Education Secretary McMahon Struggles to Define “Illegal DEI” in Heated Congressional Hearing

A tense House committee hearing this week exposed deep confusion—and growing alarm—over the administration’s approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion in American education, as Education Secretary McMahon repeatedly failed to give clear answers about whether teaching basic U.S. history could be deemed “illegal DEI.”

The exchange began with a reference to McMahon’s confirmation hearing, when Senator Chris Murphy asked whether African-American history classes violated the administration’s anti-DEI stance. At the time, McMahon said she would “look into it.” Months into the job, lawmakers asked whether she had done so.

McMahon responded that African studies, Middle Eastern studies, or Chinese studies are not DEI “if they are taught as part of the total history package,” adding that teaching “facts on both sides” would not constitute DEI. That answer immediately raised eyebrows.

“I don’t know what both sides of African-American history would be,” one lawmaker replied pointedly, pressing McMahon on what exactly would make such instruction illegal under the administration’s guidance.

The questioning quickly moved from abstract definitions to concrete examples. Lawmakers asked whether a lesson plan on the Tulsa Race Massacre—a documented act of racial violence in U.S. history—would qualify as illegal DEI.

McMahon said she would “have to get back” to them.

When asked whether she knew what the Tulsa Race Massacre was, she again declined to answer directly, saying she needed to “look into it more.”

The exchange grew more uncomfortable when lawmakers raised Through My Eyes, the autobiographical children’s book by Ruby Bridges, who integrated a previously all-white elementary school in New Orleans in 1960 under federal protection.

McMahon admitted she had not read the book. When asked whether she had learned about Ruby Bridges at all, she again avoided a direct response, repeating that she would “look into it.”

The hearing revealed a pattern: when confronted with specific, foundational examples of American history, the Secretary consistently declined to say whether they would be protected or prohibited under the administration’s “illegal DEI” framework.

Lawmakers then pressed further. Would a voluntary Pride Month celebration in a school be considered illegal DEI? McMahon hesitated, never giving a clear yes-or-no answer.

Would social studies standards that teach the factual outcome of the 2020 presidential election—that Joe Biden won—constitute illegal DEI?

Once again, McMahon refused to answer directly. “We should teach accurately,” she said repeatedly, declining to state whether teaching that Biden won the election would violate departmental guidance.

That refusal drew visible frustration.

“Yes or no,” one lawmaker insisted. “I don’t understand why you’re incapable of answering.”

“I’ve not given you the answer you want,” McMahon replied.

“No,” came the response, “I want your answer.”

The confrontation highlighted a broader issue: despite aggressive rhetoric about eliminating “illegal DEI,” the administration has yet to clearly define what that term actually means in practice—especially when applied to history, civil rights, or widely accepted factual instruction.

Later in the hearing, Representative Jahana Hayes of Connecticut shifted the focus to civil rights enforcement and educational inequality. She pointed out that NAEP test score gaps show low-income students significantly lag behind wealthier and white peers, largely due to unequal access to resources—a reality that makes the administration’s hostility toward equity-focused policies particularly concerning.

Hayes emphasized that states already control curriculum, instruction, and hiring. The Department of Education’s central role, she argued, is enforcing civil rights protections when states fail to uphold them.

She noted the irony of a budget that eliminates American history and civic education programs while the Secretary could not answer basic questions about Ruby Bridges or the legitimacy of a presidential election.

“You are making the argument for the Department of Education’s existence,” Hayes said, pointing out that state governments once denied students like Ruby Bridges access to equal education—and that federal civil rights enforcement was necessary to stop it.

The hearing left a stark impression. While the administration insists it is fighting ideological indoctrination, its top education official could not clearly explain whether teaching core historical facts, civil rights milestones, or election outcomes would be allowed under federal guidance.

For critics, the moment underscored a troubling reality: policies framed as neutral opposition to “DEI” may, in practice, chill the teaching of American history itself—especially the parts that make some people uncomfortable.

And for many lawmakers watching, the question was no longer whether the administration has gone too far—but whether it even understands the consequences of what it is trying to erase.