Linda McMahon, President Trump’s nominee to lead the U.S. Department of Education, declined to provide a clear answer Thursday on whether Black history classes would be allowed under Trump’s executive order against so-called “radical indoctrination.” Her refusal to clarify leaves educators and students in a state of uncertainty—one that could have lasting implications for how race and history are taught in American schools.
A Threat to Black History Education?
Trump’s executive order, issued in his second week in office, calls for federal agencies to develop plans to strip funding from K-12 schools that engage in what the administration labels as “discriminatory equity ideology” and “gender ideology.” Critics argue this is a broad and dangerous framework that could be used to suppress education on race, history, and identity—especially as several states have already banned discussions of systemic racism in classrooms.
During her Senate confirmation hearing, McMahon was questioned by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) about the implications of this order. Murphy specifically asked whether public schools offering African American history classes could be in violation of the new rule.
“My son is in a public school. He takes a class called African American history,” Murphy said. “If you’re running an African American history class, could you perhaps be in violation of this executive order?”
McMahon dodged the question, responding, “I’m not quite certain, and I’d like to look into it further and get back to you on that.”
Murphy pressed further: “So there’s a possibility that public schools that run African American history classes—this is a class that has been taught in public schools for decades—could lose federal funding if they continue to teach African American history?”
McMahon denied that was her position but did not provide any assurances that such classes would be protected, instead reiterating her intent to review the order’s “breadth” before making a determination.
Extracurricular Clubs in the Crosshairs
McMahon’s reluctance to provide a definitive answer extended beyond coursework. Murphy also asked whether extracurricular clubs that cater to students from specific racial or ethnic backgrounds—such as Black Student Unions or Vietnamese American student groups—could be at risk of violating the order and facing funding cuts.
“You’re saying it’s a possibility that if a school has a club for Vietnamese American students or Black students, where they meet after school, they could potentially be in jeopardy of receiving federal funding?” Murphy asked.
McMahon’s response again avoided commitment: “I would like to fully know what the order is and what those clubs are doing.”
“That’s pretty chilling,” Murphy replied. “I think schools all around the country are gonna hear that.”
Her lack of clarity suggests that federal scrutiny under the executive order could extend beyond classroom instruction and into student-led activities meant to provide support and community for marginalized groups.
The Fight Against DEI and “Segregation”
McMahon’s statements also revealed hostility toward diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, a frequent target of conservative attacks. When asked to define DEI, she described it as a “tough” program that was “ostensibly” designed to foster inclusivity but claimed it was having the “opposite effect.”
She cited separate graduation ceremonies for Black and Hispanic students as an example of increased “segregation” in schools and universities. However, many historically Black colleges and predominantly white institutions offer culturally specific ceremonies as optional, supplemental celebrations alongside traditional commencements—not as mandatory, exclusionary events.
An Uncertain Future for Education
The Trump administration’s ability to enforce funding cuts based on ideological disagreements remains legally murky. Federal courts have previously blocked attempts to withhold funds for similar reasons, ruling that the executive branch lacks the unilateral authority to deny funding appropriated by Congress.
Still, McMahon’s refusal to provide clear guidance leaves educators, students, and parents with more questions than answers. Will schools be forced to water down or eliminate Black history education to avoid potential funding consequences? Will student groups that provide safe spaces for Black and brown youth be disbanded under fear of violating vague federal mandates?
For now, the only certainty is uncertainty. And as Black history remains under attack in multiple states, the implications of this executive order—and McMahon’s reluctance to defend the teaching of African American history—could reverberate through classrooms across the country.
Original reporting credited to: Mark Lieberman | Education Week