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.
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.
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.”
Such a shift would require significant changes to the student loan system and federal oversight of colleges.
U. A. Educating lawmakers about the Trump administration’s new fiscal year 2026 budget proposal for a department that both President Trump and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon have pledged to close was a challenging task for McMahon this week.
The administration’s proposed budget summary calls for a 15 percent reduction in the Education Department’s funding while largely maintaining the two most significant federal funding streams for K–12 schools: Title I, which supports schools in low-income communities, and IDEA grants to states, which assist students with disabilities. In its place, it is suggesting slashing TRIO and other programs that assist first-generation and low-income college students.
McMahon appeared before a Senate appropriations subcommittee on Tuesday and the House education committee on Wednesday. These are a few instances that caught our attention.
Insanity’s definition.
Hearing in the Senate on Tuesday, Sen. “What’s the definition of insanity?” McMahon was asked by Republican Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.
“Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome,” McMahon responded.
In light of deteriorating test results, Mullin argues that whatever the U. S. . As the Department of Education has stated over the years, “It’s not working.”. Our current strategy isn’t working. “,”.
The idea that U. A. Republicans’ main justification for dismantling the Education Department has been that students have been performing poorly academically, and this claim was repeatedly made during this week’s hearings with McMahon.
That argument’s detractors have pointed out that the department is not in charge of managing the country’s schools. States or districts cannot be told what or how to teach it by it.
Actually, during the hearing on Tuesday, Sen. As NPR has shown, Katie Britt, a Republican from Alabama, correctly emphasized her state’s remarkable academic advancement in recent years. Louisiana, another state, has also seen notable progress.
Student loans could be a liability for colleges.
Colleges must have “a little skin in the game” when it comes to student loans, according to McMahon. She proposed that not all student loans that are not repaid should fall under the purview of the federal government.
“Loans are simply borne by others; they are not forgiven or simply disappear,” she stated.
House Republicans’ massive reconciliation bill includes a plan to make colleges and universities pay back some of the loans their students do not. Republicans also wish to highlight instances in which a particular college program fails to provide students with a satisfactory return on their investment.
Representative said, “If you want to get a student loan, you have to go get a degree in something where you might actually be able to do something useful when you’re done with it.”. Randy Fine, a Republican from Florida.
Such a change would necessitate major adjustments to federal regulation of colleges and the student loan system.
significant cuts to mental health.
During Tuesday’s Senate hearing, McMahon faced the most challenging questions from Democrats regarding the department’s decision to stop awarding $1 billion in grants to school districts for the employment of social workers and counselors and other mental health professionals.
Sen. According to Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, “Doing that to those children is incredibly cruel,” McMahon said. Did you consider the consequences?
The department’s justification for the funding freeze, which McMahon reiterated, was that some of these programs were corrupted by what the administration views as poisonous DEI ideology.
“I believe that the states and local areas are the best places where we need to concentrate for these particular programs,” she added. “.
The administration employs this trust-the-states strategy throughout its budget: it calls for removing regulations and distributing funds to states in block grants that can be used however state leaders see fit for the programs it does not want to completely terminate.
In the budget, for instance, federal funds for literacy instruction, rural schools, homeless students, and a variety of other unrelated programs would be combined into a single, general package that would be distributed to nations.
What happened to the other TRIO programs, including Upward Bound?
The department’s budget for fiscal year 2026 would terminate a group of federal initiatives known as TRIO, which were designed to assist first-generation and low-income students in enrolling in and thriving in college. McMahon also listened to cries to save the programs and bipartisan support for TRIO.
On one occasion during the hearing on Tuesday, Maine Republican Sen. While wearing a Maine TRIO pin on her lapel, Susan Collins noted that three of her employees had completed TRIO. Collins claimed to have personally witnessed how the programs had improved the lives of numerous Americans in need who might not have been able to attend college otherwise.
In response to Collins’ question about why the administration believes TRIO isn’t worth the investment, McMahon stated that the department of education is unable to audit TRIO to ensure that federal funds are being spent properly.
“If there is a problem with accountability, let’s address that … but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater,” said New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, one of several senators who expressed support for TRIO during the hearing. “.”.
Who is responsible for funding workforce programs?
Lawmakers from both parties responded to the administration’s proposed unity of workforce-development programs in a variety of ways, ranging from mild concern to outright animosity.
Rep. “When the dust settles do we understand that there will be about a 33 percent cut across workforce development?” asked Virginia Democrat Bobby Scott, who pressed the Secretary to provide a figure for the budget cuts.
McMahon continued to emphasize the need for workforce development without the federal government bearing the expense, rather than providing a yes or no response to the question.
Rep. Democratic candidate Haley Stevens of Michigan pleaded on behalf of her state, stating, “We are competing on a world stage,” referring to Michigan’s manufacturing machinery. “We require these apprenticeship programs and engineering jobs. “.
Later, in a conversation with Indiana Republican Representative Mark Messmer, Secretary McMahon stated that the administration was investigating ways to increase public-private partnerships for career and technical education.
