Trump Education Secretary Gets Embarrassing Math Lesson in Hearing
Linda McMahon testified on Trump's 2026 budget before the Senate on Tuesday. While discussing spending on federal grants programs for disadvantaged students—TRIO and the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, or GEAR UP—she made a massive math error.
'We spend $1.58 billion a year on TRIO?' Republican Senator John Kennedy asked McMahon.
'Yes,' she replied.
'That's one thousand, five hundred and eighty million dollars a year? Is my math right?' Kennedy said, spelling out $1.58 billion.
'I think that's right, sir.'
'And how long have we been spending one thousand five hundred and eighty million a year on this program?' he asked.
'I'm not sure the total length and time of the program.'
'More than 10 years?'
'Yes.'
'So that's over a trillion dollars that we've spent on this program.… We give this money, as I appreciate it, to colleges and universities to encourage poor kids to go to college,' Kennedy said, before going on to insinuate that the colleges were stealing this grant money from the government for their own purposes.
Democratic Senator John Reed jumped in to check the math, as both Kennedy and the education secretary were way off.
'I'm not a great mathematician, but I think you were talking about a trillion dollars? I believe $1.5 billion times 10 is $15 billion, and that's a little bit off from a trillion dollars,' Reed stated, referring to Kennedy and McMahon's claim.
'I think the budget cuts $1.2 billion,' McMahon responded.
'Well that would be $12 billion, not a trillion dollars,' said Reed, calmly holding McMahon and Kennedy's hands through what amounted to a third-grade math lesson.
'OK,' McMahon said stiffly.
The hearing was a mess in other ways, as well. McMahon also refused to clarify to Senator Tammy Baldwin whether or not she would distribute congressionally appropriated funds for after-school programs.
'What we have done in putting forward our operating plan, the first operating plan to show where we're making allocations, and then followed up with the second operating plan—'
'This isn't a nuanced question,' Baldwin interrupted. 'Congress passed a law appropriating this funding. You said in your confirmation hearing you would spend funding Congress appropriated. If the answer isn't simply 'yes,' based on all the evidence before us, that leads me to believe that you are planning to withhold funding and short-change schools, students, and families across America.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats see political gift in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
Democrats say Republicans have given them a political gift with President Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill.' They say they can easily sell the bill to the public as a threat to working class voters, given its cuts to Medicaid and food stamps and significant tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy. 'This is a rare policy gift to Democrats in that it was perpetrated by Republicans, harms almost everybody, and it's actually relatively easy to talk about,' said Democratic strategist Christy Setzer. With that in mind, Democratic campaign operatives — with a big assist from liberal advocacy groups — have kicked off a messaging blitz that's likely to continue until Election Day. On Monday, the House Democrats' campaign arm launched its first national digital ad campaign of the year targeting 35 battleground Republicans who voted for Trump's bill despite reservations over Medicaid cuts. The House Democrats' top super PAC is finalizing another slate of ads — a six-figure mix of television and digital — that will launch in the coming weeks. And Unrig the Economy, an outside advocacy group, wasted no time complementing the effort. They've launched a seven-figure ad blitz targeting 12 vulnerable Republicans, with plans to spend an additional $10 million in the coming months. The ads highlight three of the most contentious provisions of the GOP bill: the cuts to health and nutrition programs, combined with a rollback of green-energy subsidies that's expected to spike utility costs across large parts of the country. 'Those are the three arguments that we see as the ones that hurt people the most, and the place that Republicans are most vulnerable to accountability,' a spokesperson for the group said Tuesday. The strategy is reminiscent of the Republican attacks on the Affordable Care Act, another wildly contentious bill that was broadly unpopular when Democrats passed it under President Obama in 2010. Months later, Republicans would pick up 63 House seats and flip control of the chamber — the same goal Democrats have set for next year's midterms. And the campaign extends far beyond Capitol Hill. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D), who says he is weighing a 2028 presidential bid, has already begun using the controversial legislation as a talking point as he looks toward next year's elections. 'Next year, I'll also be the head of the Democratic Governors Association, and especially in these rural states, where Republican governors have not spoken up whatsoever to stop this devastating bill, we're going to have strong candidates, we're going to win a lot of elections,' Beshear said in a CNN interview on Sunday. Republicans are also vowing to go on the offensive, highlighting the tax cuts as a windfall for workers and the immigration crackdown as a boon for public safety. If anyone should be on the defensive, they say, it's Democrats for opposing the legislation. 'National Democrats' desperate and disgusting fear-mongering tactics are nothing more than a lame attempt to distract voters from the fact that they just voted to raise taxes, kill jobs, gut national security, and allow wide open borders,' Mike Marinella, a spokesman for the House Republicans' campaign arm, said Tuesday. 'We will use every tool to show voters that the provisions in this bill are widely popular and that Republicans stood with them while House Democrats sold them out.' But some Republicans have already handed Democrats easy soundbites to put in their ads in the lead-up to 2026 midterms. 'What do I tell 663,000 people in two years or three years when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding isn't there anymore?' Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), one of the three GOP senators to oppose the bill, said last week on the chamber floor. The criticisms were not overlooked by Democrats, who see Tillis as an asset to their messaging efforts. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) cited Tillis in arguing against the bill last week, and Tillis himself warned his colleagues about an Obamacare-style backlash to the bill. 'When you have even Republicans saying it on the record, it kind of rebuts any argument that the NRCC's gonna try to make,' said a Democratic operative. 'I think you will definitely see Thom Tillis in campaign ads — or his words, at minimum.' On the heels of the bill's passage, Democrats are already pointing to polling foreshadowing favorable outcomes in 2026. A Quinnipiac University poll out in late June revealed that 55 percent of voters oppose the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' and a Fox News poll out last month showed 59 percent of voters oppose it. But some Democrats worry that merely defining Republicans with the bill may not be enough, saying that the party needs to coalesce around an agenda of their own for voters to turn to. 'Democrats have done a good job defining the bill as being bad for regular people. The Democrats have to do better at making an argument that they have an agenda that will challenge the status quo on behalf of working people to make their lives better,' said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. 'It's something Democrats need to start doing now because it's a long term problem that needs a long term solution.' A further challenge facing Democrats involves the timing of some of the law's provisions. While benefits like the tax cuts take effect long before the midterms, the cuts to Medicaid and food stamps are delayed until January of 2027 — after voters go to the polls. 'It will be harder to show someone who has lost his or her health care. Instead, they'll have to talk about who's at risk,' said Simmons. 'From a messaging perspective, it's more compelling to show someone who has…already lost their benefits than to discuss someone in jeopardy of losing their benefits.' Regardless, Democrats agree that the bill's impacts must be told at the local level with the stories of voters who are at risk or already affected. They're already pointing, for instance, at a rural hospital in Nebraska that's closing its doors as a direct result of the coming Medicaid cuts. 'You might see rural hospitals closing a little bit sooner. It's got to be about rural hospitals that were open and this month they're closed because of what Donald Trump and Republicans did,' said Democratic strategist Joel Payne. 'It's got to be an effect. It's got to be stories. It's got to be individuals and real people.' '…This can't be a Washington, inside-the-Beltway story. This has to be a story that's told all around the country,' Payne added. In recent years, political observers say Democrats have struggled to reach broader audiences, the latest example being their inability to connect with middle-income voters in the 2024 presidential election. But they say the time is ripe for Democrats to push beyond their 'very same tried and true tactics,' as Setzer put it. 'We have a messengers problem. We have a message problem. We don't actually have a substance problem right now,' Setzer said. 'We have a very important piece of legislation to run against right now that is very wide-ranging in its impact. So they need to expand who they are talking to…and expand the platforms on which we are talking to people.' 'In every electoral victory that we've seen lately, whether it is Donald Trump or Mamdani, you see someone who is willing to branch out in the platforms that they're going to,' Setzer added.
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
Few see falling birth rates as a priority: Survey
Few Americans see falling birth rates as a national priority, according to a new survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. When asked in the Thursday survey about how large of a problem declining birth rates in the U.S. is, 28 percent of respondents said it is a major issue while 44 percent called it a minor one. Twenty-seven percent didn't consider it a problem at all. The U.S. birth rate fell to an almost record low last year, per preliminary data. A vital statistics rapid release report published earlier this year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that about 3.6 million babies were born in the U.S. last year, a 1 percent increase from a record low number of births two years ago. The U.S. birth rate consistently dipped following the Great Recession in 2007, with births slightly rising in 2021, per CDC data. Some Republican leaders in recent months have emphasized pronatalism, encouraging Americans to have more children. Top proponents include former White House adviser Elon Musk and Vice President Vance. Americans, however, said the cost of raising children is more of a problem, per Tuesday's poll. In the AP-NORC survey, 76 percent said childcare costs are a big issue while just 18 percent considered it to be a minor one. Five percent of respondents said it was not a problem at all. The AP-NORC poll took place from June 5 to 9, with 1,158 people and a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court lets Trump move forward with large-scale staff cuts for now
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on July 8 lifted a federal judge's order pausing the Trump administration's large-scale staffing cuts and agency restructuring, boosting the president's campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. In an unsigned and brief opininon, the justices said they are not ruling on the legality of a specific reorganization plan. But, the court said, the district judge was wrong to stop the administration from moving ahead with changes to agencies. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, calling it the 'wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground.' "Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation," Jackson wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that while she agrees with Jackson that any changes must comply with previous congressional directives, Trump's executive order instructed agencies to follow the law. 'The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law,' she wrote. Sotomayor said the district judge can now consider whether that's happening. The mass federal layoffs were challenged by a group of unions, non-profits and local governments who argued the administration can't make such sweeping changes without Congress. In a joint statement, the coalition said the court's decision "has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy." The groups vowed to keep fighting. If the administration is allowed to plow forward while courts are weighing in, they've argued, it will be impossible to restore the agencies even if their challenge is ultimately successful. "There will be no way to unscramble that egg," lawyers for the unions and other challengers had told the Supreme Court. The administration argued President Donald Trump doesn't need "special permission" from Congress' to lay off thousands of federal employees. And it's not in the government's, or the taxpayer's interest, to have to wait for the litigation to play out before cutting the workforce, lawyers for the Justice Department said. "Every day that the preliminary injunction remains in effect, a government-wide program to implement agency RIFs is being halted and delayed, maintaining a bloated and inefficient workforce while wasting countless taxpayer dollars," the Justice Department told the Supreme Court. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco halted the layoffs, ruling on May 22 that the approximately 20 affected agencies won't be able to function as Congress intended. For example, she said, Congress established the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health but the administration wants to eliminate nearly all of its 222 employees. And the Social Security Administration, which was also established by Congress, has struggled to respond to Social Security recipients since staff reductions began, wrote Illston, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. A divided three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed Illston's decision. Two of the three judges − both of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents − said the administration's 'unprecedented' attempt to restructure the federal government is so broad that it was difficult to fully capture the magnitude in their court order. Writing for the majority, Judge William Fletcher also said the administration failed to provide 'a single piece of evidence' for why it would suffer an irreparable injury if Trump can't immediately fire the workers. Judge Consuelo Callahan, who was appointed by a Republican president, dissented. She wrote that the courts were interfering with Trump's 'lawful conduct.' More: Thousands of federal employees are on a roller coaster of being fired, rehired The administration has aggressively challenged the pauses federal judges are putting on the president's policies as they're being litigated. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Federal government layoffs: Supreme Court sides with Trump for now
