Education Secretary Linda McMahon faced the House Education and Workforce Committee on Wednesday morning (June 4), focusing on the department’s policies and priorities but also the Trump administration’s proposed $12 billion budget cut and the broader plan to abolish the Department of Education. Much was discussed during the three-hour-long hearing, though most of the action came from indignant Democratic officeholders demanding answers about congressional authority, department downsizing, and curricula involving DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) issues.
Responding to committee chair Tim Walberg (R-MI), McMahon said her top priorities for higher education policies included in the budget reconciliation bill passed by the House last month are risk-sharing and Pell grants. The latter priority relates to a proposed expansion of the federal Pell Grant program, aimed at making it available to students enrolled in short-term, job-focused programs. However, not much was discussed about the grants.
“McMahon explained that, if colleges have to repay some student loans in cases where students can’t find jobs after completion, higher education institutions would work more to ensure their courses and degrees provide pathways to good-paying jobs,” said Matthew Dembicki, an editor at Community College Daily, a news service dedicated to covering US colleges. “With good jobs, students could repay their loans.”
If colleges “are on the hook for part of that money,” said McMahon during the hearing, “they are not going to want to pay it if that student is not successful.”
“If you want to get a student loan,” said Republican Rep. Randy Fine of Florida, “you’ve got to go get a degree in something where actually you might be able to do something useful when you’re done with it.”
Several Democratic lawmakers expressed frustration with McMahon, often complaining she was not answering their questions, though they frequently cut her off and did not allow her to finish. If the secretary didn’t have an answer, she told politicians from both sides of the aisle that she would get back to them with more details.
When Democratic Rep. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania asked if teaching an African American history course would violate the Trump administration’s anti-DEI policies, McMahon said, “I do not think that African studies or Middle East studies or Chinese studies are part of DEI if they are taught as part of the total history package,” she said. “So that if you’re giving the facts on both sides, of course they’re not DEI.”
Lee soon asked if teaching Ruby Bridges’ book Through My Eyes would be illegal. The work documents the author’s experience attending a segregated school in New Orleans in 1960. After McMahon admitted she hadn’t read the book, the lawmaker said, “Have you learned about Ruby Bridges?”
The secretary tried to respond: “If you have any specific examples you would like to … ”
Lee cut in, “That was an incredibly specific example.” The lawmaker consistently reclaimed her time without giving the secretary time to form a thought.
Much of the hearing transpired this way when it came to Democratic officeholders questioning McMahon. In another attempt to trip up the secretary, Lee asked about the 2020 election, wanting to know whether schools should be penalized for teaching that Biden won the presidency fairly. McMahon said all social studies “should be taught accurately,” adding, “We should hear all sides.”
McMahon also butted heads with Rep. Mark Takano of California, especially on “viewpoint diversity” at Harvard. “Does refusing to hire a Holocaust denier,” said Takano, “as a member of Harvard’s history department faculty count as an ideological limit test?”
“I believe that there should be diversity of viewpoints relative to teachings and opinions on campuses,” said McMahon. After the meeting, she told ABC News that she would “love to have Harvard come back to the table and negotiate with us.” Harvard recently filed a lawsuit against the administration in response to demands from the White House for the university to maintain its funding relationship with the federal government. “[B]ut we will continue talking if they want to talk,” she said.
The hearing primarily focused on aspects related to education in the administration’s budget proposal, covering an array of issues: DEI programs, special and technical education, antisemitism on campuses, special education funding, and, of course, the potential consequences of downsizing the Education Department’s workforce. The administration is proposing a 15% reduction in education spending for fiscal year 2026 while mostly preserving Title I – which helps schools in low-income areas – and IDEA grants to states, a program that helps support students with disabilities.
McMahon defended the intended cuts, much to the chagrin of Democratic lawmakers. Republicans, on the other hand, saw the drop in funding and diminishment of the department’s staff as a step in the right direction. GOP Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma asked McMahon, “What’s the definition of insanity?”
“Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome,” said McMahon.
Mullin was alluding to the fact that the Department of Education’s work over the years has coincided with declining test scores. “It’s not working,” he said. “What we’re doing is not working.
It will be a while until we know whether the current administration’s overhaul of the ED will benefit public schools and higher ed, but for sure – change is necessary.