Senate Confirms McMahon as Education Secretary
By Hugh T. Ferguson, NASFAA Managing Editor
Linda McMahon’s nomination to lead the Department of Education (ED) was confirmed by the Senate on Monday evening by a vote of 51-45.
Democrats largely rejected McMahon’s confirmation and have cited concerns over the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the department, as well as outstanding questions surrounding student data privacy, Pell Grant funding, continued implementation of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, and more.
Concerns have been raised about an impending executive order in which the Trump administration could outline additional steps to abolish the department. That order would still need congressional approval to be fully implemented.
Over the weekend, ED also issued a memo offering federal employees a package of resignation benefits. The memo indicated a planned workforce reduction effort that would be “very significant” and could lead to mass layoffs within the department.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chair of the Senate HELP Committee, continued to praise McMahon’s experience as the former head of the Small Business Administration and said her leadership was needed to address the "bloated bureaucracy" within ED.
“Under the Biden-Harris administration, the Department of Education focused on everything but student success,” Cassidy said. “We need a strong leader at the Department who will get our education system back on track. Secretary McMahon is the right person for the job.”
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, voted against McMahon and cited concern over the administration’s efforts to abolish the department.
“We cannot have a Secretary of Education who doesn’t believe in having a Secretary of Education,” Murray said. “That’s common sense — and it's one of many reasons the Senate should reject Linda McMahon's nomination.”
The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) committee still has additional agency officials to consider for ED. Nicholas Kent, who was nominated to serve as ED’s under secretary — a role that was not filled during Trump's first term — will likely be the next official to be considered for the department. His committee hearing has not been scheduled yet but is expected soon.
Stay tuned to Today’s News for more on Trump’s ED appointments and nominations.
Publication Date: 3/4/2025
Jeff T | 3/4/2025 4:32:11 PM
Given that it comprises roughly 4% of annual federal spending, is there a chance that the Department of Education ISN'T a source of waste, fraud, or abuse?
Leah M | 3/4/2025 2:54:57 PM
In the future, will universities in "blue" states stop admitting students who graduated high school from "red" states as the local curriculum focused on alternative versions of history, pseudo science, non-critical thinking, etc. It will be time to stop allowing the highest level universities to be available to everyone when the level of education provided K-12 will not meet the same standards. Some students will not be prepared.
Michael B | 3/4/2025 12:21:40 PM
While concerns about job losses and restructuring are understandable, the confirmation of Linda McMahon and the proposed downsizing of the Department of Education align with a broader effort to streamline federal operations and reduce bureaucracy.
Reducing Government Inefficiency – Critics argue that the Department of Education has become bloated and inefficient, with too much administrative overhead that does not directly contribute to student success. Shifting responsibilities to other departments, such as the Treasury for financial aid administration, could create a more effective and accountable system.
Decentralizing Education Policy – Education policy is best handled at the state and local levels, where policymakers are more attuned to the needs of their communities. The federal government’s role in education has expanded significantly over the decades, often leading to one-size-fits-all regulations that do not serve students equally. Reducing ED’s scope could return more control to states and institutions.
Maintaining Core Functions – While the restructuring may lead to job losses, it does not necessarily mean the elimination of critical student aid functions. These responsibilities can be reassigned to agencies better equipped to handle financial oversight, potentially improving efficiency in the long run.
Institutional Change is Difficult but Necessary – While sudden transitions are challenging, large organizations, both public and private, periodically undergo restructuring to improve performance. While the loss of experienced staff is unfortunate, a leaner, more focused approach to education policy could ultimately benefit students by eliminating redundant administrative layers.
David S | 3/4/2025 9:32:18 AM
The "dismantling the elements of this bloated government department" means eliminating the jobs of the dedicated, knowledgeable ED and FSA staff who have partnered with every one of us over the years to deliver the funds our students need to pursue their educational and career goals, and to help us understand how to maintain compliance while administering complex programs that have to meet the need of a very diverse population of students pursuing everything from short-term vocational certificates to PhD's.
Every one of us should thank these exceptional professionals, most of whom did not go plan their careers with the thought of being give 48 hours to resign or retire (put yourself in their shoes). I mourn the loss of their expertise and guidance.
He is not simply eliminating the Department of Education; he is dismantling its functions. Even if tasks are perhaps being moved to a different department such as Treasury, these mass layoffs mean that the institutional memory to make those tasks work will be gone. We are facing a drastic turning point in the history of our profession.
James P | 3/4/2025 8:45:34 AM
Excellent pick. Gook luck Secretary McMahaon dismantling the elements of this bloated government department.
You must be logged in to comment on this page.