Billionaire Linda McMahon’s Student Loan Remarks Infuriate
Posted in :
A Billionaire Official Mocks
Student Borrowers
In a recent congressional hearing, Education Secretary Linda McMahon – a billionaire businesswoman turned public official – made comments inferring that ordinary Americans are essentially too ignorant to understand their own student loans. Testifying before lawmakers, McMahon flatly rejected any broad student debt relief, insisting “there will not be any mass loan forgiveness” and that borrowers must repay every cent[1]. She argued that student debt “cannot be wiped away” because doing so would simply transfer the burden to other taxpayers, asking rhetorically why Americans who paid their loans or never went to college should foot the bill for those who did[2]. The implication was clear: in McMahon’s view, millions of borrowers struggling with college debt just didn’t grasp what they signed up for and now want a bailout at everyone else’s expense.
Such comments from a rich official triggered instant fury. American borrowers are livid at essentially being told by a billionaire that they are the problem – that they were foolish or “too dumb” to comprehend how loans work. It’s a breathtakingly patronizing position to take, particularly when the student loan system is as complicated and predatory as it is. Critics note that McMahon’s comments not only insult the intelligence of everyday people, but also ignore the very real systemic issues that trapped Americans in $1.6+ trillion of student debt in the first place. In other words, a public servant responsible for education policy effectively scapegoated the public – and that’s not going over well with Americans who anticipated solutions, not sneers.
Who Is Linda McMahon? (Wealth vs. Qualifications)
Linda McMahon is no ordinary public servant. She’s the ex-CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and, with her husband Vince McMahon, accrued a billion-dollar fortune. McMahon twice ran for Senate in Connecticut (burning through tens of millions of her own cash in losing causes) before turning to politics through appointments. She served as head of the Small Business Administration under President Trump, and as of 2025 Trump tapped her to lead the Department of Education – despite her lack of traditional education credentials. (In fact, commentators point out that McMahon once falsely claimed to have a bachelor’s degree in education[3], underscoring her thin qualifications for the job.) It was an open secret that her chief qualification was loyalty and fundraising for Trump, rather than expertise in schooling[4].
As Education Secretary, McMahon has aggressively pursued an agenda to shrink and even dismantle her own department. She defended a Trump budget proposal to slash the Education Department by over $12 billion, eliminating programs for low-income students while shifting funds to private and charter schools[5][6]. She swiftly moved to fire a huge portion of the agency’s staff – nearly half the workforce – as part of Trump’s plan to wind down the department entirely[7][8]. (She even characterized these mass terminations as “a humanitarian thing”, astonishing observers[3].) In short, McMahon is an ultra-wealthy political appointee with minimal education policy experience and a mandate not to improve public education but to gut it. That context makes her recent comments all the more infuriating for many: not only is she blaming students for their debts, she’s also undermining the very systems meant to help those students.
Making things even more ironic, McMahon’s own tenure as Secretary has been plagued by elementary factual errors. In one hearing, she & a Republican senator embarrassingly miscalculated a simple budget figure – implying that spending $1.5billion a year for ten years was “over a trillion” dollars. It fell to Senator Jack Reed to give McMahon a third-grade math lesson: “1.5 billion times ten is 15 billion, not a trillion”, he patiently explained[9][10]. McMahon’s response was a terse “OK,” as she realized her error. The hearing, as one outlet put it, “was a mess in other ways, as well”[11] – from McMahon refusing to commit to spending funds Congress had directed for schools[12] to her inability (or unwillingness) to answer whether teaching about topics like slavery and civil rights is permissible. In other words, this billionaire secretary – who now lectures Americans on fiscal responsibility – has struggled with basic facts and duties of her role. Little wonder that MSNBC’s Jen Psaki called McMahon’s budget testimony an “awkward” spectacle, and critics argue she has “no business running this department”[3].
The student loan controversy
Against that backdrop, McMahon’s comments on student debt hit a sore spot. During a House hearing on education funding and policy, McMahon was unapologetic about the administration’s hardline stance on ending student loan forgiveness. “The Trump administration will never force taxpayers to pay student loan debts that don’t belong to them,” she declared in a typical statement[13]. In her testimony, McMahon suggested that any expectation of loan relief was misguided – essentially blaming the previous administration for, in her view, giving borrowers false hope that their loans might be forgiven[14]. Forgiveness, she argued, was never a legitimate option, and she portrayed the pause on payments and Biden’s canceled forgiveness plan as a harmful “bailout attempt” that encouraged irresponsibility[15][2].
Debt cannot be washed away, it just gets passed on to someone else. So why should Americans who didn’t go or who paid back their loans have to pay for someone else’s. McMahon asserted, echoing a common talking point[2].
To many, that statement painted struggling borrowers as people asking for handouts at the expense of their neighbors – a deeply divisive framing. McMahon’s tone suggested that people with college debt just didn’t get the bargain they struck and now want to offload the fallout on the rest of us. In effect, she conflated seeking relief with being uneducated or even selfish. It’s a raffle-hat talking point you’d anticipate on hot-talk radio, not from the head of the nation’s education department, who’s supposed to be looking out for students.
McMahon’s phrasing also hinted that Americans are naive about loans. She argued that the mere prospect of forgiveness had caused “confusion” and moral hazard, claiming the previous administration “told borrowers that forgiveness was always on the horizon” which led many to not prepare for repayment[14]. The insinuation is that ordinary people were foolish enough to believe their debt would magically disappear – in other words, too dumb or gullible to know better. This paternalistic tone antagonized borrowers who used the payment pause not on extravagant luxuries, but on necessities and making it through a pandemic economy.
Equally troubling was McMahon’s underlying message that higher education should be a privilege of the well-off. In her confirmation hearing, she articulated her philosophy in a catchy slogan: “Fund education freedom, not government-run systems… Build up careers, not college debt”[16]. Stripped of the spin, that essentially means if you can’t afford college without loans, maybe you shouldn’t go. As one education advocate translated it, “By which they mean, if you can’t afford to go to college without borrowing a bunch of money, don’t go.”[17]. It’s an astonishing stance — the U.S. Education Secretary implying that millions of Americans ought to simply abandon higher education if it means taking out loans. For a country that has long sold college as the ticket to the middle class, telling people of modest means to “build up careers” with no college (rather than risk student debt) sounds an awful lot like “know your place.” It means that the people who do pick college and borrow made a dumb decision and deserve their fate.
In sum, McMahon’s comments conveyed a disdainful “blame the borrower” mentality. No sympathy for the student who wasn’t taught personal finance in high school, or who took out loans at 18 because someone told them college was worth it. No mention of predatory lenders or exploding tuition – just a finger-wagging that borrowers should’ve known better. Given her role, such remarks are more than just impolite; they signal policy: indeed, McMahon has moved aggressively to resume harsh collection tactics (like seizing tax refunds and wages from defaulted borrowers) as soon as legally possible[18][19]. Her Department is pulling no punches: “there isn’t going to be any loan forgiveness program,” she declared bluntly on Fox Business[20][21]. For borrowers hoping, it was a gut punch – served with extra insult.
Public outcry and accusations of hypocrisy
The backlash was swift. Lawmakers, media and other citizens were outraged that a public official would talk about Americans in such a contemptuous manner. Senator Elizabeth Warren – a former educator and consumer protection champion – blasted McMahon’s approach, accusing the Trump administration of acting as if “the American people are stupid and will be fooled” by their maneuvers[22]. (Warren was referring to Trump and McMahon trying to literally erase the Department of Education by shuffling functions around; she warned “no one is fooled” by the idea that slapping a new name on the door will magically deliver the same services[22].) Warren’s broader point resonates here: the administration seems to think it can get away with pulling the wool over people’s eyes, whether about abolishing an agency or denying student debt relief, because it assumes “Americans are too dumb to notice.” McMahon’s implication that borrowers were confused by their loans fuels that image of arrogant snobbery.
Media coverage of McMahon’s hearing was unsparing. The story of her math error and evasive answers made headlines – “Trump Education Secretary Gets Embarrassing Math Lesson in Hearing”, one outlet trumpeted[23]. MSNBC’s analysts noted how McMahon fumbled basic facts and “flubbed basic history questions” in the Senate hearing, undercutting her credibility as she tried to defend massive budget cuts[24]. On social media, a clip of Senator Jack Reed schooling McMahon on how many billions are in a trillion went viral[9][10], with commenters remarking on the irony: “She can’t do 1×10, but she thinks she knows what’s best for our kids’ education?”. Another moment getting attention was McMahon’s refusal to give a straight “yes” when Senator Tammy Baldwin asked if she would actually spend all the funds Congress allocated for after-school programs[25]. That evasiveness prompted Baldwin to snap, “This isn’t a nuanced question… If the answer isn’t simply ‘yes,’ … you are planning to withhold funding”, effectively accusing McMahon of undermining programs by stealth[12]. To viewers, McMahon appeared not as a responsible steward but as someone hostile to the very mission of her department – and willing to spin or stonewall when confronted. This rendered her scathing critique of student borrowers even more galling.
On opinion pages and talk shows, commentators eviscerated McMahon’s remarks as out-of-touch and cruel. Others noted the obvious hypocrisy of wealthy elites who assail relief for the little guy but happily embrace government largess themselves. In McMahon’s case, this hypocrisy is near cartoonish. She lamented that “loan forgiveness” just transfers costs to taxpayers[2] – yet her own family business empire has benefited from taxpayer-funded programs and bailouts. In fact, public records show that Linda McMahon herself had a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan forgiven during the pandemic. According to ProPublica’s database, a $20,833 PPP loan under “Linda McMahon” in Florida/Georgia was fully forgiven, with over \$20,800 of principal and interest paid by the government[26][27]. (This seems to have to do with one of her real estate ventures – not exactly the mom-and-pop shop PPP was meant for.) In other words, McMahon availed herself of a government loan forgiveness program in 2021, with taxpayers eating the cost – the exact scenario she now claims is immoral for student debt. This revelation has fueled charges of double-standard: when billionaires get loans written off, it’s savvy business, but when students get a break, it’s “not fair.”
She’s not alone. Numerous prominent figures who opposed student loan forgiveness had their PPP loans erased: members of Congress, wealthy law firms, even elite universities. As one example, Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (a vocal critic of student debt relief) had over $180,000 in PPP loans forgiven, and Senator Mitch McConnell’s home state businesses saw over a billion forgiven, yet he called student relief “a slap in the face”[28]. This trend didn’t go unnoticed by the public. In the wake of McMahon’s comments furor, social media exploded with infographics juxtaposing officials’ forgiven PPP amounts with their student debt relief-bashing quotes. The message: they’re happy when their own loans get forgiven – but heaven forbid a teacher or nurse get a few thousand wiped off their student debt.
Even beyond PPP, big business and wealthy individuals benefit from loan forgiveness and bailouts all the time – it’s just usually called something else. Americans recall, in sharp and painful detail, the Wall Street bailout back in 2008–09, when hundreds of billions in loans to banks and corporations were written off or never repaid following the crash. As radio host Charlamagne tha God quipped in response to McMahon, “How come there’s never that urgency to make corporations pay back their loans the way they’re so quick to come after American citizens?”[29]. He rattled off examples: AIG got \$182 billion in bailout funds effectively forgiven, car companies had debts wiped in bankruptcy, and during COVID even airlines got huge no-strings support[29][30]. Yet, he noted, working-class borrowers are demonized as irresponsible for seeking $10k or $20k of relief on predatory student loans. This gap has festered a great deal of bitterness. McMahon’s soundbite about “why should others pay for your loans” might play well on a certain cable network, but to many Americans it rang hollow – we, the taxpayers, have been “paying for” the misdeeds or misfortunes of the rich and powerful for decades. Why is assisting everyday individuals all of a sudden “stealing” or “unfair”.
Public sentiment seems to have zeroed in on the fundamental unfairness of McMahon’s stance. Well here’s a billionaire — whose kids probably graduated college debt-free, whose lifestyle insulates her from any sort of economic stress — looking down her nose at graduates who scrimp to make $300 loan payments every month on a teacher’s salary. People find it infuriating that she suggests they were too stupid to understand compound interest, when in reality many have paid thousands in interest without denting the principal. Indeed, certain borrowers have already repaid more than they borrowed and owe more today than the original amount due to interest – a tale far too common under today’s loan terms. Is that because they’re “dumb”? Or because the system is built predatory style? Most Americans know the answer. As one outraged Facebook commenter put it: “Our students are human beings. Calling them dumb or treating them like deadbeats is disgusting”[31].
The political blowback is also significant. Democrats in Congress have rallied to defend borrowers and lambaste McMahon’s approach. Senator Warren launched a “Save Our Schools” campaign explicitly targeting McMahon’s attempts to dismantle the Department of Education[32][33]. She also revealed, through oversight inquiries, that McMahon’s department was accumulating a massive backlog of unresolved student loan issues – over 27,000 complaints from borrowers languishing in the ombudsman’s office[34]. To critics, this is proof that McMahon is literally not hearing Americans’ cries for help. “The American people deserve to know how your policies are impacting services… that millions of students and families rely upon,” Warren scolded in a letter pressing McMahon for answers[35][34]. Far from students being too dumb to manage loans, perhaps the Education Department is too broken under McMahon to manage student loans effectively – a point Warren implied by highlighting the chaos caused by firing loan servicer staff and freezing programs[36][37].
Even some conservatives found McMahon’s tone troubling. Several Republican lawmakers (off the record) admitted that scoffing at Americans’ cost of living is a terrible look for their party, which is desperately trying to appeal to working-class voters. After all, in 2016 Donald Trump himself famously said “I love the poorly educated!”[38] – an awkward phrasing, but meant to convey appreciation for voters without college degrees who backed him. McMahon’s remarks, in contrast, come off as scolding the poorly educated (and the educated who took loans). That’s not really a populist message. It’s unclear if GOP leaders will separate themselves from McMahon’s rhetoric, but there’s no doubt it handed her challengers fodder to depict the Trump White House as elitist and uncaring.
A Routine of Arrogant Disdain for Average Americans
Unfortunately, McMahon’s condescending attitude is not an isolated incident – it fits a pattern of certain wealthy politicians and pundits denigrating everyday Americans when they face economic struggles. Over and over, we’ve heard iterations of the ‘it’s your own damn fault’ or ‘you made dumbass decisions’ narrative, typically from affluent individuals who have been sheltered from those very challenges.
Perhaps the most infamous example was Mitt Romney’s “47%” remark during his 2012 presidential campaign. At a closed-door fundraiser of rich donors, Romney asserted that 47% of Americans would vote for his opponent because they are “dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, you name it”. He went on to say these people “pay no income tax” and “I’ll never convince them to take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”[39][40] The disgust, in that statement – characterizing almost half the country as scum and slobs – stunned the press when it leaked. Romney (himself a multimillionaire) was harshly criticized for being tone deaf and dismissive of working Americans, and subsequently conceded his remark was “way off base.” But the harm was done: ‘47 percent’ became shorthand for a heartless view of the voters. Linda McMahon’s “too dumb to understand loans” vibe strikes a similar chord. In both cases, a super-wealthy figure essentially blames the people for their hardships: If you’re struggling, it’s because you’re a lazy moocher or you didn’t read the fine print – not because of broader circumstances or policy failures.
More recently, Senator Ted Cruz unleashed his own scorn for student borrowers. In August 2022, when President Biden announced a plan to cancel $10–20k in student debt for eligible borrowers, Cruz sneered that the beneficiaries would be “that slacker barista who wasted seven years in college studying completely useless things, now has loans and can’t get a job.”[41] On his podcast, Cruz derided such borrowers as pot-smoking idlers: “If you can get off the bong for a minute and head down to the voting station,” he quipped, Biden’s $20k giveaway might persuade them to vote Democrat[41]. The contempt oozing from Cruz’s rhetoric – “slacker barista,” “useless degree,” “get off the bong” – was jaw-dropping. Here was a U.S. Senator casually caricaturing millions of Americans who pursued higher education (often because they were told that was the responsible path!) as slacker stoners with useless degrees. The backlash to Cruz was swift, with even the White House pointing out that most student debt relief is going to people who “are often first-generation college students from lower-income families”, hardly trust-fund kids looking for a free ride[42][43]. Cruz’s rant — like Romney’s — gave away an ugly elitism: an Ivy-educated politician suggesting that if you’re slinging lattes, well, you’re a screw-up who made stupid life decisions (never mind the economy or the price of college or any other context).
Linda McMahon’s statements belong in the same basket as these remarks. They’re all from people of immense privilege, basically kicking down at people trying to get by. Whether it’s calling voters “dependent…victims”[39], borrowers “slackers”[41], or students “too dumb”, the through-line is a lack of respect for ordinary Americans. It’s the “let them eat cake” mindset updated for the student debt era. McMahon might not have said “dumb” in so many words, but asserting that Americans didn’t know what a loan was – that they stupidly believed “free money” was out there – unquestionably is an insult to their intelligence. It mirrors the tone of Betsy DeVos (McMahon’s predecessor and fellow billionaire) who often suggested student debtors just want “free college” and should “put some skin in the game”. DeVos infamously stated that she’s against tuition-free college because “there’s nothing in life that’s truly free, somebody’s going to pay for it” — a truism that, though technically accurate, read as lecturing young people who were merely requesting the same public investment as earlier generations had benefited from. Like McMahon, DeVos never acknowledged that somebody did pay for her education – her wealthy family – so it’s a bit easier for her to scoff at those asking for public help.
There’s also a broader narrative in certain political circles that Americans have it too easy or lack understanding, which is often used to justify cutting social support. We see it when some lawmakers claim unemployment benefits make people “too lazy to work” or that stimulus checks made people “addicted to government money”. The rhetoric is eerily similar when McMahon suggests loan forbearance lulled borrowers into complacency and confusion. It all boils down to a suspicion (or accusation) that regular people can’t be trusted – they’ll either game the system or they’re too uninformed to act in their own best interest. That cynicism is a world away from how those same officials treat businesses or the rich: then it’s all about incentives, bailouts, and second chances.
All of this is to say, McMahon’s comments touched a raw nerve because they slot into a history of elites disparaging the public’s work ethic and smarts. From Romney’s 47% to Cruz’s “baristas on bongs”, Americans have heard this story before – and many are pissed off about it.
The truth: A flawed system, not a foolish populace
The real story of student debt in America has very little to do with borrower “stupidity” or personal failings. It has everything to do with the skyrocketing cost of higher education, policy choices that shifted the burden onto individuals, and yes, often predatory or misleading practices that even the savviest borrower would struggle with. Let’s set the record straight: American students and graduates are not dumb – they are navigating a financing system that is notoriously complex and, in many cases, fundamentally unfair.
First, why do people even take out student loans. It’s usually not because they don’t understand what a loan is; it’s because college has become virtually unaffordable without borrowing. For the last few decades, the price of a college degree has increased exponentially beyond wage growth. States have cut back on funding for public universities, driving tuition costs up. For-profit colleges (and even non-profits) have pumped up prices, selling the fantasy that “an education is an investment in your future.” Meanwhile, worker wages have flatted out. The result is that a college education – once a ladder to upward mobility – now often comes with a crushing price tag. They get loans because, sensibly, they think (and we all tell them) without a degree they’ll be stuck. In other words, borrowing for college is a symptom of an economy and policy landscape that left them little choice.
Are these borrowers ‘too dumb’ to realize they’re going to have to repay it? Not at all – they sign promissory notes, entrance counseling and get infinite billing statements. They know all too well that the debt is real. What most didn’t expect (and couldn’t, unless they owned a crystal ball) is how hard repayment would be in reality. The student loan system is riddled with traps that even financially literate people fall into. For instance:
-
- Capitalized Interest: Many loans (especially Grad PLUS and unsubsidized loans) accrue interest while you’re in school. That interest can capitalize (get added to the principal), so borrowers tend to leave school owing a LOT more than they borrowed. This isn’t about smarts, it’s rarely articulated, and even if it is, 18-year-olds obsessed with classes are unlikely to understand the long-term effect.
- Compound Growth of Debt: Borrowers who enter low-paying fields or hit hard times can end up in income-driven plans where interest accrues faster than payments. It’s common to hear of borrowers who’ve paid for years and the balance has grown, not shrunk. This isn’t because they didn’t pay – it’s because their payments barely covered interest. You might have a PhD in math and still find this dynamic intimidating. As one observer noted, “A lot of people have paid off more than they borrowed and still owe more…debt that won’t die”[44][45]. That’s a systemic issue.
- Servicer Misconduct: Loan servicing companies have a well-documented history of misinforming borrowers or failing to guide them to the best options. For years, servicers like Navient and FedLoan have been sued and investigated for directing borrowers into expensive forbearances when they should have been in income-based plans, or for losing paperwork for loan forgiveness programs. Many borrowers did everything they were told, only to discover later that those instructions were wrong. Is the borrower ‘dumb’ for relying on their loan servicer or the DOE? Or was the system being bad faith? Definitely the latter, as demonstrated by enforcement actions and court decisions against these firms.
- For-Profit College Fraud: Tens of thousands of Americans ripped off by predatory for-profit colleges (ahem, Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, et. al.). These schools seduced students with bogus promises of placement and high salaries, burdened them with debt, and provided valueless credits. When those students wound up with debt and no better prospects, was it because they were “dumb”? No – it’s because they were told a lie. The Borrower Defense program exists for this very reason: to cancel loans of students who were scammed. During the Trump/DeVos years, that initiative came to a screeching stop as the administration expressed more compassion toward crook schools than toward the students they defrauded. McMahon has maintained in that direction. In a Senate hearing, when asked how the Department is supporting students defrauded by for-profit colleges, her response was lacking – prompting Senator Dick Durbin to call her out for hollowing out resources for these victims[46][47]. If anything, the government (under certain leadership) has behaved “dumbly” or even maliciously in not protecting such borrowers.
- Complex Relief Programs: There are programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) forgiveness that require a decade or more of payments and perfect paperwork. The complexity and poor administration of these programs led to over 90% of PSLF applicants being initially rejected in the past, often for trivial or technical reasons. Again, were those teachers, nurses, and public defenders ‘too stupid’ to complete paperwork? No – more often they were duped by bad servicer data or caught out by bureaucratic footnotes. Indeed, part of Biden’s recent mission has been a one-time repair job to credit these borrowers for payments they made that simply weren’t credited correctly. If McMahon really thinks borrowers deserve blame for not navigating this maze perfectly, it says more about her disconnect than any borrower’s shortcoming.
Considering these factors, it becomes evident that the student loan crisis is not a morality play about individual wit or responsibility. It’s a structural problem. Americans didn’t suddenly become financially illiterate en masse – rather, the cost of education ballooned and the safety nets shrank. People were told “college is worth it, take the loans”, and then the economy dealt them a hand of stagnant wages, expensive healthcare, unaffordable housing, and yes, monthly loan bills that rival a mortgage.
Let’s also remember that financial literacy in this country is not exactly a standard part of K-12 education. A lot of borrowers had to figure out on the fly at 17 or 18 years old what an “interest rate,” “principal,” “capitalization” or “deferment” meant. Is that their fault? Maybe if we had beefier personal finance programs, less would have over-borrowed – but who’s going to give them that lesson if not our education system? It’s bitterly ironic that the same Department of Education which may have championed financial literacy is now headed by someone chastising citizens for not naturally having it.
Moreover, there is evidence that borrowers did act rationally given the information available. For a few years, the federal government itself (under Biden) was hinting that it would make an attempt to forgive some debt. Many borrowers held off on refinancing or aggressively paying during the 0% interest pandemic pause because they were told relief could be coming – and indeed, relief was approved (via executive action) before courts struck it down. To then have McMahon turn around and scold them is profoundly unjust. As one borrower put it, “We were following the news and the rules. Don’t kill us for having a little hope. If there was ‘confusion’ about repayment, a lot of it was because of the political whiplash – not natural borrower obliviousness. The Biden administration explicitly told borrowers that those earning under $125k might get $10k or $20k forgiven[48]. Many staked their budgets on it. When the Supreme Court struck down that scheme, it wasn’t the borrowers who were dumb – if anything, it was the administration for not basing the program on sounder legal footing, or the Court for preventing relief others deemed appropriate. Either way, it’s a cheap shot to blame borrowers.
Another point: student debt does not equally affect all Americans, and those differences underscore why McMahon’s blanket characterization is off-base. And ultimately, the borrowers who suffer most are those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The data indicates that virtually all Pell recipients (low-income students) leave college with debt, and they borrow more on average than their higher-income counterparts. These borrowers are disproportionately people of color, first-generation college students, and those who didn’t have parents or mentors to guide them through the process[42][43]. Most had to borrow if they even dreamed of a shot at moving up. Calling them ignorant or irresponsible isn’t just inaccurate, it’s borderline cruel stereotyping. They took on debt as an investment in themselves — working jobs IN school and AFTER — often supporting family members simultaneously. The default and delinquency rates reflect not a mass outbreak of financial illiteracy, but the harsh reality that college did not deliver the earnings boost promised, especially for those who entered a tough labor market or who faced discrimination and other barriers. The issue isn’t that these Americans are dumb – it’s that they were sold a bill of goods about the American Dream that didn’t come through as promised.
Policy mistakes (and remedies) overlooked by McMahon
By fixating on personal responsibility and intelligence, Linda McMahon and those sharing her view conveniently ignore the policy failures that created the student debt crisis – failures that policy makers like herself should be addressing. It’s much easier to scold borrowers than to, say, confront why public universities are charging 3x what they did a generation ago, or why student loan interest rates were, until recently, higher than mortgage rates despite students having no collateral. The outrage over McMahon’s comments is partly fueled by this sense that she’s distracting from the real issues.
Rather than patronizing Americans, leaders should be posing hard questions such as:
-
- Why has college tuition outpaced inflation for decades? A Pell Grant in 1980 paid for virtually all public college tuition, and now it pays for just over a third. State disinvestment in higher ed and administrative bloat at colleges have offloaded expenses onto students. That’s a public policy issue – not “dumb” students.
- Why do 18-year-olds get to have a six-figure debt with no underwriting (in fact, they even get encouraged), but other loans have limits and consumer protections. We guard young adults from renting cars till 25, but gladly allow a freshman to borrow $50,000 at 7% interest. The paradox is jarring. Maybe the answer isn’t “don’t borrow if you can’t pay” but don’t lend exploitatively to people with no credit history and limited financial savvy.
- Why is student debt the sole consumer debt that typically cannot be wiped out in bankruptcy? Today, student loans are virtually impossible to erase in bankruptcy (the threshold is proving “undue hardship,” an almost insurmountable standard) – a shield lenders fought for. That is, if you can’t actually pay, you’re screwed for life, as opposed to a business that can restructure or wealthy people who can simply walk away from bad investments. Is that because borrowers are “dumb”? No, it’s because the laws were drafted to protect lenders at the expense of students. Perhaps Secretary McMahon should support altering that unfair policy, instead of berating borrowers.
- What about consumer protection in loan servicing? Under the Trump administration (and presumably McMahon), supervision of loan servicers was relaxed. The CFPB’s student loan office was gutted. DeVos’s and now McMahon’s Department of Education fought states’ efforts to police loan servicers. This hands-off approach contributed to problems like the PSLF debacle and the huge IDR forgiveness backlog (over a million borrowers who should be eligible for discharge haven’t gotten it due to servicer errors)[49]. If borrowers don’t “know” their options, it’s frequently because servicers never told them. Restoring accountability here would do far more than browbeating borrowers.
These are policy choices that need fixing. But McMahon’s rhetoric provides no solutions – just derision. Which is why it’s so many people can’t stand it. As one education policy expert noted, “Gutting the Dept. of Education is as cruel as it is stupid”, because it takes away precisely the support that students and borrowers need[50]. Nothing so cynical as taking down the public institutions that assist individuals, then deriding them as lazy for failing to help themselves.
What would a better way look like? McMahon’s critics are not lacking in suggestions.
-
- Strengthen forgiveness programs for those who serve the public or were misled. Instead of trying to “illegally impound funds” (as Senator Baldwin warned McMahon might) that Congress appropriated for things like PSLF, use them fully[12]. Make sure every teacher, nurse, and firefighter who fulfills 10 years of service and payments actually gets their remaining debt cancelled – as the law promises. McMahon’s energy would be better spent making certain her department is living up to these promises than looking for ways to negate them.
- Provide targeted relief to the most burdened borrowers. Not all debt is the same – some folks are actually drowning with no rescue (i.e., the students of predatory for-profit colleges, or borrowers who have been in repayment for decades and mostly owe interest). Instead of broad-based rejection of any forgiveness, a sophisticated policy might triage and forgive debts that are unlikely ever to be repaid anyway. (Interestingly, under public pressure and legal settlements, the Biden administration is proceeding with canceling loans for certain groups – e.g. $6 billion for defrauded students from Corinthian, ITT Tech, etc[34]. McMahon has resisted these steps, but they demonstrate what’s achievable when empathy triumphs over disgust.)
- Bring down interest rates and end predatory lending. If student loans just charged zero or nominal interest – as other proposals have suggested – a lot of the crisis would subside. Folks could repay what they borrowed without doubling or tripling it’s cost in interest. Interest was 0% during the pandemic and, surprise surprise, borrowers did just fine and paid down principal. McMahon and team, however, label Biden’s new income-based repayment (which can reduce interest for low-income borrowers) as “illegal” and “fiscally irresponsible”, preferring to squeeze every dollar of interest out of borrowers[51][52]. It’s a policy preference pretending to be moral purity.
- Restore bankruptcy protections. But as many economists and legal experts point out, permitting student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy in extreme situations wouldn’t unleash hordes of deadbeats – it would simply give the honest but unlucky borrower a chance to start over, as we do for every other type of debt. Senators on both sides of the aisle have toyed with this reform. It’s a systemic fix understanding that occassionally poor results are not a function of ignorance or sloth, but life. McMahon’s camp instead appears to enjoy the status quo where student debt haunts you to your grave.
- Increase college affordability through grants, free community college, etc. The longer-term answer is to minimize the requirement to borrow in the first place. Expanding Pell Grants, providing tuition-free community college or trade school (like many states are doing) or incentivizing state investment in higher ed would all reduce future debt. Yet McMahon’s priority has been cutting federal aid programs like Work-Study, SEOG, GEAR UP, and TRIO that support low-income students[5][6]. By cutting these, she’s guaranteeing more students will have to take loans or won’t enroll at all. It’s a profoundly regressive approach – and one that critics call “100% against everything our profession stands for”, as a financial aid administrator wrote in frustration[53][54].
What becomes clear is that McMahon’s insults serve to justify inaction (or harmful action) on these fronts. If you portray borrowers as dumb or evil, then you owe them nothing – indeed, you can feel good about hurting them. It’s an easy storyline for a person seeking draconian budget slashing and department shutting. But it’s not a story rooted in reality or compassion.
Respecting Americans – an Official’s obligation
At the heart of this controversy is a basic expectation: American citizens deserve respect from those who serve in public office. Being talked down upon by a billionaire bureaucrat is intolerable. The United States is a democracy; its officials are supposed to represent us, not ridicule us.
Linda McMahon’s comments did not pass that respect test. The outrage is about policy, yes, but it’s also deeply personal for millions. Imagine being a first-generation college graduate, barely able to pay your loans, and hearing someone like McMahon laughingly imply you’re basically a moron for being in that position. It’s like a slap in the face. As one borrower reacted on Twitter, “I know exactly how my loans work – I see the balance every day. Don’t you dare say I’m too stupid to understand my own debt.” That’s the pride and woundedness of ordinary Americans who feel offended. They may not have fancy degrees or wealth, but they certainly don’t lack wisdom or worthiness. Most have exhibited unbelievable stewardship – holding down a couple of jobs, forgoing home-ownership or family-building, all to stay on top of their student loan payments. For an official to call them irresponsible or misinformed is not only wrong, it’s deeply disrespectful.
In a broader sense, McMahon’s comments betray a lack of empathy that is antithetical to effective public service. A good leader hears constituents’ pain and attempts to relieve it, not write it off as self-inflicted. McMahon could’ve instead used her platform to say, “Student debt is a serious problem, we need to encourage financial literacy and tame college costs.” Even if she opposes blanket forgiveness, she could frame it as “I understand the burden, but here’s why we need a different solution”. Instead, she chose basically: “It’s your problem. You agreed to the loan. Don’t look at us.” That is finger-pointing, not problem-solving.
It’s worth noting that public opinion strongly favors some form of student debt relief and more investment in college affordability – especially among younger Americans. To dismiss that many Americans’ concerns as ignorance is a perilous path for any politician. Hillary Clinton infamously learned this when her “basket of deplorables” comment (calling half of Trump supporters bigoted or backward) caused a backlash – many voters who might have disagreed with those being criticized still bristled at the elitist tone and felt, “Is that how these politicians see us?”. Similarly, McMahon’s seeming perception of struggling borrowers as idiots likely anger not only borrowers themselves (an enormous cohort – about 1 in 5 American adults carry federal student debt), but also their families and friends who know their personality. It perpetuates the stereotype that the Republican establishment is uncaring, that they’re more concerned with tax cuts for billionaires than middle-class relief.
Even Trump’s populist brand could be undermined by such messaging. Trump ran in 2016 casting himself (ironically, a billionaire) as the voice of the “forgotten men and women” against arrogant elites. He bashed student loan profiteering and even advocated for loan forgiveness for disabled vets, etc. If his Education Secretary now sounds like a sneering elitist herself, that deflates the populist allure. In fact, you could even make the case McMahon’s mindset is that of a country-club Republican of yesteryear – the kind Trump fans thought they were repudiating. Some observers note this tension: on forums and comments, a few Trump voters have expressed unease, saying things like “I support the president, but calling people dumb over student loans isn’t right. A whole lot of nice, decent, hard-working people are straining under the weight of debt.” It remains to be seen if that sentiment grows, but it’s a sign that respect (or lack thereof) cuts across partisan lines – people know condescension when they hear it.
At a human level, it’s not hard to see why respect matters here. Debt also carries shame and stress in our culture. Borrowers already struggle with failure (“Will I ever pay this off? Did I make a mistake, career-wise? Have I disappointed my family?”). Mental health research has also connected student debt to anxiety and even depression. The last thing they need is a powerful person essentially validating their worst self-doubts by implying “Yup, you messed up – it’s on you.” That can be crushing. Conversely, think of what a little empathy from the top could do: A Secretary of Education saying, “I hear you – college costs are crazy and many of you did what you thought was best and still ended up in a tough spot. We’re going to fix together.” Such language could help people feel recognized and valued, even if the policy specifics are divisive. McMahon decided to go the other direction and the outrage is the byproduct.
In responding to McMahon, many are emphasizing that Americans with student debt are not looking for a free pass or special treatment – they are looking for fairness and a chance to thrive. They argue that previous generations got a lot more support — Pell Grants once covered most tuition, university was frequently subsidized or outright free (the UC system charged near-zero tuition in the 1960s, for instance). So today’s borrowers actually had it harder, not easier, than their parents’ generation when it comes to affording college. Are they “dumb” just because they came later? Or for going after the education that society said they’d require. Hardly. If anything, one might say they were too trusting that the social contract (education leads to prosperity) would hold. The fury now is over that deal being violated – and executives like McMahon rubbing salt in the wound.
Conclusion: Americans Deserve Better
Linda McMahon’s suggestion that Americans are ‘too dumb’ to figure out college loans isn’t merely an offhand gaffe — it’s a revealing glimpse at a pernicious mentality. Her remarks have provoked a firestorm because they touch on a larger debate about how we perceive debt, education, and those who labor daily under the strain of each. And at a baseline, it violates the most rudimentary expectation that public officials should treat the public with respect.
The truth is, the student debt crisis is not caused by a lack of personal responsibility or intelligence. It’s generated by decades of policy failures: disinvestment in public education, deregulation of student lending, and the shifting of risk onto young people attempting to improve their lot. Millions of Americans did “everything right” – studied hard, got into college, took loans as investments in their future – and yet find themselves struggling. That’s not a personal failing, it’s a social failing. To sneer at these Americans is to compound a private slight on a policy slight.
It’s a lesson from history that politicians who sneer openly at common folk get their come-uppance. Mitt Romney’s 47% remark is remembered to this day as a turning point that alienated voters[55][56]. Ted Cruz’s “slacker barista” rant got bipartisan derision and probably hurt his aura no favors[41][43]. Linda McMahon podría haber encendido un momento similar. Her comments have invigorated advocates of student debt forgiveness and provided them a compelling case study to highlight when debating who is for average Americans and who isn’t.
If anything positive comes out of this, it might be a renewed commitment to solving the student debt problem rather than shaming the people stuck in it. Public pressure is already forcing some action: for instance, a recent one-time account adjustment will forgive $39 billion for 804,000 long-time borrowers who were steered wrong on IDR plans[57][49]. That’s a win not by deriding borrowers as morons, but by hearing them and helping to fix a broken system. Similarly, the discussion is turning to how to keep the next generation from being ensnared – via better college financing and lending reforms. These are the conversations we should be having, not sermons on ‘your debt, your problem’.
American citizens are not dumb. They’re usually just doing the best they can in a system that’s flung crisis after crisis their way – from recessions to pandemics to student debt. These guys have displayed resilience, creativity and grit. They deserve leaders that acknowledge that and strive to alleviate needless frustrations, not leaders that heap scorn upon them. As outraged commentators have noted, calling borrowers “slackers” or “stupid” is flat-out wrong on the facts and corrosive to our unity[43]. It pits us as “responsible vs irresponsible” on a crude stereotype, when in fact we should be coming together to demand an economy and education system that is fair for everyone.
Here in America, education has long been something we exalt – the great equalizer, the engine of innovation. If going to that school has burdened a generation with debt, you correct the policies, not mock the students. Linda McMahon’s mockery is an insult to the dedicated students, graduates, and parents who deserve a decent life. They are owed an apology – and, more importantly, owed action to address their concerns.
In the end, this episode is a reminder that respect and empathy must guide our public discourse, especially on issues as personal as debt. American’s want their leaders to at least try to get their pain. And when leaders instead mock those struggles, it only breeds resentment and suspicion. McMahon’s remarks have certainly stoked anger – but also a determination among Americans to resist that storyline. The message from the public is clear: we’re not dumb, we’re not lazy, and we won’t be talked to like second-class citizens by people elected (or appointed) to serve us.
Going forward, here’s hoping Linda McMahon and those others in power learn this lesson. The outrage isn’t going away – because it’s rooted in real pain and real principle. Americans want action on student debt, and they want respect. They deserve nothing less. As Senator Bernie Sanders pointedly said in McMahon’s hearing, “we need a Secretary of Education who understands that in the wealthiest nation on earth, we should have the best education system – from child care to graduate school”[58]. Implied in that is a secretary who respects informed, engaged citizens and doesn’t insult them. Americans will settle for nothing less than being treated with the dignity and fairness they are due – by Linda McMahon or any official, billionaire or not.
Sources:
- Higher Ed Dive – “McMahon defends $12B proposed cut to the Education Department” (May 21, 2025)[59][60]
- House Committee (Ranking Member’s statement) – Actions since McMahon took office, including mass firings and program eliminations[7][8]
- The New Republic – “Trump Education Secretary Gets Embarrassing Math Lesson in Hearing” (June 3, 2025)[9][10]
- The New Republic – Michael Tomasky: McMahon called firing staff “a humanitarian thing”[3]
- C-SPAN/Committee Hearing – McMahon testimony on student loans and budget[19][61]
- Fox Business interview – McMahon: “isn’t going to be any loan forgiveness program”[20][21]
- Breakfast Club (iHeartRadio) – Recap of DOE resuming collections; McMahon WSJ op-ed quote blaming “greedy colleges”[61][62]
- Reuters – Donald Trump: “I love the poorly educated” (Feb 24, 2016)[38]
- The Guardian – Mitt Romney’s 47% fundraiser remarks (Sept 18, 2012)[39][40]
- Business Insider – Ted Cruz slams “slacker barista” with “useless” degree (Aug 29, 2022)[41]
- ProPublica PPP Loan Database – PPP loan to “Linda McMahon” – \$20,833 forgiven[26]
- Senator Elizabeth Warren Press Release – Revealing 27,000+ borrower complaint backlog at ED (Aug 7, 2025)[34]
- NASFAA (Education news) – McMahon confirmation hearing: “Fund freedom, not system… Build up careers, not college debt.”[16]
- MSNBC/Yahoo News – Ja’han Jones: McMahon flubs basic facts in Senate budget hearing[11]
- NASFAA – Sen. Durbin questioning McMahon on borrower defense for defrauded students[46]
- ABC News – Elizabeth Warren on Trump/McMahon thinking “American people are stupid” regarding Ed Dept. changes[22]
- Business Insider – White House economist response to “slackers” comment (borrowers are often first-gen from low-income families)[42][43]
- Curmudgucation blog – Critique of McMahon’s hearing and qualifications (“grossly unqualified,” passion without action, etc.)[63][17]
- NASFAA – Bobby Scott opening statement highlighting cuts to aid and consumer protections threatened[64][65]
- New Republic – Tomasky on McMahon’s lack of a real degree in education[3]
- Breakfast Club transcript – Charlamagne: corporations get bailouts, nobody calls them slackers; hypocrisy of opposing relief for people[62][29]
- NASFAA – Financial aid professional comment: “They want college to be only for those who can afford it out of pocket… so billionaires can get tax cuts”[53][54]
- 6abc News (ABC) – Warren: “No one is fooled” by Trump/McMahon moves; need to fight for public ed[22][66]
- Bloomberg/MSNBC via Yahoo – Jen Psaki on McMahon’s “awkward” hearing, math blunder[9][25]
[3] Donald Trump Really Is a Lot Dumber Than We Thought. Like, a Lot! | The New Republic
https://newrepublic.com/post/193614/donald-trump-tariffs-dumb-history-income-tax
[4] Trump Education Secretary Gets Embarrassing Math Lesson in Hearing: Linda McMahon Doesn’t Seem to Understand That 1 x 10 = 10. : r/politics
[5] [6] [59] [60] McMahon defends $12B proposed cut to the Education Department | Higher Ed Dive
https://www.highereddive.com/news/mcmahon-defends-education-department-budeget-cuts/748788
[7] [8] [64] [65] Ranking Member Scott Delivers Opening Statement at Full Committee Hearing with ED Secretary McMahon
[9] [10] [11] [12] [23] [25] Trump Education Secretary Gets Embarrassing Math Lesson in Hearing | The New Republic
https://newrepublic.com/post/196045/trump-education-secretary-mcmahon-math-lesson-hearing
[13] Education Secretary Linda McMahon and White House – Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/sljgroup/posts/10162392834896702
[14] Aderholt Remarks at Budget Hearing on U.S. Department of Education
[16] [58] NASFAA | Senate Questions Linda McMahon on Efforts to Dismantle ED and the Future of Higher Education Funding
[17] [63] CURMUDGUCATION: Linda McMahon Introduces Herself
https://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2025/02/linda-mcmahon-introduces-herself.html
[20] [21] Education Secretary McMahon says there ‘isn’t going to be any loan forgiveness program’ | Fox Business Video
https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6371809133112
[22] [32] [33] [66] Elizabeth Warren launches ‘Save Our Schools’ campaign to investigate Department of Education closure – 6abc Philadelphia
[24] Education Secretary Linda McMahon flubs basic facts in Senate …
https://www.facebook.com/groups/BeyondSports2020/posts/3552735191699865
[26] [27] LINDA MCMAHON – Tracking PPP – ProPublica
https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/loans/linda-mcmahon-5477119006
[28] [41] [42] [43] [48] White House Counters Cruz Claim That Student-Loan Forgiveness Is for the ‘Slacker’ – Business Insider
[31] Analysis: Many Will Be Shut Out of Graduate Education Due to ‘One …
[34] [35] [36] [37] [49] U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren | ED Secretary McMahon Reve…
[38] Trump loves ‘the poorly educated’ … and social media clamors | Reuters
[39] [40] [55] [56] Mitt Romney’s 47% gaffe makes him 100% unsuitable to be president | Michael Cohen | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/18/mitt-romney-47-unsuitable-president
[44] Americans tidied up their household balance sheets to start 2025 …
[45] [PDF] Community College Online Why Student Loans Are Different
[46] [47] [53] [54] NASFAA | McMahon Fields Questions from Senators on Cuts to Maximum Pell Grant, TRIO, and More Student Aid Programs in President Trump’s Budget Request
[50] Sing Loud – The Stranger
https://www.thestranger.com/news/2002/09/05/11828/sing-loud
[51] Student Loan Update: Millions of Borrowers See Balances Jump …
https://www.newsweek.com/student-loan-update-millions-borrowers-see-balances-jump-today-2107660
[52] Student Loans: Education Secretary McMahon Discusses Trump …
[57] Millions of student-loan borrowers are getting a ‘financial scarlet …
https://www.aol.com/millions-student-loan-borrowers-getting-110102901.html
LindaMcMahonLoanRemarks, StudentDebtCrisis, PoliticalHypocrisy, HigherEducationPolicy, LoanForgivenessDebate, PublicOutrage, BillionaireElitism, EducationDepartmentCuts
#LindaMcMahon, #StudentDebtCrisis, #BillionaireElitism, #EducationPolicy, #StudentLoanForgiveness, #PoliticalHypocrisy, #HigherEducation, #DebtRelief, #PublicOutrage, #USPolitics
