Tag: defends

  • McMahon defends $12B proposed cut to the Education Department

    McMahon defends $12B proposed cut to the Education Department

    During a hearing Wednesday, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended the Trump administration’s proposal to heavily cut funding for the U.S. Department of Education during the 2026 fiscal year, arguing the reductions were a key step toward winding down the agency. 

    “We seek to shrink federal bureaucracy, save taxpayer money and empower states who best know their local needs to manage education in this country,” McMahon said before lawmakers on the House Committee on Appropriations’s education subcommittee. 

    President Donald Trump’s budget request, released at the beginning of the month, would slash funding to the Education Department by 15.3%, or about $12 billion. 

    The plan calls for eliminating two federal programs aimed at improving college access for disadvantaged and low-income students — TRIO and Gear Up — as well as shifting the responsibility of the Federal Work-Study program to the states. And it would eliminate funding for Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, which provide need-based aid to undergraduate students. 

    It also would reduce funding for the already-diminished Office for Civil Rights, which investigates harassment and discrimination on college campuses and in K-12 schools, by about $49 million, a 35% cut from the previous year. 

    Republicans on the panel largely lauded the proposal, with many praising the Trump administration’s support for charter schools, which would receive a $60 million funding bump in the budget. 

    Democrats, however, slammed the budget, arguing the cuts would undermine student success and restrict pathways to higher education. 

    “Your visions for students aspiring to access and pay for college is particularly grim,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the appropriations committee, said during the hearing. “Some families do not need financial assistance to go to college, but that’s not true for the rest.” 

    ‘You will not have the partnership of Congress’

    Trump signed an executive order in March directing McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.” 

    His administration has shared plans to move its key functions to other agencies. In one instance, Trump suggested that operating the student loan portfolio should be the responsibility of the newly-downsized Small Business Administration.

    Some Republicans on the panel voiced support for this plan Wednesday. Rep. Jake Ellzey, from Texas, suggested the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services could take over mental health support provided by the Education Department. He also proposed that the U.S. Department of Justice could oversee civil rights matters — an option McMahon floated during her confirmation hearing in February. 

    On Wednesday, McMahon described the Education Department as a federal funding “pass-through mechanism” and said other agencies could take over the job of distributing allocations from Congress. 

    “Whether the channels of that funding are through HHS, or whether they’re funneled through the DOJ, or whether they’re funneled through the Treasury or SBA or other departments, the work is going to continue to get done,” McMahon said. 

    However, Democrats indicated they would not support those efforts. 

    “You will not have the partnership of Congress in your efforts to destroy the Department of Education,” DeLauro said. “Not on our watch.” 

    DeLauro also slammed McMahon over recent cuts to the Education Department, which has eliminated about half of its staff and canceled hundreds of millions of dollars worth of grants. 

    “By recklessly incapacitating the department you lead, you are usurping Congress’ authority and infringing on Congress’ power of the purse,” she said. 

    Democrats also took issue with the budget’s proposal to shift the responsibility of funding programs to states. 

    Along with Federal Work-Study, the 2026 proposal would cut funding for other higher education programs, including the Strengthening Institutions Program, which provides grants to help colleges become more financially stable, improve their academic quality and ability to serve low-income students. 

    Source link

  • McMahon Defends Harvard Cuts, Faces Grilling During CNBC Interview

    McMahon Defends Harvard Cuts, Faces Grilling During CNBC Interview

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended the Trump administration’s crackdown on Harvard University and other colleges during a contentious appearance Tuesday on CNBC’s Squawk Box as she faced questions about the government’s decision to freeze universities’ federal funding.

    Andrew Ross Sorkin and Joe Kernen, the morning talk show’s hosts, grilled McMahon during the 12-minute segment about whether freezing billions in grants and contracts was due to valid civil rights concerns or unjustified political and ideological standards; they suggested it was the latter. (Harvard sued Monday over the funding freeze, which followed the university’s decision to reject the Trump administration’s sweeping demands.)

    But McMahon reiterated that, for her, it was a matter of holding colleges accountable for antisemitism on campus—not an alleged liberal bias.

    “I made it very clear these are not First Amendment infractions; this is civil rights,” she said. “This is making sure that students on all campuses can come and learn and be safe.”

    Harvard argued in the lawsuit that some of the demands—like auditing faculty for viewpoint diversity—do not directly address antisemitism and infringe on the private institution’s First Amendment rights.

    Sorkin echoed Harvard’s argument during the interview and questioned McMahon about the lawsuit’s claims.

    “The question is whether viewpoint diversity is really about free speech,” he said. 

    In defense, McMahon said that “this letter [of demands] that was sent to Harvard was a point of negotiation … and it was really not a final offer.” She added that she hoped Harvard would come back to the table. (Trump officials told The New York Times that the April 11 letter was sent by mistake.)

    “We would like to be able to move forward with them and other universities,” she said.

    McMahon later reiterated her argument that this was a civil rights matter and said, “I think we’re on very solid grounds” regarding the lawsuit.

    But Kernen countered that requiring universities to hire conservative faculty members is just as bad as historically maintaining liberal ones, calling the act “thought control.”

    “It’s the other side of the same coin, isn’t it?” he said.

    McMahon said it’s fair to take a look at some faculty members.

    Near the end of the interview, Sorkin asked McMahon about her end goal if universities lose their federal funding and tax-exempt status. (The IRS is reportedly reviewing Harvard’s tax-exemption.)

    “We have not said that the tax exemption should be taken away, but I think it’s worth having a look at,” McMahon said. “I think the president has put all the tools on the table and we should have the ability to utilize all of those particular tools.”

    Source link

  • This week in 5 numbers: McMahon defends Education Department dismantling

    This week in 5 numbers: McMahon defends Education Department dismantling

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    From U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s recent comments to the Trump administration’s latest funding threat to an Ivy League institution, here are the top-line figures from some of our biggest stories of the week. 

    By the numbers

     

    100+

    How many union employees were recently fired from the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, the agency’s research and data arm. McMahon said Tuesday at an education and technology conference that the department is looking to revamp IES.

     

    9

    The number of demands made by the Trump administration to Harvard University for the Ivy League institution to keep its federal funding, according to a copy of the letter. The requirements include for Harvard to review academic programs the Trump administration considers “biased” and for the university to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

     

    15%

    The National Institutes of Health’s proposed rate cap on reimbursement for indirect research costs. However, a federal district judge permanently barred the NIH last week from implementing the policy, ruling the agency lacked the legal authority to make the change.

     

    3

    The number of federal lending programs the Education Department named when announcing plans to revise student aid regulations. The agency indicated it hopes to make changes to two income-driven repayment plans, as well as the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which clears debts for public servants after they make a decade of qualifying payments.

     

    22,000

    How many students attending private nonprofit colleges who could be rendered ineligible for a popular grant program in Florida under a new legislative proposal. Florida lawmakers are mulling performance metrics — including minimum graduation rates — for institutions to be able to participate in the program.

    Source link

  • FIRE Defends WVU Football Players’ Right to Dance on TikTok

    FIRE Defends WVU Football Players’ Right to Dance on TikTok

    West Virginia University’s football team is experiencing a digital Footloose: The coach has prohibited the players from dancing on TikTok. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression hopes to reverse the ban.

    In March, head football coach Rich Rodriguez told his players that while they could post on TikTok, they weren’t allowed to dance on the platform.

    “We have to have a hard edge … and you’re in there in your tights dancing on TikTok ain’t quite the image of our program that I want,” Rodriguez said, according to the Associated Press.

    Rodriguez also said he wants the players to focus less on their individual performances and more on the team dynamic—and he believes not dancing on TikTok can help.

    FIRE responded by writing a letter last month to the university’s athletic director, Wren Baker, arguing that the ban on dancing violates the athletes’ First Amendment right to free expression.

    “WVU players don’t hand in their expressive rights when Rodriguez hands out shoulder pads at the start of training camp,” FIRE wrote in the letter. “Because student-athletes are students first, their right to free expression off the field must be commensurate to other students on campus.”

    When Baker failed to respond within a few weeks, FIRE sent another letter, which was posted on X.

    “Major NFL players like Tom Brady, Gronk [Rob Gronkowski], and the Kelce brothers maintain robust TikTok presences,” the letter read. “Coaches at public colleges can’t stop their players from posting online, because students—including athletes—have the First Amendment right to express themselves.”

    The policy isn’t written anywhere, as Front Office Sports learned after requesting a copy through the Freedom of Information Act, but FIRE claims “its existence and enforcement violates students’ expressive rights.”

    Some college athletes use their social media presences to generate revenue through name, image and likeness opportunities, and many of the top earners through NIL deals are colleges football players, though fewer of their brand opportunities are a result of social media dances.  

    An impending ban on TikTok makes the future of students in general posting on the platform less clear.



    Source link

  • Victory in Virginia! Gov. Youngkin defends free speech by vetoing bill on ‘altered’ political media

    Victory in Virginia! Gov. Youngkin defends free speech by vetoing bill on ‘altered’ political media

    If you were planning to post an edited photo online of a Virginia political candidate during the next election, you might’ve been in trouble. 

    After FIRE’s opposition and outreach on this bill, Gov. Glenn Youngkin just prevented that from happening by vetoing HB 2479. 

    The Virginia General Assembly passed HB 2479 to suppress “altered” and AI-generated depictions of candidates — enforced with threats of fines and even jail time — unless a conspicuous disclaimer was added. Instead of trusting the public to decide what’s true, false, or credible, HB 2479 would have violated the free speech rights of Virginians to make the government into the arbiter of truth. 

    This bill would’ve made it illegal for virtually any Virginian to sponsor an “electioneering communication” that contains “altered” or AI-generated images or audio recordings of identifiable candidates running for elected office. This included messages appearing in print, TV, radio, or online platforms within 60 days of an election. 

    Not only would it have included traditional paid campaign ads, but anyone’s speech expressing support for or against a candidate that involves the exchange of something of value and appears in a paper, a broadcast, or is promoted online for a fee. This could include using an AI tool that requires a paid license or even posting on a social media platform using a paid premium account that many platforms offer to extend the content’s visibility and reach.

    What “altered” means is anyone’s guess — but the government would be the decider.  Any edit that created a “fundamentally different impression” of the photo or video could count, meaning it could have covered even simple edits like cropping a photo. If an image of a candidate was cropped to fit onto a page, an aggrieved candidate could sue and argue that the crop created a “fundamentally different impression” from the original if the portion cropped out removed some kind of context — such as part of the background or another person.

    And every speaker was covered, not just mud-slinging political opponents. Suppose a small business owner buys space in a newspaper to highlight how a mayor running for reelection failed to address public safety concerns outside her shop. If she includes a slightly edited and unflattering image of the mayor, she could have been sued — even if the content is not misleading (or even relevant).

    The disclaimer requirement wouldn’t have solved the bill’s problems, and in fact created new ones. The First Amendment protects both your right to speak your mind and to hold your tongue, but disclaimers force you to utter government-mandated speech.   Even worse, the disclaimer here could have actually misled voters into thinking that someone is spreading falsehoods — even if the ad was factually accurate — simply because edited or AI-generated material was included. 

    Lawmakers certainly need to protect the electoral process, but this bill would have done the opposite, and it restricted far more speech than necessary to prevent true voter deception. It therefore was unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. 

    The better, constitutional way to fight falsehoods that arise during campaigns is to let candidates fight speech with more speech. If an ad is misleading or outright wrong, candidates can and should point it out. Should any depictions of candidates rise to the level of being actually defamatory, Virginia already has laws to address it. Otherwise, the First Amendment protects our right to use expressive tools like AI to enhance political communication.

    Our system of government hinges on the freedom to freely express our opinions about candidates for public office. We commend Youngkin for his veto, which will help preserve the First Amendment rights of Virginians and ensure a vibrant, open political discourse.

    Source link