Trump Education Secretary Gets Embarrassing Math Lesson in Hearing
The U.S. secretary of education is having issues with basic math.
Linda McMahon testified on Trump's 2026 budget before the Senate on Tuesday. While discussing spending on federal grants programs for disadvantaged students—TRIO and the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, or GEAR UP—she made a massive math error.
'We spend $1.58 billion a year on TRIO?' Republican Senator John Kennedy asked McMahon.
'Yes,' she replied.
'That's one thousand, five hundred and eighty million dollars a year? Is my math right?' Kennedy said, spelling out $1.58 billion.
'I think that's right, sir.'
'And how long have we been spending one thousand five hundred and eighty million a year on this program?' he asked.
'I'm not sure the total length and time of the program.'
'More than 10 years?'
'Yes.'
'So that's over a trillion dollars that we've spent on this program.… We give this money, as I appreciate it, to colleges and universities to encourage poor kids to go to college,' Kennedy said, before going on to insinuate that the colleges were stealing this grant money from the government for their own purposes.
Democratic Senator John Reed jumped in to check the math, as both Kennedy and the education secretary were way off.
'I'm not a great mathematician, but I think you were talking about a trillion dollars? I believe $1.5 billion times 10 is $15 billion, and that's a little bit off from a trillion dollars,' Reed stated, referring to Kennedy and McMahon's claim.
'I think the budget cuts $1.2 billion,' McMahon responded.
'Well that would be $12 billion, not a trillion dollars,' said Reed, calmly holding McMahon and Kennedy's hands through what amounted to a third-grade math lesson.
'OK,' McMahon said stiffly.
The hearing was a mess in other ways, as well. McMahon also refused to clarify to Senator Tammy Baldwin whether or not she would distribute congressionally appropriated funds for after-school programs.
'What we have done in putting forward our operating plan, the first operating plan to show where we're making allocations, and then followed up with the second operating plan—'
'This isn't a nuanced question,' Baldwin interrupted. 'Congress passed a law appropriating this funding. You said in your confirmation hearing you would spend funding Congress appropriated. If the answer isn't simply 'yes,' based on all the evidence before us, that leads me to believe that you are planning to withhold funding and short-change schools, students, and families across America.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC Sports
20 minutes ago
- NBC Sports
Missouri Senate passes plan to keep Chiefs at Arrowhead Stadium
There's nothing like a ticking clock to get things done. The Missouri Senate, faced with the inevitability of the Chiefs and Royals leaving for Kansas, passed on Thursday morning a plan to keep both teams from leaving. The consensus was reached at a time when many doubted the ability of the Senate to strike a deal. The legislation, which devotes more than $1.5 billion to the football and baseball stadiums, was crafted at a special session called by governor Mike Kehoe. To get there, Senate Republicans increased the aid package for recent St. Louis tornadoes from $25 million to $100 million. This lured enough Democrats to support such a large expenditure for a pair of private businesses that arguably don't need to be subsidized by taxpayers. Ultimately, the stadium effort prevailed by a vote of 19-13. The GOP-controlled House is expected to adopt the plan on Monday. For the Chiefs, Missouri will kick half of the $1.15 billion needed for renovations to Arrowhead Stadium. This doesn't mean the deal is done. The Chiefs could still choose to go to Kansas, where a new stadium would be built. While the team's lease runs through 2030, Kansas has said its offer expires on June 30. If so, the Chiefs will be making a decision sooner than later.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Governments scramble to understand Trump's latest travel ban before it takes effect Monday
WASHINGTON (AP) — Governments of 12 countries whose citizens will be banned from visiting the United States beginning next week scrambled on Thursday to understand President Donald Trump's latest move to resurrect a hallmark policy of his first term. The ban takes effect Monday at 12:01 a.m., a cushion that may avoid the chaos that unfolded at airports nationwide when a similar measure took effect with virtually no notice in 2017. Trump, who signaled plans for a new ban upon taking office again in January, appears to be on firmer ground this time after the Supreme Court sided with him. Some of the 12 countries also appeared on the list of banned countries in the Republican president's first term. The new ban targets Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. There will also be heightened restrictions on visitors from seven other countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. But North Korea and Syria, which were on the banned list in the first Trump administration, were spared this time. Trump tied the new ban to Sunday's terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. The suspect in the attack is from Egypt, which is not on Trump's restricted list. The Department of Homeland Security says he overstayed a tourist visa. The travel ban results from a Jan. 20 executive order Trump issued requiring the departments of State and Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence to compile a report on 'hostile attitudes' toward the U.S. and whether entry from certain countries represented a national security risk. Visa overstays Trump said some countries had 'deficient' screening and vetting or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. His findings rely extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of visa overstays of tourists, business visitors and students who arrive by air and sea, singling out countries with high percentages of those remaining after their visas expired. Capturing overstay rates has riddled experts for decades, but the government has made a limited attempt every year since 2016. Trump's proclamation cites overstay rates for eight of the 12 banned countries and all seven restricted ones. While Trump's list captures many of the most egregious offenders, it omits others. Djibouti, for example, had a 23..9% overstay rate among business visitors and tourists in the 12-month period through September 2023, higher than seven countries on the banned list and six countries on the restricted list. The findings are 'based on sketchy data and a misguided concept of collective punishment,' said Doug Rand, a former Biden administration official at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Reactions Venezuela's interior minister, Diosdado Cabello, said being in the United States is a 'great risk' and called anyone who travels to the U.S. 'a fool.' The decision is a significant blow to Venezuelans who were already limited in their U.S. travel plans since both governments broke diplomatic relations in 2019. 'If you are a fool, then go to the United States,' Cabello said. The African Union Commission, meanwhile, asked the Trump administration to reconsider, saying it was appealing to the United States to exercise its sovereign right to protect its borders and ensure the security of its citizens 'in a manner that is balanced, evidence-based, and reflective of the long-standing partnership between the United States and Africa.' International aid groups and refugee resettlement organizations took a harsher tone: 'This policy is not about national security — it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America. A travel agent in the Somali capital, Mogadishu, said the policy threatens the travel and service industry. 'The United States is home to the largest Somali diaspora in the world, and for years it has been one of our most active and reliable destinations," said Bashir Farah Ali, manager of Kofi Express Travel Services. 'Every month I facilitated travel for at least 10 clients, mostly government officials attending conferences, diplomatic meetings, or U.N. events, as well as ordinary citizens traveling to reunite with their families after years of separation." Shock in Iran News of the new Trump travel ban came as a shock to many in Iran despite the decades of enmity between the two countries. Reports suggest thousands of university students each year travel to America to study, and others have extended families living in America, some of whom fled after the initial 1979 Islamic Revolution that overthrew the shah. 'My elder daughter got a bachelor's degree from a top Iranian university and planned to continue in the U.S., but now she is badly distressed,' said Nasrin Lajvardi, a 56-year-old mother of two. While tensions also remain high as negotiations over Iran's nuclear program have yet to reach any agreement, Tehran resident Mehri Soltani offered rare support for Trump's decision. 'Those who have family members in the U.S, it's their right to go, but a bunch of bad people and terrorists and murderers want to go there as well,' he said. 'American has to cancel it' Outside the former U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, a Taliban guard expressed his disappointment in Trump's decision. 'America has no right to do this and implement this ban,' Ilias Kakal said. 'America has to cancel it.' In Afghanistan's capital, travel agents pointed out the ban would have little practical effect as Afghan passport holders had been facing problems in getting U.S. visas anyway for years. Since the Taliban took over the country in 2021, only Afghans with foreign passports or green cards were able to travel to the United States with any ease, they said, while even those applying for special visas due to their work with U.S. forces in Afghanistan in previous years were facing problems. First term ban During his first term, Trump issued an executive order in January 2017 banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries. It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency. The order, often referred to as the 'Muslim ban' or the 'travel ban,' was retooled amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. Trump and others have defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was aimed at protecting the country and not founded on anti-Muslim bias. However, the president had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of President Donald Trump at ___ Amiri reported from the United Nations. Associated Press writers Rebecca Santana, Jon Gambrell, Ellen Knickmeyer, Omar Farouk, Nasser Karimi, Elliot Spagat, Elena Becatoros and Danica Coto contributed to this report.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Speaker Johnson, the Blue Dogs are here to throw you a bone
Over the last few weeks, Americans have been hearing endless mentions of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' Although the Republicans' reconciliation proposal is certainly big — so big it would add over $4 trillion to our national debt — it is by no means beautiful. There is no way to hide the ugly reality of this bill. It allows for $2.8 trillion in new borrowing over the 10-year budget window, adds $3.3 trillion to the already more than $36 trillion national debt, and cuts over $700 billion from federal health care spending, primarily Medicaid. By 2034, our debt-to-GDP ratio would be at 125 percent. Interest payments could exceed $2 trillion a year, making it impossible to pay off the debt. Considering we already spend more on servicing our debt than on stewarding American defense capabilities and health care, we are accelerating down an unsustainable and dangerous path. Unrestrained fiscal policy has plagued the U.S. for decades, and it has not been limited to one side of the aisle. While members of Congress sit insulated on Capitol Hill and alternate between irresponsible tax cuts and excessive spending, life gets worse for everyday Americans. Moody's recently lowered the U.S. long-term credit ratings to AA1 from AAA. At the same time, the world is moving further and further away from the American dollar. This means Americans are left with a smaller economy, less economic mobility, and a lower standard of living. As we know all too well, excessive borrowing leads to inflation and drives up interest rates, making it harder for Americans to finance a home, start a business, and put food on the table. This is unsustainable and has to change very quickly. Don't just take it from us: In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) wrote called it 'essential that Congress deviate from its current path. Under every scenario now being considered, federal debt continues to skyrocket from its current level of almost $37 trillion.' So far in the 119th Congress, the majority hasn't shown much of an appetite to deviate from this trajectory. In order to hand out tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy, the Republican reconciliation package would make devastating cuts to food assistance programs, health coverage, and other federal resources that hard-working Americans rely on to make ends meet. Is it so important to our colleagues across the aisle to give a handout to their mega-wealthy buddies that they would strap everyday Americans with even more crushing debt? The national debt and our federal government's spending deficit may seem like far-off, intangible concepts when D.C. bureaucrats and television talking heads drone on about them for weeks on end. But the American people know perfectly well how debt adds up. Our constituents have to balance their budgets every month — why can't the federal government do the same? The truth is, we can. For decades, Congress has chosen not to do so, perhaps because it isn't politically expedient or it just takes too much hard work. Regardless, Congress and our federal government broadly are derelict in our duty to responsibly manage the government's finances. Since our coalition was founded in the 1990s, the cornerstone of the Blue Dogs' work has been our relentless focus on fiscal responsibility. For years, Blue Dogs supported legislation to curb reckless spending, hold both Democrats and Republicans accountable to our constituents, and require that Congress balance the budget. We had a willing partner in President Bill Clinton, who remains the most recent example of real fiscal discipline in the federal government. Now, as then, Blue Dogs know that the American people have one demand for their legislators as prices continue to rise and reckless fiscal policy threatens their livelihoods: 'It's the economy, stupid!' As this cry goes unanswered by a majority in Congress that proposes to drive our national debt to truly harrowing heights, Americans who work hard to pay their bills and take care of their families are losing confidence in their government. Each day this irresponsible spending continues, young Americans' dreams that they can achieve the economic prosperity their parents did slip further and further away. The Blue Dogs' vision to solve this problem is proving that our government can work. We believe that change is not only possible but essential. It doesn't have to be this way. There's another way forward: a bipartisan, commonsense way that pays down our debt while extending tax cuts to working Americans who need them most. Evidently, our offers to Republican leadership to work together on this fell on deaf ears this time. But with costs rising, confidence in government is sinking. Americans are eager for change, and we remain committed to using a steady hand to deliver pragmatic policies that most Americans agree on. In that spirit, our offer still stands. We are eager to work with our Republican colleagues to solve the issues facing our country and deliver results to the American people. We ask our colleagues: Will you work with us to deliver results? The authors are all members of the House Blue Dog Coalition. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
