When President-elect Donald Trump nominated Linda McMahon as the Secretary for Education in November, it signified more than a routine staffing decision—it reflected his administration’s broader agenda to reshape America’s public education system.
Trump’s announcement of her nomination highlighted McMahon’s work as Chair of the Board at the American First Policy Institute over the past four years, attributing her success to achieving “universal school choice in 12 states” and being an “advocate for parents’ rights.”
McMahon’s strong support for charter schools with more voucher programs aligns with Trump’s “Agenda47” campaign platform, which accuses the current agency of being a “top-heavy bureaucracy” that has “failed to serve the needs of America’s students,” while reiterating his long-standing belief that many of its employees “hate our children.”
Throughout the presidential campaign, Trump has also called for eliminating the department entirely, suggesting that a smaller, more localized approach to education could better serve American families.
The Possibility of the Department’s Elimination
While Trump’s selection of McMahon signifies efforts to push for school choice, Trump’s call to eliminate the department remains in question.
Some experts have said that eliminating it entirely appears unlikely, arguing that the process of shutting down the department would face significant obstacles.
“Part of me feels like it’s a symbolic thing that they talk about, but it’s sort of a low agenda item compared to the other things they want to do,” said Paul Manna, a public policy professor at the College of William and Mary. “I think immigration is the thing that they want to do and that’s where the attention is going to be.”
Historically, the Department of Education, created in 1980 during the Carter administration, was seen by many conservative politicians as a symbol of federal involvement in public education, especially in serving as a platform for the teacher unions to push their political agendas.
A Pew Research survey in March 2023 revealed that 65% of Republicans view the Department of Education (DOE) negatively. Many Republicans have also long opposed teacher unions, which fall in favor of public education efforts.
“Getting rid of the Department of Education would align with their belief in a smaller government footprint in education,” Manna said. “It’s also a way to politically challenge teacher unions, which are often seen as a stronghold for Democrats.”
Despite conservative disapproval of the DOE, many Republican lawmakers are cautious about fully supporting its elimination. Pew Research found that rural areas, which now increasingly lean Republican, largely rely on federal education programs such as Title I funding and free/reduced lunches at low-income schools remain critical to constituents in those regions.
“Title I funding disproportionately benefits Republican districts, making it politically risky for lawmakers to support such cuts,” Manna explained, making the 60 Senate votes required for elimination, even with a red majority, “extremely difficult” to secure.
For example, historically conservative states like Wyoming receive some of the highest Title I funding per child in the nation—more than $3,000 per child compared to the national average of $1,489, based on 2017 data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates.
Lewis pointed out that elected officials also fail to grasp the practical realities of dismantling a federal department.
“Those departments implement lots of laws and policies that people want to keep, and so even if you eliminate the department, you’ve got to move those programs and the people that implement them around to other places,” Lewis said.
For example, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which was previously an agency under the Department of Justice, was eliminated in 2003 but its functions were redistributed. Its responsibilities today are divided among agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, such as the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection.
Similarly, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare no longer exists; its duties were absorbed by successor agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education in 1980.
Should Trump succeed in dismantling the Department of Education, Lewis said large, essential programs for special education and FAFSA funding in higher education would likely be displaced to other agencies in the already fragmented department. This would potentially create an even less coordinated approach to education policy efforts.
“Right now with the Department of Education…it creates a level of consistency around laws, applications, oversight that would be different if every state was doing it individually,” said Jenny Mattingley, the Vice President of Government Affairs at the Partnership for Public Service.
A Business Background
McMahon is the former CEO of the WWE, which she co-founded with her husband, Vince McMahon. She also served as the head of the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first term from 2017 to 2019 and currently sits on the board of the Trump-Vance transition team.
Several critics of McMahon point to her limited experience in education policy, which is limited to her being a longstanding member of the board of trustees at Sacred Heart University, a private college in Connecticut, and two years on the board of Connecticut’s Department of Education.
David Lewis, a professor of Political Science and Leadership, Policy, and Organizations at Vanderbilt University said that many of Trump’s nomination choices, including McMahon, are more business-oriented and “focused around efficiency” and less on “transparency and fairness” typically expected in public work.
“I think that he has a view that many of these jobs can be done by smart people that have demonstrated competence in other areas – and many of them don’t require significant subject area expertise,” Lewis said.
McMahon defended her record in a post on X, saying she has firsthand experience of seeing the “power of education.”
“All students should be equipped with the necessary skills to prepare them for a successful future,” McMahon wrote.
Are Voucher Programs the Future?
At the core of Trump’s education philosophy is a strong belief in states’ rights and local control, a principle shared by McMahon, a staunch advocate for school choice. McMahon has been a vocal proponent of using public funds—through mechanisms such as vouchers and tax credits—to support private education options.
“Anytime you have public schooling, you’re making choices about curriculum, and those choices are contested, with parents sometimes objecting to how material is presented or what is taught,” Lewis said. “There is an increasing number of parents that would prefer that their children go to private schools or charter schools where they have curriculums that are more in line with the values as parents.”
Pew Research revealed that overall enrollment in public schools has declined between 2011 and 2021, from roughly 47 million in 2011 to about 45 million in 2021. Meanwhile, enrollment in charter schools increased from about 2 million students in 2011 to nearly 4 million in 2021.
According to Kenneth Wong, a professor of education policy and political science at Brown University, Trump attempted to promote many pro-school choice efforts during his first term. However, they largely failed due to constitutional restrictions that prevent public funding from being used in private schools.
McMahon’s challenge, like that of Trump’s previous Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, will be navigating the federal government’s role in advancing school choice while adhering to legal and regulatory boundaries.
“They will have to find a way to get around those kinds of constitutional issues across a number of states,” Wong said. “I think it’s very likely that Trump will work very closely with governors and legislatures in…states that are ready to do more school choice.”
One potential avenue outlined in Project 2025, a policy initiative outlined by Trump loyalists at the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, involves reshaping federal funding streams to give parents greater control over resources intended for students in low-income communities and those with disabilities.
However, such changes would likely face substantial opposition in Congress due to many Republican constituencies being affected by the redirection of public funding away from rural regions.
Another potential strategy outlined in Project 2025 is instituting a federal tax credit program designed to indirectly support private school tuition. This approach would allow nonprofits to distribute scholarships that families could use to cover private education costs. Legislation proposing a similar tax credit, the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act, has already been introduced in the Senate, signaling that this concept may gain traction when Republicans take control of the Senate in January.
Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-Va.) of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce has come out against Trump’s education agenda, calling it detrimental to America’s students.
“I am staunchly opposed to President-elect Trump’s education agenda which seeks to abolish the Department of Education, eliminate funding for low-income and rural K-12 schools, scrap the expansion of school meals, and make it more difficult for student borrowers to repay their loans,” Scott said in a statement released on November 20, 2024.
He also emphasized the importance of equal access to high-quality education and pledged not to support McMahon’s nomination if she aligns with Trump’s plans to dismantle the progress of the Biden-Harris administration.
The Future is Uncertain
If confirmed by the Senate, McMahon will play a pivotal role in shaping U.S. education policy. However, dismantling a department that has existed for over four decades presents significant challenges, suggesting that Trump’s education overhaul may diverge from his campaign promises.
“Phasing it [the Department] out takes three or four years. Creating a new one takes three or four years. The question is whether Trump has the patience and the persistence to really think this through,” Wong said.
