theory, this leaves the orders almost meaningless; they direct the secretary to find ways to misuse public K–12 funds for right-wing ends. When people talk about guardrails, about the checks and balances of the American government, these legislative limits are precisely what they mean.
But in practice, it's hard to know how this will shake out. Members of the Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee will assuredly be curious, during McMahon's hearing, to get clarification on the tension in these orders. Does McMahon believe that Cabinet secretaries can ignore Congress' instructions for how federal money can be spent? Republican Sen. Susan Collins, of Maine, is a member of the HELP committee, but she's also the chair of the Appropriations Committee, which leads in determining how much money Congress will dedicate to any particular program. Collins has long been interested in education policy—including the needs of children with disabilities. She might be uniquely interested in securing promises from McMahon that the DOE won't try to divert federal special education dollars into some new school voucher scheme invented through these executive orders.
Collins would be well within her rights to ask, since all evidence suggests that Trump and McMahon will push right through these guardrails. And then either we'll see Congress force the Department of Education to follow the law in how it spends money (perhaps with support from the judicial system) or we'll see that we no longer have any institutional checks limiting the executive branch's authority.
Hilariously, predictably, these orders reflect another sadly familiar case of stunning conservative hypocrisy. In 2009, as part of its recession recovery package, Congress gave Arne Duncan, Obama's secretary of education, $4.35 billion to run a competition—known as Race to the Top—in which states could overhaul policies, like their academic standards or teacher-evaluation systems, to try to win additional federal funding. Conservatives soon framed this as power-mad federal overreach, accusing Duncan of overstepping his bounds and intervening in state and local K–12 education decisionmaking. Republican Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, himself a former secretary of education, leaned into the criticism, saying that Duncan was using the funding to establish a 'national school board.'
Congress gave Duncan wide legal latitude to set priorities for how to spend those specific funds, and he used it. But by the time Congress replaced No Child Left Behind with 2015's Every Student Succeeds Act, conservatives built their criticism into the new bill with a host of proscriptions blocking secretaries of education from pressuring states to change academic standards. These added to Congress' long history of placing limits on the federal DOE.
Unsurprisingly, in that bill, Congress did not give any education secretary more latitude to mandate the sorts of things that the Trump administration has demanded in these executive orders. The department doesn't have the legal authority to require 'patriotic education' in any school, school district, or state—especially if the secretary invents that mandate through leverage by threatening to withhold unrelated federal education funding. Legally, it can't decide that a school's Hispanic Heritage Month celebrations are too equity-minded and merit funding penalties. It will be interesting to hear if conservatives are as incensed at lawless mandates from McMahon's Department of Education as they were at Duncan's legal priority-setting.
Perhaps this seems quaint to point out in our present chaos, as Trump and Elon Musk's DOGE initiative are consistently steamrolling Congress anyway—and as the administration suggests that it may defy court rulings demanding that it stop. Indeed, Musk has already canceled nearly $1 billion in research grants from the DOE's Institute of Education Sciences, with no measurable pushback from Congress. Put simply, if Musk can unilaterally gut the U.S. Agency for International Development, what is to stop him from doing the same to the Department of Education?
Sadly, the answer is the same in K–12 policy as it is in every other domain: We don't yet know. Perhaps the Trump administration can just run roughshod over Congress and legal constraints on the president's power. I wish I could say it'll be fun finding out.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
12 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Yemen's al-Qaida branch leader threatens Trump, Musk and others
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The leader of al-Qaida's Yemen branch has threatened both U.S. President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk over the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip in his first video message since taking over the group last year. The half-hour video message by Saad bin Atef al-Awlaki, which spread online early Saturday via supporters of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, also included calls for lone-wolf militants to assassinate leaders in Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf Arab states over the war, which has decimated Gaza. The video of al-Awlaki's speech showed images of Trump and Musk, as well as U.S. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of State Pete Hegseth. It also included images of logos of Musk's businesses, including the electric carmaker Tesla. 'There are no red lines after what happened and is happening to our people in Gaza," al-Awlaki said. "Reciprocity is legitimate.' Yemen's al-Qaida branch long thought to be most dangerous Though believed to be weakened in recent years due to infighting and suspected U.S. drone strikes killing its leaders, the group known by the acronym AQAP had been considered the most dangerous branch of al-Qaida still operating after the 2011 killing by U.S. Navy SEALs of founder Osama bin Laden, who masterminded the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In 2022, a U.S. drone strike in Afghanistan killed bin Laden's successor, Ayman al-Zawahri, who also helped plot 9/11. The Sept. 11 attacks then began decades of war by the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq, and fomented the rise of the Islamic State group. Al-Awlaki already has a $6 million U.S. bounty on his head, as Washington says al-Awlaki 'has publicly called for attacks against the United States and its allies.' He replaced AQAP leader Khalid al-Batarfi, whose death was announced by the group in 2024. Israel-Hamas war a focus of the Houthis as well AQAP seizing onto the Israel-Hamas war follows the efforts of Yemen's Houthi rebels to do the same. The Iranian-backed group has launched missile attacks on Israel and targeted commercial vessels moving through the Red Sea corridor, as well as American warships. The U.S. Navy has described their campaign against the Houthis as the most intense combat it has faced since World War II. The Trump administration also launched its own intense campaign of strikes on the Houthis, which only ended before the president's recent trip to the Middle East. The Houthis' international profile rose as the group remains mired in Yemen's long-stalemated war. Al-Awlaki may be betting on the same for his group, which U.N. experts have estimated has between 3,000 and 4,000 active fighters and passive members. The group raises money by robbing banks and money exchange shops, as well as smuggling weapons, counterfeiting currencies and ransom operations, according to the U.N. The Shiite Zaydi Houthis have previously denied working with AQAP, a Sunni extremist group. However, AQAP targeting of the Houthis has dropped in recent years, while the militants keep attacking Saudi-led coalition forces who have battled the Houthis. 'As the Houthis gain popularity as leaders of the 'Arab and Muslim world's resistance' against Israel, al-Awlaki seeks to challenge their dominance by presenting himself as equally concerned about the situation in Gaza,' said Mohammed al-Basha, a Yemen expert of the Basha Report risk advisory firm. 'For a national security and foreign policy community increasingly disengaged from Yemen, this video is a clear reminder: Yemen still matters.'
12 minutes ago
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — The tax cuts in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would likely gouge a hole in the federal budget. The president has a patch handy, though: his sweeping import taxes — tariffs. The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 — including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. So it's basically a wash. That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. 'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. 'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. 'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. 'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
ICE deportation blocked by Boston judge: Migrants now in shipping container in Djibouti
By Lindsay Whitehurst Migrants placed on a deportation flight bound initially for South Sudan are now being held in a converted shipping container on a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, where the men and their guards are contending with baking hot temperatures, smoke from nearby burn pits and the looming threat of rocket attacks, the Trump administration said. Officials outlined grim conditions in court documents filed Thursday before U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Boston, who is overseeing a lawsuit challenging Immigration and Customs Enforcement efforts to swiftly remove migrants to countries they didn't come from. Authorities landed the flight at the base in Djibouti, about 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) from South Sudan, more than two weeks ago after Murphy found the Trump administration had violated his order by swiftly sending eight migrants from countries including Cuba and Vietnam to the east African nation. The judge said that men from other countries must have a real chance to raise fears about dangers they could face in South Sudan. The men's lawyers, though, have still not been able to talk to them, said Robyn Barnard, senior director of refugee advocacy at Human Rights First, whose stated mission is to ensure the United States is a global leader on human rights. Barnard spoke Friday at a hearing of Democratic members of Congress and said some family members of the men had been able to talk to them Thursday. The migrants have been previously convicted of serious crimes in the U.S., and President Donald Trump's administration has said that it was unable to return them quickly to their home countries. The Justice Department has also appealed to the Supreme Court to immediately intervene and allow swift deportations to third countries to resume. The case comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by the Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. The legal fight became another flashpoint as the administration rails against judges whose rulings have slowed the president's policies. The Trump administration said the converted conference room in the shipping container is the only viable place to house the men on the base in Djibouti, where outdoor daily temperatures rise above 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius), according to the declaration from an ICE official. Nearby burn pits are used to dispose of trash and human waste, and the smog cloud makes it hard to breathe, sickening both ICE officers guarding the men and the detainees, the documents state. They don't have access to all the medication they need to protect against infection, and the ICE officers were unable to complete anti-malarial treatment before landing, an ICE official said. 'It is unknown how long the medical supply will last,' Mellissa B. Harper, acting executive deputy associate director of enforcement and removal operations, said in the declaration. The group also lacks protective gear in case of a rocket attack from terrorist groups in Yemen, a risk outlined by the Department of Defense, the documents state. Associated Press writer Rebecca Santana contributed to this story. AG Andrea Joy Campbell: Know your rights when it comes to ICE (Viewpoint) White House says Mayor Wu calling ICE 'secret police' is 'disgusting' and 'dangerous' Milford High student released from ICE detention: 'Nobody should be in here' 'He's going to be set free' — supporters of Milford teen arrested by ICE cheer release Judge orders Milford teen arrested by ICE to be released on bond Read the original article on MassLive.
