Connect with us

News

In hearings, McMahon faces questions about the shrinking federal role in schools and colleges

Published

on

In hearings, McMahon faces questions about the shrinking federal role in schools and colleges

Linda McMahon, U.S. Secretary of Education, during a Senate appropriations subcommittee hearing in Washington.

Eric Lee/Bloomberg/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Eric Lee/Bloomberg/Getty Images

U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon had a complicated job this week: To explain to lawmakers the Trump administration’s new fiscal year 2026 budget proposal for a department McMahon and President Trump have both committed to close.

According to a new budget summary, the administration wants to cut the Education Department’s funding by 15%, while largely preserving the two most important federal funding streams to K-12 schools: Title I, for schools in low-income neighborhoods, and IDEA grants to states, which help support students with disabilities. It is proposing cuts to other programs instead, including TRIO, which help low-income and first-generation college students.

On Wednesday, McMahon testified before the House education committee and, on Tuesday, before a Senate appropriations subcommittee. Here are several moments that stood out:

Advertisement
  • The definition of insanity

In Tuesday’s Senate hearing, Sen. Markwayne Mullin, an Oklahoma Republican, asked McMahon, “What’s the definition of insanity?”

“Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome,” McMahon answered.

Mullin’s point, based on declining test scores: Whatever the U.S. Department of Education has been doing over the years, “It’s not working. What we’re doing is not working.”

The notion that U.S. students have been failing academically and that the Education Department is to blame has been Republicans’ leading argument in support of gutting the department, and it came up time and time again in this week’s hearings with McMahon.

Critics of that argument have noted that the department does not run the nation’s schools. It can’t tell districts or states what to teach or how to teach it.

In fact, in Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Katie Britt, Republican of Alabama, rightfully highlighted her state’s exceptional academic progress in recent years, something NPR has documented. Another state, Louisiana, has also improved remarkably.

Advertisement
  • Colleges may be on the hook for student loans

When it comes to student loans, McMahon said colleges need to get “a little skin in the game.” She suggested that the federal government should not be responsible for all loans that go unpaid by students.

“Loans are not forgiven or just go away, they’re just shouldered by others,” she said.

A plan to force colleges and universities to repay a portion of the loans their students do not has been included in House Republicans’ big reconciliation bill. Republicans also want to make it clear when a given college program isn’t giving students a good return on their investment.

“If you want to get a student loan … 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,” said Rep. Randy Fine, a Florida Republican.

Such a shift would require significant changes to the student loan system and federal oversight of colleges.

In Tuesday’s Senate hearing, Democrats’ toughest questions for McMahon were about the department’s decision to stop paying out $1 billion in grants to school districts to hire mental health professionals, including counselors and social workers.

Advertisement

Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, told McMahon: “It’s a really cruel thing to do to those kids. Did you think about the impact?”

McMahon doubled-down on the department’s explanation of the funding freeze, that some of these programs were tainted by what the administration considers toxic DEI ideology.

She also said that “the states and the local areas, I think, are the best place where we need to concentrate for these particular programs.”

The administration uses this trust-the-states approach throughout its budget: For the programs it does not want to cancel outright, the budget calls for stripping away regulations and sending the money to states in chunks, via block grants, that can be spent at the discretion of state leaders.

For example, the budget would fold federal funding for rural schools, students experiencing homelessness, literacy instruction and a host of other unrelated programs into one, generic bundle of money that would go to states.

Advertisement
  • The fate of Upward Bound and the other TRIO programs

The department’s fiscal year 2026 budget would end a cluster of federal programs known collectively as TRIO, meant to help low-income and first-generation students access and succeed in college. And McMahon heard bipartisan support for TRIO and pleas to save the programs.

At one point during Tuesday’s hearing, Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins pointed out that she was wearing a Maine TRIO pin on her lapel and that three of her staff members had gone through TRIO. Collins said she had seen first-hand how the programs had changed the lives of many vulnerable Americans for whom college might have otherwise been out of reach.

When asked by Collins why the administration thinks TRIO isn’t worth the investment, McMahon answered that the department of education lacks the ability to audit TRIO, to make sure the federal funding is being used appropriately.

Multiple senators voiced support for TRIO during the hearing and, at one point, New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen told McMahon, “if there is a problem with accountability, let’s address that … but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

  • Who should pay for workforce programs?

The administration’s proposed consolidation of workforce-development programs was met with a range of responses, from slight apprehension to open hostility, from lawmakers from both parties.

Rep. Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat, pressed the Secretary to put a number on the cuts across the budget: “When the dust settles do we understand that there will be about a 33% cut across workforce development?”

McMahon did not answer the question with a yes or no, but continued to highlight the need for workforce development without the federal government shouldering the cost.

Advertisement

Rep. Haley Stevens of Michigan, also a Democrat, made a plea for her home state: “We are competing on a world stage,” she said of Michigan’s manufacturing apparatus. “We need these engineering jobs, we need these apprenticeship programs.”

In a later exchange with a Republican representative, Mark Messmer of Indiana, Secretary McMahon said the administration was looking into expanding public-private partnerships for career and technical education.

She cited a program in West Virginia that is a partnership between community colleges and the car manufacturer Toyota. Students there train in the auto plant and take classes at the college to develop a built-in workforce funded by the employer, she said.

News

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Published

on

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Trump says US stockpiles mean “wars can be fought ‘forever’”

In a late night post on Truth Social, Donald Trump said that the US munitions stockpiles “at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better”.

He added that the US has a “virtually unlimited supply of these weapons”, meaning that “wars can be fought ‘forever’”.

This comes after Trump said that the US-Israel war on Iran could go beyond the four-five weeks that the administration initially predicted. The president also did not rule out the possibility of US boots on the ground in Iran during an interview with the New York Post on Monday.

Advertisement

“I rebuilt the military in my first term, and continue to do so. The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!!,” he wrote.

Share

Key events

During his opening remarks, Senate judicicary committee chairman, Chuck Grassley, blamed Democrats for the ongoing shutdown Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but highlighted four agencies: the Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the Coast Guard.

Democrats are demanding tighter guardrails for federal immigration enforcement, but a sweeping tax bill signed into law last year conferred $75bn for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which means the agency is still functional amid the wider department shuttering.

Share
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending