The Deflections of Linda McMahon

Out of all the questions lobbed at Linda McMahon during her nearly three-hour confirmation hearing to become the next education secretary on Thursday, it was one from Senator Maggie Hassan, of New Hampshire, that best captured the gravity of the moment. “If the president of the United States gives you a directive that breaks the law, you will instead do what you are legally required to do rather than his instruction?”, asked Hassan, who had met with McMahon earlier in the day.

It was a fair question. Less than a month into the new Trump administration, the president, as well as members of the task force led by billionaire Elon Musk, have had several of their directives blocked after federal judges deemed them illegal and, at times, unconstitutional. Those orders seek to freeze federal funds Congress already distributed, end constitutionally guaranteed birthright citizenship, and repeal federal rules without following regulatory procedure. Constitutional scholars have declared that we are not only inching toward, but that we are in a constitutional crisis as the president flouts laws–moving fast and breaking things with no regard for process or checks and balances.

McMahon deflected Hassan’s question. “The president will not ask me to do anything that is against the law,” the former Small Business Administration leader told the senator.

Put differently, McMahon refused to say that she would defy an illegal order from the president. The first month has shown the administration to be operating under former President Richard Nixon’s definition of presidential power–“when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” Trump has already defied a federal judge who blocked the president’s funding freeze. As such, it is not difficult to read the would-be secretary’s deflection as the profession of someone who subscribes to the idea of an all-powerful executive.

“I will take you at your word that you will enforce the law because you have said it several times,” Hassan responded.

McMahon’s response was one of the lies and half-truths that McMahon shared during the hearing; little deceptions aimed at appeasing senators while offering little in the way of substantive guarantees that she and Trump will uphold the rule of law and protect students’ rights.

In another exchange, McMahon told the panel that she is “in favor of our history exactly as it happened,” but when pressed on what that meant in practice, she deflected. For instance, when Senator Chris Murphy, of Connecticut, questioned the scope of the Trump administration’s executive order on diversity, equity, and inclusion which “eliminates grants to organizations and entities that support DEI programs.” The order has already led to a chilling effect across education and federal agencies. “This has schools across the country scrambling because they have no idea what it means,” Murphy said. “How does a school know whether it’s running a DEI program or not?”

McMahon searched for an answer. DEI programs were having the opposite of their intended effect, she argued. “We are getting back to more segregating of our schools instead of having more inclusion in our schools,” McMahon told Murphy. As examples, McMahon pointed to graduation programs held to honor Black and Hispanic students. “We are not doing what we wanted to achieve with inclusion.”

Her response, however, disregards the fact that students who participate in separate graduation exercises–typically borne out of student organizations–also participate in the traditional commencement; just as participants in separate graduation programs for fraternities or sororities or athletic programs do.

The WWE founder also ignored the history of how many of these programs were founded–and what happens when a loosely-defined “DEI” ban takes place. At the University of Texas, for example, students in the 1980s, roughly three decades after the school first integrated, pushed to establish the Minority Information Center in response to low graduation rates among Black and Hispanic students. The center was a retention tool; it showed students how to get involved on campus, where to find tutoring, outside scholarships, or, simply, how to get around. It morphed into an umbrella organization for student groups and it became a place where they could share their struggles and celebrate their wins–including through events like Black and Hispanic graduation events. After Texas passed Senate Bill 17 last year, the university revoked the center’s funding and closed it. A retention tool that existed for as long as the campus had been integrated was gone with the stroke of a pen. The ramifications of such bans are not hypothetical.

Murphy, unconvinced by McMahon’s answer, pressed further. He asked bluntly how the ban would implicate funding for schools teaching African-American history. “What about educational programming centered around specific ethnic and racial identities?”, Murphy asked. “[You’re saying] there's a possibility that public schools that run African American history classes... could lose federal funding if they continue to teach African American history?"

Again, McMahon rebuffed the senator’s attempt to get a clear answer. "That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying I'd like to take a look at these programs and fully understand the breadth of the executive order and get back to you." In short, the nominee to run the Department of Education was unwilling to say schools will not be penalized for teaching Black History in ways that the administration does not want it taught.

Throughout the rest of the hearing, McMahon misrepresented the administration’s policy on Title IX, did not appear to understand how Title I funding for low-income students was handled, and floundered when asked about private schools discriminating against students and when asked to name any of the requirements for the Every Student Succeeds Act. Meanwhile, each answer seemed to have an asterisk; after all, this is a department the president has said he would like to eliminate. McMahon, President Trump recently said, should work to “put herself out of a job.”

Senator Hassan’s line of questions were instructive, and even as Hassan ultimately put her faith in McMahon that she would uphold the laws if asked to carry out an illegal order, she summed up the hearing succinctly.

“The whole hearing right now feels kind of surreal to me,” Hassan said. “It’s almost like we’re being subjected to a very elegant gaslighting here.”

To read more of New America’s Education & Work teams research, analyses, and commentary in support of the Department of Education, click here.