Latest news with #OfficeofCivilRights
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
McMahon spars with Democrats over request to cut Education Department funding
Education Secretary Linda McMahon on Wednesday defended to House members the Trump administration's request to cut 15 percent from her department's budget. McMahon at times had contentious moments with members as she emphasized the request for a $12 billion cut as President Trump wants her to carry out the federal agency's 'final mission.' 'Madam Secretary, the legacy you will be leaving is that 'I shut down the Department of Education.' How we educate our children determines not just their future, but our own. But I think it's a sad legacy you will leave,' said Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) At the beginning of the hearing, McMahon said her three priorities for the department are school choice, literacy rates and returning education to the states. 'The fiscal year '26 budget will take a significant step toward that goal. We seek to shrink federal bureaucracy, save taxpayer money and empower states who best know their local needs to manage education in this country,' McMahon said. In his budget request, the president is looking to cut most education areas including preschool grants and the Office of Civil Rights. The only area the Trump administration looked to increase funding was for charter schools, by $60 million. The proposed cuts led to multiple discussions between the secretary and Democrats. 'I'm asking you, do you realize that to send authority back to the states, to eliminate your oversight, to eliminate your accountability, to eliminate your determination as to resources going to schools that are teaching public schools that are teaching underserved communities, this will result in the very reason that we had to get the involvement of our government in this, and that's a yes or no,' said Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) 'It isn't a yes or no, but I will not respond to any questions based on the theory that this administration doesn't care anything about the law and operates outside it,' McMahon responded. 'From the president of the United States conducting himself in a corrupt manner to his family enriching him and himself corruptly … I'm telling you, the Department of Education is one of the most important departments in this country and you should feel shameful [to] be engaged with an administration that doesn't give a damn,' Watson Coleman retorted. McMahon pushed back on statements that she is trying to get rid of the 8 to 10 percent of federal funding that goes to states, emphasizing she is looking to move the programs to other departments. Trump has previously floated, for example, moving student loans to the Department of Treasury and programs for students with disabilities to the Department of Health and Human Services. 'You don't want to come up with the 8 percent to help our kids succeed, to help their mental health, to help kids with disabilities,' said Dean. 'I've already said Title I funding, IDEA funding is still going to come out' through other departments, McMahon responded. Republicans largely praised McMahon for the work she has done so far to slash the Department of Education, an agency the party has tried to get rid of since its creation. But the end of the department is not possible without an act of Congress, a high bar the Trump administration is unlikely to clear. 'Secretary McMahon has wasted no time implementing President Trump's bold agenda to restore education to the states, and I want to commend her for efforts on hitting the ground running,' said Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), chair of the House Appropriation Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. 'Students need reading, writing, math, critical thinking for everyday activities to succeed in their jobs and to make life's big decisions,' he added. 'Federal funding has let things like social justice advocacy, divisive issues' overtake a 'focus on teaching students' core subjects. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Conservative group files federal complaint against UConn over DEI scholarships
A conservative group that's pursuing anti-DEI complaints against more than a dozen state universities on Wednesday targeted the University of Connecticut, accusing the school of violating civil rights law by setting aside numerous scholarships exclusively or chiefly for minority students. The Rhode Island-based Equal Protection Project complained to the federal education department's Office of Civil Rights that UConn illegally invoked race, ethnicity or gender in awarding several scholarships. 'That racially discriminatory scholarships exist at a major public university is disheartening. It is time for higher education everywhere to focus on the inherent worth and dignity of every student rather than categorizing students based on identity groups,' according to William A. Jacobson, founder of the campaign. Numerous universities and colleges maintain 'minority-focused' scholarships, internship programs, summer residencies or other financial aid tools aimed at increasing enrollment by Black, Hispanic or other student groups. Educators contend that affirmative action programs are important to overcoming a historical pattern in which minorities have been under-represented in higher education. But the Equal Protection Project insists that race- or nationality-based financial awards are unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 ruled that two 'race conscious' admissions programs in higher education violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. This year, the nonprofit Equal Protection Project has sharply stepped up its campaign of anti-discrimination complaints. Since January it has gone to the Office of Civil Rights to contest scholarships at the University of Oregon, the University of Alabama, the University of Nebraska, Drake University, Bowdoin College, the University of South Carolina and about 15 others. On Wednesday, the organization announced that it's challenging the legality of four UConn scholarship programs. UConn said late Wednesday that it had not yet gotten a copy of the complaint or been told which funds it involves. 'Generally speaking, UConn continually reviews its scholarship and financial aid criteria against current legal requirements and adjusts as needed to ensure compliance,' UConn spokeswoman Stephanie Reitz said. 'Some such scholarship funds are currently paused following the recent Dear Colleague letter and other related federal guidance, and UConn is working with donors and departments to make any necessary revisions.' In mid-February, the U.S. Department of Education issued a 'Dear Colleague' letter ordering educational institutions that get federal funding to stop using race preferences as a factor in deciding admissions, discipline, hiring, scholarships and more. The Equal Protection complaint quotes UConn's mission statement: 'UConn has a strong commitment to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ). We aim to support diversity, equity, and inclusion through offering support for success for people of all backgrounds.' Jacobson's group argues that that's illegal when it blocks non-minority students from being eligible for aid or awards. 'We are asking UConn to live up to the law and its own rules, and remove the discriminatory eligibility barriers it has erected,' the organization said in a statement. 'Racial and ethnic discrimination are wrong and unlawful no matter which race or ethnicity is targeted or benefits. All applicants are entitled to equal treatment without regard to race, color, or national origin.' In February, Jacobson told ProPublica that his organization opposes any discrimination, saying 'If there are programs that exclude Black students, we want the department to go after that, but I am not aware of such programs.' At UConn, he contends that Bryan K. and Alice M. Pollard Scholarship rules are discriminatory. They say 'Applicants must have overcome obstacles such as socioeconomic or educational disadvantage, be members of underrepresented groups at the university, including students of color, or have experience living or working in diverse environments.' The complaint alleges that the Sidney P. Marland Jr. Fund for Educational Leadership is also being run illegally because the criteria say 'The award provides scholarships for minority undergraduate and graduate students in educational leadership.' He also is challenging a dietetics program diversity scholarship that states 'priority given to candidates of an ethnic or racial background which is underrepresented at UConn,' as well as the Philo T. Pritzkau Fund for graduate students in the Neag School of Education, where the rules say 'priority consideration will be given to African American, Hispanic American and Native American students.' Long-time civil rights organizations such as the NAACP and the Southern Poverty Law Center condemned the Supreme Court's decision when it came out in 2023. Voters the next year elected President Trump, who is working to dismantle DEI initiatives across the country. Soon afterward, the federal education department's civil rights office stopped or slowed its review of thousands of civil rights complaints, according to ProPublica. At the same time, it began an investigation into whether universities show bias against white students. 'Let me be clear: it is a new day in America, and under President Trump, OCR will not tolerate discrimination of any kind,' Craig Trainor, acting director of the office, told ProPublica. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights takes a different view. 'The American Dream is not equally available to all. In 2023, the Department of Education reported that it received the most civil rights complaints in its history, most of which allege race, sex, or disability discrimination,' according to the group. 'While the number of Black people with college degrees has increased over the last two decades, Black people remain relegated to lower wage jobs and less lucrative industries compared to white people with similar levels of education, and Black women experience some of the largest pay gaps,' it said.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
There's a lot to learn about crime. Trump's orders are making it harder to get answers.
The Trump administration is quickly trying to reshape America's criminal justice system. Last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi cancelled hundreds of Department of Justice grants centered on crime prevention to shift its focus toward illegal drug enforcement and the eradication of DEI policies. On April 28, the president signed executive orders to limit police reform and rescind consent decrees that hold police agencies accountable. And recent reporting details how the department's Office of Civil Rights is transitioning from enforcing civil rights laws to bringing cases against universities and cities passing liberal policies, leading hundreds of attorneys to resign in protest and effectively gutting the division. But all the news about what these directives are doing can distract from what exactly they're undoing by rapidly curtailing public access to information about crime and criminal justice. In the early days of the Trump presidency, government agencies began deleting web pages that promoted 'gender ideology' or diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. As reported by the Journalist's Resource, pages about gender-based violence and structural racism were taken down and remain offline. The Bureau of Prisons removed from its website its Transgender Offender Manual, which outlined policies for interacting with transgender people who are incarcerated. Plus, an overview of definitions and data on hate crimes is no longer accessible on the National Institute of Justice's website, although some of the material exists on other Justice Department webpages. Though each change may be minor on its own, together, they interfere with the public's understanding of the causes of violence, successful crime prevention strategies and the workings of the criminal justice system. Ultimately, without access to this kind of information, it becomes harder to hold the government accountable for its policies around policing and incarceration. The information ecosystem wasn't perfect under the Biden administration, either. Around 2020, methodology changes and bureaucratic reshuffling led to significantly less reporting on deaths in custody, a problem that continued throughout Biden's presidency. In 2022, the Federal Bureau of Investigation finished switching systems for collecting crime data. The Marshall Project reported that 6,000 of 18,000 police agencies did not transition in time, leaving a gaping hole in a primary resource for national crime statistics. The Trump administration, however, has gone beyond bureaucratic hiccups by actively impeding access to public information. In March, the White House removed an advisory declaring gun violence a public health issue and listing statistics on shootings. According to Mother Jones, major layoffs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have threatened the future of the dataset known as WISQARS, which tracks information on gun violence injuries and deaths and has become a critical resource for researchers. Data collection is often the first step toward addressing serious societal problems. Take the issue of 'wandering cops' who transfer between police agencies without their histories of abuse or misconduct following them. In 2022, the Biden administration created the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database, a central place for police departments to search for information about federal law enforcement officers with criminal convictions and misconduct violations. Trump decommissioned the database on his first day in office. State and local agencies come to rely on tools like this to gain insights from other jurisdictions and compare the success of different programs, but that work is becoming increasingly challenging. Federal agencies are also removing research staff, cutting funding and eliminating grants that, over time, build a portfolio of knowledge around criminal justice issues. There are plenty of examples on the topic of gun violence alone. At the Department of Homeland Security, officials discontinued an advisory board that was developing evidence-based best practices to prevent school shootings. At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the research team studying gun violence was decimated by layoffs, losing about three-quarters of its staff. As for the funding cuts at the Department of Justice at the end of April, the changes have far-reaching implications for researchers trying to better understand crime patterns and prevention strategies. An analysis of the list of canceled Justice Department grants published by Reuters shows that at least 44 grants worth more than $47 million were slated for research projects, including research on juvenile justice, violent extremism, elder abuse, policing strategies and reentry programs. The Justice Department also cut all funding to the Prison Rape Elimination Act Resource Center. Passed unanimously by Congress in 2003, PREA mandated data collection on incidents of sexual assault in prisons to identify paths to prevention. The act led the National Institute of Justice to fund the Culture of Prison Sexual Violence study, the largest ethnographic study of incarcerated people ever conducted, which resulted in a long list of recommendations for prisons and jails. The study found that more than 9% of incarcerated people were aware of a rape committed by a correctional staff member. Follow-up research projects are now in limbo due to the federal government's funding cuts. In a seeming contradiction, the Trump administration is hoping to streamline and encourage data collection on crime rates. The April 28 executive order on policing included a mandate to 'increase the investment in and collection, distribution, and uniformity of crime data across jurisdictions.' Project 2025—a conservative policy blueprint for the Trump presidency—wrote favorably of the Justice Department's National Crime Victimization Survey, saying officials 'should prioritize and sufficiently fund it.' Trump has already implemented several Project 2025 recommendations for the Justice Department. For the data and information that is now shielded from public view, there are a number of organizations racing to restore access. The Project on Government Oversight has a searchable database of 160 investigative records taken offline in February that document alleged abuses by the Department of Homeland Security. Harvard University has compiled data on health equity and environmental justice and made the information available online. The Data Rescue Project is archiving millions of records on youth behaviors, education, COVID-19 and more. There's also the Wayback Machine, an easily accessible tool for finding older versions of web pages that have since been altered or removed from the internet. It offers users an option to archive websites as they exist today. Have you seen examples of how data and research on the criminal justice system are changing under the Trump administration or have data to share? Share them with Jill at jcastellano@ This story was produced by The Marshall Project, a nonpartisan, nonprofit news organization that seeks to create and sustain a sense of national urgency about the U.S. criminal justice system, and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A judge temporarily blocked Trump's efforts to end the Department of Education. Here's context
U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on March 20, 2025, aimed at shutting down the Department of Education. However, on May 22, 2025, a judge temporarily blocked his order and directed the agency to reinstate employees fired in mass layoffs. The court case is ongoing. It's still uncertain what Trump's plans would look like for a country without a federal education agency. The Department of Education's role is primarily to handle federal finances for education programs. However, experts say that this decision does not affect financial support for federal programs providing services to disadvantaged students, such as those with disabilities or at high-poverty schools. While the Trump administration has promised to preserve these popular federal programs, the ability for the government to operate the programs in question may be affected by efforts to diminish or dismantle the Department of Education. Both Democrats and Republicans have called into question the ability of other agencies to handle the department's responsibilities, and staff cuts to the department already are affecting student access to financial aid. Advocates and experts are also concerned about the potential effects of losing the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. After the administration reportedly cut staff at the office as part of its wider Department of Education cuts, the American Civil Liberties Union warned "gutting the OCR severely weakens federal civil rights enforcement, leaving millions of students without crucial protections against discrimination." Early into U.S. President Donald Trump's second term in office, he signed an executive order aimed at ending the Department of Education. "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. It's doing us no good," Trump said at the signing, adding that he wants to give states more control over education. Rumors spread about what this might mean; one Democratic representative from Ohio said it amounted to "cutting funding for every student in America." Advocates for parents and children rang the alarm, claiming dismantling the department will mean unchecked discrimination against students of color and with disabilities, "larger class sizes, more schools without books and equipment and in disrepair, an end to many tutoring programs and remedial services" and more. Then, on May 22, 2025, a federal judge blocked Trump's executive order, directing the administration to "restore the Department to the status quo" (see the last page in the court filing). That includes reinstating employees laid off amid the administration's efforts to dismantle the department. While celebrating the ruling, many Democratic lawmakers called the Trump administration's actions "unlawful" or "illegal." Meanwhile, a Department of Education spokesperson, Madi Biedermann, said via email that the judge "dramatically overstepped his authority, and issued an injunction against the obviously lawful efforts to make the Department of Education more efficient and functional for the American people." However, the judge's decision is a temporary block as the court case makes its way through the justice system, meaning there is still a chance the administration will be allowed to move ahead with its efforts to dismantle the department, pending a final determination. Trump's plans for what a country without a federal education department would look like are still vague, but he has suggested some functions, such as student loans, will be handled by other agencies, whereas other functions will be handed to the states. He also promised preservation of popular programs, like funding for students with disabilities and other disadvantaged groups. Experts say there may be difficulties transferring responsibilities and are concerned about the effect on civil rights for students. Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon, in a statement released after Trump signed the executive order, said her vision "is aligned with the President's: to send education back to the states and empower all parents to choose an excellent education for their children." Here's what you need to know about the Department of Education's future and what a country without the agency might look like. The court case is still ongoing as of this writing, and the judge's ruling granted a preliminary injunction — a temporary order in effect as a case moves through the legal system. Thus, the courts have not made a final ruling on whether Trump's order is legal, despite indicating that it may not be. "We will immediately challenge this [ruling] on an emergency basis," the statement from the Education Department spokesperson, Biedermann, said. As Trump's education secretary, Linda McMahon, said during her confirmation hearing, Trump cannot legally close the Department of Education in its entirety without an act of Congress. However, he can diminish its authority and functioning. Per a White House fact sheet, the the order directs McMahon to "take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return education authority to the States, while continuing to ensure the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely." It also "directs that programs or activities receiving any remaining Department of Education funds will not advance DEI or gender ideology." But in issuing the preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun said the order's direction goes "directly against Congress's intent in creating the Department" (see Page 49) and that "the record abundantly reveals" that the administration's true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute" (see Page 2). However, the injunction, as it says in the name, is preliminary and only in effect until a "merits decision," or a final determination, is made. As Joun wrote: This Preliminary Injunction shall become effective immediately upon entry by this Court. The Preliminary Injunction Order shall remain in effect for the duration of this litigation and until a merits decision has been issued. The Department of Education's primary role is financial: The agency manages student loans and financial aid for college students and distributes federal funding for marginalized students, including money to provide services for students with disabilities and at low-income schools. It also has a hand in civil rights enforcement. "When you hear 'Department of Education,' people think that this is about education. They think it's about curriculum and instruction, it's about teaching and mathematics," said Jonathan Collins, a professor of political science and education at Columbia University. "It's actually about providing financial support for folks to be able to access colleges and universities, or to be able to use funding to support students who have different types of specialized needs." While the Department of Education plays a relatively small role in K-12 education funding, experts say it's an important one. Colleges and universities are more reliant on federal funding for research grants and student financial aid; the Trump administration has reportedly already withheld aid from various universities and students. However, abolishing the Department of Education in itself would not actually change much about the federal government's policies on providing funding for marginalized K-12 students or federal financial aid, said Collins and Marguerite Roza, director of Georgetown University's education finance lab. "Honestly most of this is about politics than policy," Collins said. "This is about creating a headline, more than radically transforming the way education works — because it doesn't." For example, Congress controls the purse strings for the two major federal programs providing financial support for services to marginalized students — the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which entitles students with disabilities to a free public education tailored to their needs, and Title I funds for students in high-poverty schools. Getting rid of the Department of Education essentially just removes the middleman, Collins and Roza said. "I was a kid when there wasn't a Department of Education," Roza said. "Obviously there's been a lot of gains since then, but these big programs for kids with disabilities and low income kids existed before there was a Department of Education. That doesn't mean [agency employees] don't do anything useful, I just don't think schools will immediately notice." Trump and McMahon also said they do not believe abolishing the Department of Education will affect various popular financial programs managed by the agency. "The department's useful functions and such as they're in charge of them, Pell Grants, Title I, funding resources for children with disabilities and special needs will be preserved, fully preserved," Trump promised during his executive order signing. While policy might not change, the ability for the federal government to operate its programs might. Democrats and Republicans both are unconvinced that popular programs under the Department of Education would be properly managed should the agency be abolished and have its responsibilities transferred to other agencies. Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, for example, asked McMahon at her confirmation hearing how the government will maintain "administration and oversight" of programs like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Title I and TRIO, a Department of Education outreach initiative aimed at supporting disadvantaged students in pursuit of a college degree. McMahon reiterated that she isn't looking to defund any of these programs and suggested the Department of Health and Human Services could take over IDEA. "So, I just want to be clear," said Sen. Maggie Hassan, a Democrat from New Hampshire. "You're going to put special education in the hands of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.?" (The secretary of health and human services' efforts to falsely link vaccines to autism worry many advocates for students with disabilities.) Trump has said that, should the Department of Education be abolished, student loans would fall under the purview of the Treasury Department, the Department of Commerce or the Small Business Administration. He told reporters he thinks it will be the SBA: "I don't think education should be handling the loans, that's not their business. I think it will be brought into small business, maybe." Collins, the education policy expert, said the Small Business Administration makes sense from a "pure administrative standpoint" because "that's what they do — they essentially manage the process of providing and monitoring loan payment." The problem, however, is that the SBA already struggles to handle its own work, Collins said, pointing to its COVID-19 funding debacle. "The majority of folks who enter a college or higher education institution walk out with the student loan that they are borrowing from the federal government. This is a huge enterprise here," Collins said. "The idea of adding over 40 million borrowers also to [SBA's] docket sheet — it does seem unwise." The Trump administration's efforts to gut staff at the Department of Education, announced March 11, have reportedly already affected access to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Roza, of Georgetown University, said there are "legitimate questions" about how losing the staff at the Department of Education by dismantling the agency will affect loan and grant processing for financial aid to students that haven't yet been answered by the White House. Collins said his biggest concern should the country lose the Department of Education is the agency's Office of Civil Rights. While states usually have their own civil rights offices within state education departments, the federal agency's investigations into discrimination in education often resulted in consequential court cases that "have gotten us closer to a more fair and just education system," Collins said — think lawsuits related to Title IX, the civil rights law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education programs, for example. The effect won't be immediate, Collins said — but in a few decades, "we might look back at this moment and say wow, this is when things are happening that went overlooked that completely put us on a different trajectory." The American Civil Liberties Union also sounded the alarm, noting that the March 11 Department of Education staff cuts reportedly involved terminating staff in seven of the Office of Civil Rights' 12 regional offices. "Gutting the OCR severely weakens federal civil rights enforcement, leaving millions of students without crucial protections against discrimination," the ACLU said. "It also suppresses students' ability to seek justice when their rights are violated and allows discriminatory practices, including uneven and unfair targeting of students of color for school discipline, inequitable access to advanced coursework, the refusal to provide accommodations to students with disabilities, and discrimination against students with limited English proficiency or English learner status to persist unchecked." However, Roza said the Office of Civil Rights has been "at the whim of the president" in recent years; under Trump, it has been ordered to refocus priorities on antisemitism, transgender issues and anti-DEI complaints, The Associated Press reported. The ACLU said getting rid of the Department of Education may also affect the federal government's capacity to collect data, which the ACLU noted is "an essential resource for identifying and addressing disparities in education." Binkley, Collin, and Heather Hollingsworth. "Education Department Focused on Trump's Politics, Less on Special Ed, Racial Discrimination." AP News, 10 Mar. 2025, Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. Dilanian, Ken, and Laura Strickler. "Theft from the Covid Relief Plan Known as PPP Was Even Worse than We Thought." NBC News, 28 Mar. 2022, Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. "Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Empowers Parents, States, and Communities to Improve Education Outcomes." The White House, 20 Mar. 2025, Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. "Federal Trio Programs." U.S. Department of Education, 9 Sept. 2024, Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. Hanson, Melanie. "Student Loan Debt Statistics." Education Data Initiative, 15 Jan. 2025, Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. "Jonathan E. Collins | Political Science." Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. Joun, Myong J. STATE of NEW YORK, Et. Al, v. LINDA MCMAHON, SOMERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Et. Al, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, Et. Al | MEMORANDUM and ORDER on CONSOLIDATED PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. 22 May 2025, Accessed 22 May 2025. "Marguerite Roza." Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. McMahon, Linda. "Secretary McMahon: Our Department's Final Mission." U.S. Department of Education, 4 Mar. 2025, Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. Meckler, Laura, et al. "How Education Department Layoffs Hit Student Loans, Testing, Civil Rights." The Washington Post, 13 Mar. 2025, Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. Mimbela, Ricardo. "Trump's Attack on the Department of Education, Explained | ACLU." American Civil Liberties Union, 14 Mar. 2025, Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. Oliff, Phillip. "Two Decades of Change in Federal and State Higher Education Funding." 15 Oct. 2019, Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. PBS NewsHour. "WATCH: Sen. Collins Questions McMahon in Confirmation Hearing." YouTube, 13 Feb. 2025, Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. ---. "WATCH: Sen. Hassan Questions McMahon in Confirmation Hearing." YouTube, 13 Feb. 2025, Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. The Bulwark. "Reporter: 'If the Education Department Were Eliminated, What Agency Would Handle Student Loans?' Trump: 'I Don't Think the Education Should Be Handling the Loans...I Think It Will Be Brought into Small Business.'" X (Formerly Twitter), 2025, Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. U.S. Department of Education. "Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)." U.S. Department of Education, 7 Oct. 2024, Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. ---. "Title I." U.S. Department of Education, Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. ---. "Title IX and Sex Discrimination." U.S. Department of Education, Aug. 2021, Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. "U.S. Department of Education Initiates Reduction in Force." U.S. Department of Education, 11 Mar. 2025, Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. Wall Street Journal. "Linda McMahon: Education Department Can't Shut down without Congress." Wall Street Journal, 13 Feb. 2025, Accessed 20 Mar. 2025.
The Hill
21-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
McMahon spars with Democrats over request to cut Education Department funding
Education Secretary Linda McMahon on Wednesday defended to House members the Trump administration's request to cut 15 percent from her department's budget. McMahon at times had contentious moments with members as she emphasized the request for a $12 billion cut as President Trump wants her to carry out the federal agency's 'final mission.' 'Madam Secretary, the legacy you will be leaving is that 'I shut down the Department of Education.' How we educate our children determines not just their future, but our own. But I think it's a sad legacy you will leave,' said Rep. Madeleline Dean (D-Penn.) At the top of the hearing, McMahon said her three priorities for the department are school choice, literacy rates and returning education to the states. 'The fiscal year '26 budget will take a significant step toward that goal. We seek to shrink federal bureaucracy, save taxpayer money and empower states who best know their local needs to manage education in this country,' McMahon said. In his budget request, the president is looking to cut most education areas including preschool grants and the Office of Civil Rights. The only area the Trump administration looked to increase funding was for charter schools, by $60 million. The proposed cuts led to multiple discussions between the secretary and Democrats. 'I'm asking you, do you realize that to send authority back to the states, to eliminate your oversight, to eliminate your accountability, to eliminate your determination as to resources going to schools that are teaching public schools that are teaching underserved communities, this will result in the very reason that we had to get the involvement of our government in this, and that's a yes or no,' said Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) 'It isn't a yes or no, but I will not respond to any questions based on the theory that this administration doesn't care anything about the law and operates outside it,' McMahon responded. 'From the president of the United States conducting himself in a corrupt manner to his family enriching him and himself corruptly […] I'm telling you, the Department of Education is one of the most important departments in this country and you should feel shameful be engaged with an administration that doesn't give a damn,' Watson Coleman retorted. McMahon pushed back on statements that she is trying to get rid of the 8 to 10 percent of federal funding that goes to states, emphasizing she is looking to move the programs to other departments. Trump has previously floated, for example, moving student loans to the Department of Treasury and programs for students with disabilities to the Department of Health and Human Services. 'You don't want to come up with the 8 percent to help our kids succeed, to help their mental health, to help kids with disabilities,' said Dean. 'I've already said Title I funding, IDEA funding is still going to come out' through other departments, McMahon responded. Republicans largely praised McMahon for the work she has done so far to slash the Department of Education, an agency the party has tried to get rid of since its creation. But the end of the department is not possible without an act of Congress, a high bar the Trump administration is unlikely to make it over. 'Secretary McMahon has wasted no time implementing President Trump's bold agenda to restore education to the states, and I want to commend her for efforts on hitting the ground running,' said Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. 'Students need reading, writing, math, critical thinking for everyday activities to succeed in their jobs and to make life's big decisions,' he added. 'Federal funding has let things like social justice advocacy, divisive issues' overtake a 'focus on teaching students' core subjects.
