In a political landscape rife with controversial appointments, President-Elect Trump’s nominations seem designed to provoke outrage or, perhaps more cynically, to
Dr. James Peterson
To appreciate the stakes, consider the purpose and history of the Department of Education (ED). Established as a cabinet-level department in 1980 under President Jimmy Carter, the Department of Education's primary mission is to promote student achievement and ensure equal access to education. It oversees key federal programs, such as Title I, which provides financial assistance to schools with high numbers of low-income students, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which supports students with special needs. The department is also responsible for managing student financial aid programs and distributing billions of dollars in federal funds annually to states and schools.
Public education in the United States is not merely a function of government—it is a cornerstone of American democracy. A well-educated citizenry is critical for civic participation, economic competitiveness, and social equity. It is within this context that the nomination of Linda McMahon—a figure best known for her tenure as CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE)—raises fundamental questions.
McMahon’s experience in the for-profit entertainment industry bears little relevance to the complexities of leading the nation’s public education system. Alongside her husband, Vince McMahon, she transformed WWE into a global entertainment powerhouse, pioneering a business model rooted in scripted conflicts, larger-than-life characters, and dramatic storylines. While WWE’s success is undeniable, it operates within a framework of spectacle and performance, prioritizing profits over substance. Like much of MAGA politics, the WWE profits from deliberate and often unfounded grievance. Although we have witnessed how grievance politics can lead to book bans and the abolition of curricula dedicated to African American history/culture, the parallels between McMahon’s professional background and the educational challenges facing the country are tenuous at best.
The choice of McMahon to lead the Department of Education signals a troubling shift in priorities. Rather than appointing someone with experience in public education, child development, or educational policy, the Trump administration opted for a figure whose career has revolved around crafting narratives of manufactured conflict for entertainment. This decision reflects a broader strategy: to place individuals in charge of agencies they appear ill-equipped—or even disinclined—to lead effectively.
Linda McMahon’s nomination is part of a pattern. Consider the litany of controversial appointments in the upcoming administration. Each of Trump’s nominations appears less about governance and more about undermining institutional credibility.
You will read countless think pieces dissecting the implications of Pete Hegseth’s nomination as Secretary of Defense, questioning how a television commentator with controversial views on military strategy and veteran affairs could manage one of the most critical components of national security. Likewise, the nomination of former Representative Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence (DNI) has already sparked sharp criticism, with concerns about her policy positions and alignment with fringe ideologies dominating the discourse.
