Linda McMahon, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education, has stirred both fervent support and sharp criticism. With a career that includes leadership in the private sector and advocacy for educational reform, her selection is seen by some as a bold move, while others call it a troubling choice.
McMahon, best known as the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), brings a nontraditional background to a role traditionally filled by education experts. Her advocacy for policies like school choice and workforce-oriented education programs aligns with Trump’s campaign priorities, but critics question her limited direct experience in education and worry about the implications of her policy positions.
A Background That Raises Eyebrows
McMahon’s education credentials include a certification as a French teacher, though she never pursued a classroom career. She served briefly on the Connecticut State Board of Education and has been a trustee at Sacred Heart University for 16 years. Her contributions to the university, including a student center bearing her name, showcase her involvement in education from an administrative perspective.
However, skeptics argue her tenure pales in comparison to past secretaries who often brought decades of experience in public education or policy-making. McMahon’s limited formal experience in education governance has drawn criticism from union leaders and public school advocates. Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, accused her of prioritizing the dismantling of the Department of Education over the welfare of students.
Advocating for School Choice
One of McMahon’s key policy stances is school choice. This approach redirects public school funding to private education through mechanisms like taxpayer-funded vouchers, allowing parents more flexibility in choosing schools for their children. McMahon’s allies praise her commitment to empowering parents, while detractors warn that this policy could siphon resources from struggling public schools.
During Trump’s announcement of her nomination, he emphasized her alignment with his goal to decentralize education. Trump reiterated that McMahon would champion “choice” and fight to send education authority back to the states, a shift that aligns with Republican ideals of limited federal intervention.
Proponents of school choice, such as Tiffany Justice from Moms for Liberty, lauded the pick, calling McMahon a “fierce patriot.” Justice believes McMahon’s approach will put parents in control of their children’s education.
Workforce Development Over College-for-All
McMahon’s educational philosophy also emphasizes diversifying pathways to success beyond four-year college degrees. She has championed technical education and apprenticeship programs, citing Switzerland as a model for workforce training. In a recent social media post, McMahon praised apprenticeship programs and proposed broadening access to federal Pell Grants to include short-term skills training and technical certifications.
Her support for this shift has drawn mixed reactions. Critics worry that expanding Pell Grants to for-profit institutions with short-term programs could invite predatory practices, potentially leading to poor outcomes for students. Advocates, however, argue that such policies provide alternatives for students uninterested in traditional college paths, equipping them with skills tailored to high-demand industries.
Concerns Over For-Profit Colleges
For-profit colleges, often controversial for their high costs and poor outcomes, are central to the debate surrounding McMahon’s nomination. Republican policymakers view these institutions as valuable options for nontraditional students, while Democrats often cite predatory practices and misuse of federal funds.
Jason Altmire, president of the Career Education Colleges and Universities trade group, welcomed McMahon’s nomination, expressing optimism that she would champion fairer regulations for career schools. Meanwhile, student advocacy groups like the Student Borrower Protection Center worry her policies could open federal aid to programs with questionable value.
Polarized Reactions Across the Board
The announcement of McMahon’s nomination has sparked fierce reactions. Advocacy groups for public schools and unions were quick to denounce her as unqualified and potentially harmful to public education. Gaylynn Burroughs of the National Women’s Law Center described her as a “dangerous sycophant” poised to enact Trump’s agenda at the expense of students.
In contrast, others in education policy have taken a wait-and-see approach. Robert C. Scott, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce’s ranking Democrat, expressed opposition to Trump’s education agenda but withheld judgment on McMahon until her Senate confirmation hearings.
Some education leaders, such as Ted Mitchell of the American Council on Education, struck a more positive tone. Mitchell highlighted McMahon’s work on workforce development during her tenure at the Small Business Administration and her role at Sacred Heart University. He argued that her private-sector experience could provide valuable insights into the challenges of managing educational institutions in a tough economic climate.
A Vision for Patriotic Education
Another key element of McMahon’s platform is her support for teaching American history through a “patriotic lens.” Her work with the America First Policy Institute underscores her commitment to increasing parental transparency about classroom materials and rethinking diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Critics of these policies argue they risk oversimplifying history and stifling critical discussions in schools.
The issue of campus antisemitism also appears on McMahon’s radar, with the America First Policy Institute advocating for tougher stances against hate speech in universities. The organization calls for schools to disavow antisemitic language and reconsider diversity programs it claims foster division.
What’s Next?
Linda McMahon’s nomination sets the stage for a contentious Senate confirmation process. With opinions starkly divided, her tenure, if confirmed, could bring significant shifts to the nation’s education system. As Trump seeks to reshape federal education policy, McMahon’s influence could be felt far beyond the Department of Education, shaping debates over school choice, college affordability, and the balance between federal and state control.
The coming weeks will reveal whether McMahon can win over skeptics and translate her business acumen into meaningful reforms—or whether her tenure will deepen divisions in America’s education landscape.
