April 16, 2025 • 17 mins
In this episode, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon discusses the ongoing education reform efforts, emphasizing the importance of local control over education and the reduction of federal bureaucracy. She addresses concerns about the Department of Education's role, the protection of women in sports under Title IX, and the need for safety on college campuses amidst rising activism. McMahon also shares insights from her transition into the role of Secretary of Education and her working relationship with President Trump. The Tudor Dixon Podcast is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network. For more visit TudorDixonPodcast.com
#educationreform #DepartmentofEducation #TitleIX #campussafety #federalfunding #staterights #bureaucracy #Trump
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast today.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
I am excited because we have the US Secretary for
the Department of Education, Linda McMahon with US Madam Secretary,
thank you for joining me.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Tudor, thanks for having me. I've been looking forward to this.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Well, I am excited too.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
I wanted you to know that we have people here
in the state of Michigan who are wondering exactly what
it means what you're doing. They have heard that the
Department of Ed is going to shut down, and they're
concerned what does that mean for my kids' education? And
that's why I thought you can explain this better than anybody,
that this is not something to be afraid of, but
there is a lot of fear mongering from Democrats. So
(00:37):
give us the lowdown on what that means.
Speaker 4 (00:39):
Well, thanks Tudor for asking. And it's not an uncommon question.
But clearly the President believes, as do I, that the
best education is that it's one closest to the child.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
And so.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
His reference is let's give education back to the States.
What that means is let's get rid of the bureaucracy
that is in Washington. That does not mean get rid
of Title I funding that will come to the states.
It does not mean get rid of IDA funding, which
is for our handicapped or special needs children.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
So that is not the.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
Goal or the mission of getting rid of the bureaucracy
and education.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
But it puts education more.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
Squarely in the state's hands, working with parents, working with teachers,
working with local superintendents, and that's where it ought to be.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
I think that's the confusion.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
I think people don't understand that the Department of Ed
on your state level is really what is managing all
of the decisions statewide, like those decisions that come from
the federal level. The funding that comes from the federal
level is much smaller compared to the state level.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
We are on a state level funding our own schools.
Speaker 4 (01:47):
You fund about ninety percent and about ten percent comes
from the federal government. And that you know that funding
often comes with strengths attached.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
So a lot of the states will say to.
Speaker 4 (02:00):
Us, you know, we really love to get the funding,
but we would like to have the ability to spend
that money in the way that we see fit. Because
one superintendent might say, I'd like to take that money
and spend it in District X, because I know that
that's where that funding is needed. So at that point
there would be more flexibility to utilize the funding, you.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
Know, for the states. And I think that's I think
that's a big goal.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
If the Department of d is no longer there, where
does the funding come from? Does it go through a
different agency? And is the reason behind that that you
don't really need an entire four thousand person department to
decide where these funds go because you already have Treasury
and other departments that could easily decide where funds go.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
Well, that's correct, and there are other agencies that I
think the entire programs could be managed through. But you know,
the Department of Education does not educate one child. We
don't decide on curriculum, we don't hire teachers, we don't
decide what books to buy. We really are a funding
channel and helping to develop policy. That is, you know,
(03:03):
if it's approved by Congress or you know, it's passed
through to the states. But that's the function of the
Department of Education and it really hopefully would be improved
at the state level because you would have eliminated the
bureaucracy of it.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
And that's really the goal.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
And when you talk about bureaucracy, I think some people
don't necessarily know what that means. I mean, there are
a lot of people that are in Washington, these these
big agencies, they've become overbearing, they become hard to take
care of in and of themselves because the cost is
so great to have four thousand or forty six hundred
whatever it is at the Department of d or whatever
(03:41):
was when you took over at the Department of ED
that are really just making decisions that don't affect the
individual child.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Well, that's correct.
Speaker 4 (03:50):
As a matter of fact, when I did take over
as the secretary, we did have about forty one forty
two hundred people. We're down about half of that now
because we've gone through a restructuring process here as was
the goal and it is the goal across all of
government at this point too, look at where we might
(04:10):
cut expenses without you know, cutting services, and that every
agency in government has been involved in doing that. So
we're dealing right now with many fewer people.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
Than we had when I first began.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
But you know, the bureaucracy is if you've got people
sitting in Washington trying to make decisions about what's happening
in the state.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
I'll give you a perfect example.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
I was asked by one parent in a state or
a teacher, I don't remember which it was, relative to
special needs funding, and I said, well, let me ask
you something.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
I said, who better to determine that? Would it be
at the.
Speaker 4 (04:47):
State level or at the local level where the teacher
is working with that child with special needs and understands
what kind of programming how they should adjust through their
individual you know, learning program for that student. Or is
it someone sitting in Washington, DC that has absolutely no
connection with that child. So I think the answer is
(05:07):
absolutely obvious. So the bureaucracy in between the money that
has been appropriated in coming through Congress and the state
level of execution and employment of those dollars is I
think a better path if we don't have the bureaucracy
of the Department of Education in between.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
Yeah, and I think the fear that parents have as well,
if it's not there, then that money can't come to us. Anyway,
the money will still come, it's going to be decided
on the state level. Everybody has a state superintendent, you
have a state Department of Ed that this is one
of those states rights issues where we really want to
do it locally, and there should be nothing more local
(05:48):
than education, because your community is different than the community
next to you, and that's how the state decides what
each area needs for funding and what they need when
it comes to specialists and teachers and all of that
that should go to the state level. Now, there is
a big controversy right now over protecting women in sports.
We know that the president that's one of his top
(06:08):
issues is to protect women in sports. I know that
you obviously have a sports background. You are our very
top of mind for protecting women in sports.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
But let me ask you this.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Like in Michigan, we have the MHSAA, the Michigan High
School Athletic Association, and they are saying they're not going
to comply with what the President has said. They oversee
Michigan sports. They're an association, but they are actually funded
by the school district. So how do you manage that situation.
Speaker 4 (06:36):
Well, they're in the finance of the law because Title
nine was clearly established to protect women in sports and
to make sure that they were not discriminated against, and
so it's simply following the law at this point.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
So they're breaking the law.
Speaker 4 (06:50):
So if that case was referred to the Department of Justice,
there could be an investigation there, or there should there
could be some defunding mechanisms that put in place relative
to you know, the state or the districts which are
not complying.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
I'd love to say that, I would think that there's
a chance on the state level that someone would do something.
But in this state, we have an Attorney general that
I don't think would side with Trump on this. In fact,
she's come out and she's been pretty hostile. So that
is what I mean. That is the situation. And I
think for some conservatives, they say, we still need that
protection from Washington, d C. Because we don't have if
(07:28):
we are in a blue state or a purple state
that has blue leaders, we don't have that protection. And
that's where there are some conservatives that are kind of
holding out hope that there is some protection from the
federal government.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
But you say, that will still be there.
Speaker 4 (07:41):
For sure if the law is broken, no different than
any other federal law that gets broken, there is a
you know, there's a consequence to that, and so that
consequence is still in place.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
I've got more coming up with the Secretary of Education
Linda McMahon. But first I want to talk to you
about my partners at American Alternative The markets have been
experiencing some volatility with these brief rallies and then they're
quickly erased by the sharp selloffs, and the dollar continues
to weaken on the international markets, but gold has surged
to a new all time record high. Wall Street analysts
(08:16):
are warning of persistent market stress and advising their biggest
clients to seek safety. Now, when markets swing this violently,
your retirement savings are extremely vulnerable. It's during these uncertain
times that people need stable assets. For thousands of years,
that asset has been gold, and that's why I'm proud
to endorse American Alternative Assets. They take a different approach
(08:37):
to precious metals. They know you, they get to know
your family, they get to know your needs, and they
know precious metals protection is not for everybody. That's why
they only work with the people that they know they
can help. They provide quarterly check ins to ensure your
strategy stays on track, thirty percent of their customer's return
and refer family and friends. American Alternative Assets is offering
(08:59):
our lessners a free Wealth Protection Guide and up to
a five percent bonus on your first purchase.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
So call today.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
It's eight seven seven five to two gold, or you
can get visit tutors goold dot com right now.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
Don't wait until it's too late.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Protect your wealth and secure your future today again, that's
eight seven seven five to two gold, or visit Tutorscold
dot com now, stay tuned, we'll be right back.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
So what is your response to the Trump administration?
Speaker 2 (09:31):
The administration that you're part of freezing this money that's
going to hire it, that's going to Harvard.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
Because of the campus activism.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
And this is something that there's been folks on both
sides of this issue, but there are certainly a lot
of people who have suffered from this. I would say
it goes beyond activism. We're talking about harassment on these
college campuses that is being allowed. So can you explain
a little bit to us about the mindset behind freezing
those funds.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
Well, it actually started with Columbia University, and I think
it was it was very evident when we saw last
year and then again just a few months ago, students
on campus that not only were just being harassed, I
mean locked in libraries, other students pounding on glass walls
saying death Israel, Death to USA faculty was attacked. I mean,
(10:22):
this was a safety issue. Not only was it, you know,
a civil rights issue, but it was a safety issue
as well. Not to be confused, it was definitely not
a First Amendment issue because the president and this administration
certainly does not disagree with anyone to have the right
to peaceful protests or differences of opinion or on campuses,
(10:47):
you know, having public and open debate. But when you
start impacting the safety and welfare of members of you know,
the campus community, that can't be tolerated. And so we
brought those issues forward to the President of Columbia and
our work continuing to work you know, with them. So
(11:08):
other universities now have come under that same review, a
Harvard being one, and so we'll continue to make sure
as the president promised during his campaign that he will
not tolerate discrimination of any kind on campus, but especially
you know, anti semitism, because it was just so flagrant.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
I think it's interesting the way that you present that,
because it's so important for people to understand because the
other side actually agrees with you, even though they're not
going to I just mentioned our radical attorney general, but
let me be very clear that a few months back,
when this was happening on the University of Michigan's campus,
she did arrest these people that were harassing students.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
She arrested them, and she's coming down pretty hard on them.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
There has been a lot of pushback from Democrats in
the state of Michigan, some Democrats, more of the progressive side,
saying this is ridiculous. She shouldn't have They were peacefully protesting.
That's the difference. They weren't peaceful, and that's what you're saying.
You have to be peaceful.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
It does have to be peaceful.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
And when you jeopardize, you know, the safety and welfare
of other students, that is.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
An infringement on their civil rights.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
And so we just we just absolutely cannot allow that.
And I think that college professors have to take very
I'm not professors, college presidents have to take pretty swift
action to make sure that those kinds of protests don't
get out of hand, because we you know, we have
seen that there can be more and more injuries if
(12:39):
it's not dealt with right away.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
And even preventing students from getting an education. You should
not be able to borrow students from going to their classes.
That should not the university should not be accepting that
there are students who are paying for an education that
can't actually get into their classroom because a protester is
stopping them. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (12:56):
Absolutely, there again, that's a civil rights issue, there is.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
You know.
Speaker 4 (13:01):
It's just like you said, the students, or scholarship payments,
or parents who are expecting to be able to send
their children to a safe environment and get the education
that they're paying for. And that's not an unrealistic expectation.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Right exactly.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Stay tuned for more with Secretary Linda McMahon, But first,
let me tell you about a great story from my
partners at Genusel. It's heartwarming and refreshingly true. Twenty five
years ago, a woman just like us wanted her youthful glowback.
Phillis walked into her neighborhood pharmacy in Colonia, New Jersey,
and asked the pharmacist for an antioxidant cream for her wrinkles.
(13:39):
But instead of grabbing something behind the counter, he was like,
let me make you one overnight. So Phyllis uses this
cream for three days and then she goes to her
dermatologist and he literally thought she had work done. So obviously,
Phyllis was so happy she wanted to brag about the
pharmacy and the pharmacist.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
Who made the life changing cream.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
And that is, believe it or not, how Genusel Skincare
was born was twenty five years ago. Genucell has shipped
millions of orders and they still have that same philosophy, antioxidants,
that same natural base, and the same chef in the kitchen.
Celebrating twenty five years, Genucel is now offering the best
pricing since Phyllis walked into George's pharmacy. And right now
(14:17):
you can save over seventy percent off Genucell's complete skincare
packaged featuring the Genucell under eyebags and puffin a serum.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
It's awesome. I love it.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
The dark spot corrector you really do see a change.
And some of these products you get immediate results, results
in minutes and you'll look five, ten, even fifteen years younger.
That's guaranteed or your money back. So go to genucell
dot com slash dixon. That's genucell dot com slash dixon.
Every order includes free shipping, so use Dixon at checkout
(14:48):
for that extra discount. Again, that's genucell dot com slash Dixon.
It's g E n uceel dot com slash Dixon. Now
stay tuned, we'll be right back. Before I let you go,
I want to ask you if there's anything you can share.
You were in the first administration also, you were you
(15:09):
went from that to the Secretary of Education, so different roles,
and you were in the small business before that. Now
you are in education, different roles behind the scenes. Can
you tell us a little bit about what it's like
when the president comes to you and says I need
you to.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
Serve Well, it was very interesting because when the President
and I did have this discussion and he talked to
me about serving as the Secretary of Education. I told you,
I said, you know, mister President, and I'm I don't
come from the world of education.
Speaker 3 (15:41):
I've been in the business world.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
And that's why, you know, the SBA seemed to be,
you know, such a good fit for me. And he said,
but here's the thing, he said, I really do want
to close the Department of Education. He said, I want
to get rid of the bureaucracy of it. He said,
I don't need an educator, he said, I need a
business executive leader, a manager, someone who.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
Knows how to do that. He said, you're a perfect
for this job. And so I agreed.
Speaker 4 (16:08):
To take on this role and to serve him in
the country to the best of my ability.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
And I think it's meaningful that you did agree to
serve twice because there have been a lot of criticisms
of Donald Trump. And I was actually just talking to
someone about this over the weekend. I said, how many
people who have worked with him in his businesses or
even in the White House have really come out and
ever said anything negative about him?
Speaker 1 (16:32):
People love him.
Speaker 4 (16:34):
Well, he's he's a great boss. And I'll tell you what,
it's really good. He understands so much what he is
asking you to do, and he's very probative in his questions.
I expect you to fully know and understand what it
is that you're doing. He listens very well when when
(16:54):
you're with him, but you know he expects action, and
so we do work very well together. And plus I've
known him for almost thirty years now.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Well, we have been impressed with what the administration has
done so far, and very impressed with what you've done.
I'm so grateful you were here today to talk to
us today. US Secretary Linda McMahon, thank you, Thank you, Tutor,
and thank you all for joining us on the Tutor
Dixon Podcast. For this episode and others, go to Tutor
dixonpodcast dot com, the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
(17:26):
you get your podcasts and join us next time.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Have a blessed day.
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast today.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
I am excited because we have the US Secretary for
the Department of Education, Linda McMahon with US Madam Secretary,
thank you for joining me.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Tudor, thanks for having me. I've been looking forward to this.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Well, I am excited too.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
I wanted you to know that we have people here
in the state of Michigan who are wondering exactly what
it means what you're doing. They have heard that the
Department of Ed is going to shut down, and they're
concerned what does that mean for my kids' education? And
that's why I thought you can explain this better than anybody,
that this is not something to be afraid of, but
there is a lot of fear mongering from Democrats. So
(00:37):
give us the lowdown on what that means.
Speaker 4 (00:39):
Well, thanks Tudor for asking. And it's not an uncommon question.
But clearly the President believes, as do I, that the
best education is that it's one closest to the child.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
And so.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
His reference is let's give education back to the States.
What that means is let's get rid of the bureaucracy
that is in Washington. That does not mean get rid
of Title I funding that will come to the states.
It does not mean get rid of IDA funding, which
is for our handicapped or special needs children.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
So that is not the.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
Goal or the mission of getting rid of the bureaucracy
and education.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
But it puts education more.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
Squarely in the state's hands, working with parents, working with teachers,
working with local superintendents, and that's where it ought to be.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
I think that's the confusion.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
I think people don't understand that the Department of Ed
on your state level is really what is managing all
of the decisions statewide, like those decisions that come from
the federal level. The funding that comes from the federal
level is much smaller compared to the state level.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
We are on a state level funding our own schools.
Speaker 4 (01:47):
You fund about ninety percent and about ten percent comes
from the federal government. And that you know that funding
often comes with strengths attached.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
So a lot of the states will say to.
Speaker 4 (02:00):
Us, you know, we really love to get the funding,
but we would like to have the ability to spend
that money in the way that we see fit. Because
one superintendent might say, I'd like to take that money
and spend it in District X, because I know that
that's where that funding is needed. So at that point
there would be more flexibility to utilize the funding, you.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
Know, for the states. And I think that's I think
that's a big goal.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
If the Department of d is no longer there, where
does the funding come from? Does it go through a
different agency? And is the reason behind that that you
don't really need an entire four thousand person department to
decide where these funds go because you already have Treasury
and other departments that could easily decide where funds go.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
Well, that's correct, and there are other agencies that I
think the entire programs could be managed through. But you know,
the Department of Education does not educate one child. We
don't decide on curriculum, we don't hire teachers, we don't
decide what books to buy. We really are a funding
channel and helping to develop policy. That is, you know,
(03:03):
if it's approved by Congress or you know, it's passed
through to the states. But that's the function of the
Department of Education and it really hopefully would be improved
at the state level because you would have eliminated the
bureaucracy of it.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
And that's really the goal.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
And when you talk about bureaucracy, I think some people
don't necessarily know what that means. I mean, there are
a lot of people that are in Washington, these these
big agencies, they've become overbearing, they become hard to take
care of in and of themselves because the cost is
so great to have four thousand or forty six hundred
whatever it is at the Department of d or whatever
(03:41):
was when you took over at the Department of ED
that are really just making decisions that don't affect the
individual child.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Well, that's correct.
Speaker 4 (03:50):
As a matter of fact, when I did take over
as the secretary, we did have about forty one forty
two hundred people. We're down about half of that now
because we've gone through a restructuring process here as was
the goal and it is the goal across all of
government at this point too, look at where we might
(04:10):
cut expenses without you know, cutting services, and that every
agency in government has been involved in doing that. So
we're dealing right now with many fewer people.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
Than we had when I first began.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
But you know, the bureaucracy is if you've got people
sitting in Washington trying to make decisions about what's happening
in the state.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
I'll give you a perfect example.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
I was asked by one parent in a state or
a teacher, I don't remember which it was, relative to
special needs funding, and I said, well, let me ask
you something.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
I said, who better to determine that? Would it be
at the.
Speaker 4 (04:47):
State level or at the local level where the teacher
is working with that child with special needs and understands
what kind of programming how they should adjust through their
individual you know, learning program for that student. Or is
it someone sitting in Washington, DC that has absolutely no
connection with that child. So I think the answer is
(05:07):
absolutely obvious. So the bureaucracy in between the money that
has been appropriated in coming through Congress and the state
level of execution and employment of those dollars is I
think a better path if we don't have the bureaucracy
of the Department of Education in between.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
Yeah, and I think the fear that parents have as well,
if it's not there, then that money can't come to us. Anyway,
the money will still come, it's going to be decided
on the state level. Everybody has a state superintendent, you
have a state Department of Ed that this is one
of those states rights issues where we really want to
do it locally, and there should be nothing more local
(05:48):
than education, because your community is different than the community
next to you, and that's how the state decides what
each area needs for funding and what they need when
it comes to specialists and teachers and all of that
that should go to the state level. Now, there is
a big controversy right now over protecting women in sports.
We know that the president that's one of his top
(06:08):
issues is to protect women in sports. I know that
you obviously have a sports background. You are our very
top of mind for protecting women in sports.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
But let me ask you this.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Like in Michigan, we have the MHSAA, the Michigan High
School Athletic Association, and they are saying they're not going
to comply with what the President has said. They oversee
Michigan sports. They're an association, but they are actually funded
by the school district. So how do you manage that situation.
Speaker 4 (06:36):
Well, they're in the finance of the law because Title
nine was clearly established to protect women in sports and
to make sure that they were not discriminated against, and
so it's simply following the law at this point.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
So they're breaking the law.
Speaker 4 (06:50):
So if that case was referred to the Department of Justice,
there could be an investigation there, or there should there
could be some defunding mechanisms that put in place relative
to you know, the state or the districts which are
not complying.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
I'd love to say that, I would think that there's
a chance on the state level that someone would do something.
But in this state, we have an Attorney general that
I don't think would side with Trump on this. In fact,
she's come out and she's been pretty hostile. So that
is what I mean. That is the situation. And I
think for some conservatives, they say, we still need that
protection from Washington, d C. Because we don't have if
(07:28):
we are in a blue state or a purple state
that has blue leaders, we don't have that protection. And
that's where there are some conservatives that are kind of
holding out hope that there is some protection from the
federal government.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
But you say, that will still be there.
Speaker 4 (07:41):
For sure if the law is broken, no different than
any other federal law that gets broken, there is a
you know, there's a consequence to that, and so that
consequence is still in place.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
I've got more coming up with the Secretary of Education
Linda McMahon. But first I want to talk to you
about my partners at American Alternative The markets have been
experiencing some volatility with these brief rallies and then they're
quickly erased by the sharp selloffs, and the dollar continues
to weaken on the international markets, but gold has surged
to a new all time record high. Wall Street analysts
(08:16):
are warning of persistent market stress and advising their biggest
clients to seek safety. Now, when markets swing this violently,
your retirement savings are extremely vulnerable. It's during these uncertain
times that people need stable assets. For thousands of years,
that asset has been gold, and that's why I'm proud
to endorse American Alternative Assets. They take a different approach
(08:37):
to precious metals. They know you, they get to know
your family, they get to know your needs, and they
know precious metals protection is not for everybody. That's why
they only work with the people that they know they
can help. They provide quarterly check ins to ensure your
strategy stays on track, thirty percent of their customer's return
and refer family and friends. American Alternative Assets is offering
(08:59):
our lessners a free Wealth Protection Guide and up to
a five percent bonus on your first purchase.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
So call today.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
It's eight seven seven five to two gold, or you
can get visit tutors goold dot com right now.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
Don't wait until it's too late.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Protect your wealth and secure your future today again, that's
eight seven seven five to two gold, or visit Tutorscold
dot com now, stay tuned, we'll be right back.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
So what is your response to the Trump administration?
Speaker 2 (09:31):
The administration that you're part of freezing this money that's
going to hire it, that's going to Harvard.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
Because of the campus activism.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
And this is something that there's been folks on both
sides of this issue, but there are certainly a lot
of people who have suffered from this. I would say
it goes beyond activism. We're talking about harassment on these
college campuses that is being allowed. So can you explain
a little bit to us about the mindset behind freezing
those funds.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
Well, it actually started with Columbia University, and I think
it was it was very evident when we saw last
year and then again just a few months ago, students
on campus that not only were just being harassed, I
mean locked in libraries, other students pounding on glass walls
saying death Israel, Death to USA faculty was attacked. I mean,
(10:22):
this was a safety issue. Not only was it, you know,
a civil rights issue, but it was a safety issue
as well. Not to be confused, it was definitely not
a First Amendment issue because the president and this administration
certainly does not disagree with anyone to have the right
to peaceful protests or differences of opinion or on campuses,
(10:47):
you know, having public and open debate. But when you
start impacting the safety and welfare of members of you know,
the campus community, that can't be tolerated. And so we
brought those issues forward to the President of Columbia and
our work continuing to work you know, with them. So
(11:08):
other universities now have come under that same review, a
Harvard being one, and so we'll continue to make sure
as the president promised during his campaign that he will
not tolerate discrimination of any kind on campus, but especially
you know, anti semitism, because it was just so flagrant.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
I think it's interesting the way that you present that,
because it's so important for people to understand because the
other side actually agrees with you, even though they're not
going to I just mentioned our radical attorney general, but
let me be very clear that a few months back,
when this was happening on the University of Michigan's campus,
she did arrest these people that were harassing students.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
She arrested them, and she's coming down pretty hard on them.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
There has been a lot of pushback from Democrats in
the state of Michigan, some Democrats, more of the progressive side,
saying this is ridiculous. She shouldn't have They were peacefully protesting.
That's the difference. They weren't peaceful, and that's what you're saying.
You have to be peaceful.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
It does have to be peaceful.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
And when you jeopardize, you know, the safety and welfare
of other students, that is.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
An infringement on their civil rights.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
And so we just we just absolutely cannot allow that.
And I think that college professors have to take very
I'm not professors, college presidents have to take pretty swift
action to make sure that those kinds of protests don't
get out of hand, because we you know, we have
seen that there can be more and more injuries if
(12:39):
it's not dealt with right away.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
And even preventing students from getting an education. You should
not be able to borrow students from going to their classes.
That should not the university should not be accepting that
there are students who are paying for an education that
can't actually get into their classroom because a protester is
stopping them. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (12:56):
Absolutely, there again, that's a civil rights issue, there is.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
You know.
Speaker 4 (13:01):
It's just like you said, the students, or scholarship payments,
or parents who are expecting to be able to send
their children to a safe environment and get the education
that they're paying for. And that's not an unrealistic expectation.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Right exactly.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Stay tuned for more with Secretary Linda McMahon, But first,
let me tell you about a great story from my
partners at Genusel. It's heartwarming and refreshingly true. Twenty five
years ago, a woman just like us wanted her youthful glowback.
Phillis walked into her neighborhood pharmacy in Colonia, New Jersey,
and asked the pharmacist for an antioxidant cream for her wrinkles.
(13:39):
But instead of grabbing something behind the counter, he was like,
let me make you one overnight. So Phyllis uses this
cream for three days and then she goes to her
dermatologist and he literally thought she had work done. So obviously,
Phyllis was so happy she wanted to brag about the
pharmacy and the pharmacist.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
Who made the life changing cream.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
And that is, believe it or not, how Genusel Skincare
was born was twenty five years ago. Genucell has shipped
millions of orders and they still have that same philosophy, antioxidants,
that same natural base, and the same chef in the kitchen.
Celebrating twenty five years, Genucel is now offering the best
pricing since Phyllis walked into George's pharmacy. And right now
(14:17):
you can save over seventy percent off Genucell's complete skincare
packaged featuring the Genucell under eyebags and puffin a serum.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
It's awesome. I love it.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
The dark spot corrector you really do see a change.
And some of these products you get immediate results, results
in minutes and you'll look five, ten, even fifteen years younger.
That's guaranteed or your money back. So go to genucell
dot com slash dixon. That's genucell dot com slash dixon.
Every order includes free shipping, so use Dixon at checkout
(14:48):
for that extra discount. Again, that's genucell dot com slash Dixon.
It's g E n uceel dot com slash Dixon. Now
stay tuned, we'll be right back. Before I let you go,
I want to ask you if there's anything you can share.
You were in the first administration also, you were you
(15:09):
went from that to the Secretary of Education, so different roles,
and you were in the small business before that. Now
you are in education, different roles behind the scenes. Can
you tell us a little bit about what it's like
when the president comes to you and says I need
you to.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
Serve Well, it was very interesting because when the President
and I did have this discussion and he talked to
me about serving as the Secretary of Education. I told you,
I said, you know, mister President, and I'm I don't
come from the world of education.
Speaker 3 (15:41):
I've been in the business world.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
And that's why, you know, the SBA seemed to be,
you know, such a good fit for me. And he said,
but here's the thing, he said, I really do want
to close the Department of Education. He said, I want
to get rid of the bureaucracy of it. He said,
I don't need an educator, he said, I need a
business executive leader, a manager, someone who.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
Knows how to do that. He said, you're a perfect
for this job. And so I agreed.
Speaker 4 (16:08):
To take on this role and to serve him in
the country to the best of my ability.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
And I think it's meaningful that you did agree to
serve twice because there have been a lot of criticisms
of Donald Trump. And I was actually just talking to
someone about this over the weekend. I said, how many
people who have worked with him in his businesses or
even in the White House have really come out and
ever said anything negative about him?
Speaker 1 (16:32):
People love him.
Speaker 4 (16:34):
Well, he's he's a great boss. And I'll tell you what,
it's really good. He understands so much what he is
asking you to do, and he's very probative in his questions.
I expect you to fully know and understand what it
is that you're doing. He listens very well when when
(16:54):
you're with him, but you know he expects action, and
so we do work very well together. And plus I've
known him for almost thirty years now.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Well, we have been impressed with what the administration has
done so far, and very impressed with what you've done.
I'm so grateful you were here today to talk to
us today. US Secretary Linda McMahon, thank you, Thank you, Tutor,
and thank you all for joining us on the Tutor
Dixon Podcast. For this episode and others, go to Tutor
dixonpodcast dot com, the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
(17:26):
you get your podcasts and join us next time.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Have a blessed day.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.