You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | John Lamparski and Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
President-elect Donald Trump recently announced Linda McMahon as his pick to head the Department of Education—a department he has openly talked about eliminating. Despite Linda McMahon’s decades-long friendship with Trump and having served in both his former administration and re-election efforts, to say that pundits and academics were generally surprised by this announcement would be an understatement.
Some recent commentary has drawn comparisons between McMahon and Trump’s previous pick for secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, noting their extraordinary wealth and lack of direct experience in education or federal educational policy. However, I believe these parallels could be misguided, particularly regarding assumptions about how McMahon will manage the Education Department.
McMahon and DeVos both belong to the billionaire class, but the paths they took to achieve this status are vastly different. DeVos inherited her wealth, as the daughter of Edgar Prince, who made his fortune in part through auto parts manufacturing. She attended Calvin University, an elite private Christian institution, and married Dick DeVos, another heir to substantial wealth. In contrast, McMahon was born into a middle-class family and attended East Carolina University, a regional public institution, building her fortune from the ground up.
After college, Linda supported her husband, Vince McMahon, in his successful quest to purchase the WWF from his father (now WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment). Linda not only supported Vince in building the company into a multibillion-dollar enterprise but co-led its growth, aware that failure would mean financial ruin. While it is unclear if their roles were entirely equal, many credit Linda with independently managing key corporate operations, making her a pivotal figure in WWE’s success. Together, the pair dominated the wrestling industry throughout the 1980s and 1990s, eliminating competitors. Even today, no brand has emerged as a true rival to the WWE.
Given McMahon’s background, it is misguided to assume she would approach the role of secretary of education in the same way as DeVos. Linda McMahon emerged as one of two dominant leaders in the highly competitive and cutthroat world of professional wrestling. Under her leadership at WWE, the company aggressively opposed unionization, controlled wrestlers’ behavior and limited their ability to earn outside income despite classifying them as independent contractors (which also restricted their access to benefits), and eventually it grew into an alleged monopoly. Additionally, the McMahons managed to overcome federal drug distribution charges against Vince related to supplying steroids to talent—a rare and notable legal victory as Vince was acquitted by a jury. As has been widely reported in recent weeks, a civil lawsuit accuses the McMahons of knowingly enabling the sexual assault of children by a WWE employee as early as the 1980s, allegations that the McMahons deny.
Unlike DeVos, who inherited generational wealth, McMahon had to fight and work her way to build her fortune. Furthermore, McMahon’s ascent to significant political prominence seems closely, if not entirely, linked to Trump’s success. In contrast, DeVos has been an influential figure in the Republican Party for decades, independent of Trump’s rise.
Previously, McMahon made two unsuccessful U.S. Senate bids and briefly served on the Connecticut Board of Education before resigning after about a year. She came under criticism for misrepresenting her credentials on a vetting questionnaire for that role. McMahon’s first meaningful political appointment came during Trump’s administration, when she served as the administrator of the Small Business Administration.
After Trump’s defeat in 2020, Linda McMahon became the chair of the America First Policy Institute, a role where comparisons to DeVos are more justifiable. AFPI advocates for a voucher system in K-12 education and seeks to introduce Christian-based elements into schools. In higher education, its goals align with the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, including reforming the student loan system (potentially reducing access for the neediest students), promoting career and technical education, and opposing recent Title IX and diversity initiatives—positions similar to those previously championed by DeVos. McMahon has shared little publicly about her own policy intentions: Her leadership of AFPI offers some insight into her potential priorities, though conclusions remain speculative.
While McMahon and DeVos may share similar policy goals, I believe McMahon would approach running the Education Department quite differently. Although the Trump administration may face congressional resistance in its efforts to dismantle ED, McMahon could be an effective instrument for weakening parts of the department that conflict with the administration’s priorities while advancing its favored policies.
Drawing on her leadership experience at WWE, McMahon would likely adopt a more strategic and aggressive management style compared to DeVos. For instance, while outright firing unionized employees may be difficult, creating environments that lead to voluntary departures could be an easier tactic in removing nonloyalists. These strategies would mirror lessons from WWE, where, as a long-tenured executive, she played a pivotal role in suppressing union efforts and adopting policies that prioritized control over wrestlers’ interests.
Additionally, McMahon is likely to lead with a more subdued public profile compared to DeVos, as evidenced by her quieter approach during her tenure in the first Trump administration. In essence, while the public will be aware of major policy shifts, the subtler changes affecting students, families and educational institutions may only become apparent over time.
One concerning similarity, however, is the likelihood of disregarding court mandates requiring compliance with various laws. With her background in a cutthroat, allegedly monopolistic business, and a sitting president indifferent to such concerns, Linda McMahon may feel little incentive to adhere to legal constraints.
In summary, while McMahon may share some policy goals with DeVos, her distinct background and experience suggest she will likely take a different approach to leading the Department of Education. With her leadership style shaped by the competitive world of professional wrestling, McMahon could be a more strategic, determined and ruthless force in reshaping the department. While her policy goals may align with DeVos’s, McMahon’s leadership could involve a more aggressive pursuit of her objectives. As secretary of education, McMahon’s decisions will likely reflect both her ingrained corporate instincts and her close ties to Trump, which could make her leadership of ED unique compared to DeVos and potentially more impactful.
