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.
Scandals and controversies have similarly swirled around Matt Gaetz, who was President-Elect Trump’s initial nomination to lead the Department of Justice. Gaetz’s legal entanglements and polarizing public persona fueled widespread skepticism about his ability to uphold the impartiality and integrity required of the nation’s top law enforcement office.
Then there’s Kash Patel, tapped to head the FBI—a figure closely tied to partisan controversies and conspiracy theories. His potential leadership raises alarms about the politicization of an institution that historically struggles to remain independent and steadfast in its mission to protect the rule of law.
And the list goes on. Dr. Mehmet Oz, a celebrity doctor infamous for promoting questionable health advice, is slated to oversee Medicare and Medicaid. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent anti-vaccine activist, was nominated to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. These choices, dripping with irony and fraught with potential conflicts, have unsurprisingly garnered significant public attention, sparking consternation, debate, and no small amount of outrage.
The same cannot be said of Linda McMahon’s nomination to be the next Secretary of Education.
For public education, the risks are especially dire. The ED is responsible for programs that provide free and reduced-cost lunches to millions of students, ensure the inclusion of disabled children in classrooms, and advance equitable access to quality education. These programs are not glamorous, but they are vital. They require leaders who understand the intricacies of educational funding, the challenges faced by underserved communities, and the policies needed to prepare students for a rapidly changing world.
What does McMahon’s nomination say about the incoming administration’s vision for education? It suggests a shift away from public service toward a model that values spectacle over substance. Imagine a Department of Education modeled after WWE—where drama and misdirection overshadow evidence-based policymaking. The very foundation of public education—its role as a democratic equalizer and a pathway to opportunity—will perpetually be at risk.
At a time when technological advancements like artificial intelligence threaten to outpace our educational system’s ability to prepare students for the future, the stakes could not be higher. Public education demands leadership that prioritizes learning, equity, and access—not one that views education as another arena for entertainment or profit.
McMahon’s nomination is not just an insult to educators, students, and families—it is a disservice to the democratic principles that public education upholds. America cannot afford to gamble with its future by turning its education system into a sideshow. We demand leaders who understand that the classroom is not a stage, and that students’ futures are not a game.
The nomination of Linda McMahon is a step backward—a move that diminishes the importance of public education in service of a political agenda that prioritizes ideology over expertise. It is a spectacle we can ill afford, and the consequences could reverberate for generations.
Dr. James B. Peterson is founder of Hip Hop Scholars, an organization devoted to developing the educational potential of Hip Hop. He is the author of Hip Hop Headphones: A Scholar's Critical Playlist.
