Por Renan Filho · 2026-10-24**Lead**
WASHINGTON — In an unprecedented gambit to advance the White House’s long-standing goal of abolishing the U.S. Department of Education, Secretary Linda McMahon is considering a move that would effectively fire herself from her own job. According to multiple administration officials familiar with the discussions, McMahon has floated the idea of voluntarily vacating her post — and then publicly arguing that her departure proves the department can operate without a Cabinet-level head, thereby making the case to Congress that the entire agency is unnecessary.
The proposal, still in early internal deliberations, would see McMahon resign or be removed from her position as Secretary, leaving the department leaderless. She would then appear before congressional committees to testify that the federal education bureaucracy functioned seamlessly — or was even improved — by the absence of its top official. The goal, sources say, is to provide a dramatic, real-world demonstration for lawmakers who remain skeptical about eliminating a department that oversees more than $60 billion in annual spending and manages federal student aid, civil rights enforcement, and data collection for the nation’s 130,000 K-12 schools.
**Contexto**
The Department of Education has been a target of conservative policymakers since its creation in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter. Critics argue that education is a local matter and that federal involvement has burdened states with onerous regulations without improving student outcomes. The Trump administration, which McMahon served under in his first term as head of the Small Business Administration, made abolishing the department a central campaign promise. However, despite Republican control of both chambers of Congress in 2025, the legislative path has been blocked by a handful of GOP senators from rural states who fear losing federal funding for their school districts.
McMahon, confirmed as Education Secretary in early 2025, has spent the past 18 months systematically shrinking the department’s footprint. She has reduced staffing by roughly 40%, consolidated offices, and shifted greater authority to state education agencies. The “fire herself” strategy represents the next logical — and most theatrical — step in that campaign. By removing herself from the equation, McMahon aims to create a pressure point: if Congress sees that the department functions without a secretary, the argument goes, why should it exist at all?
Publicly, the White House has not confirmed the discussions. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt sidestepped a direct question during a recent briefing, saying only that “the president supports Secretary McMahon’s innovative thinking about how to return education to the states where it belongs.” Privately, senior aides describe the plan as a “Hail Mary” to break the legislative logjam, acknowledging that it carries both political and operational risks.
**Analise**
If McMahon follows through, the move would be without modern precedent. Historically, Cabinet secretaries have resigned for ethical scandals, policy disagreements, or personal reasons. None has ever vacated their post specifically to prove their job — and by extension their agency — is superfluous. Constitutional scholars note that while the Department of Education is a creation of statute and could be eliminated by Congress, unilaterally defanging it by removing its head could raise questions about the president’s duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The Impoundment Control Act and other statutes governing federal spending also create legal barriers to hollowing out the department without congressional approval.
Yet the political calculus is clear. Polling on the department’s popularity remains mixed, with a majority of Americans supporting the idea of the federal government playing a role in education standards and civil rights enforcement, but also expressing frustration with perceived bureaucracy and overreach. By creating a stark visual of an empty secretary’s chair, McMahon and the White House hope to force a decisive vote on a bill that would dissolve the department entirely, sending its programs to other agencies or to the states. Proponents argue that the current stalemate benefits no one, as the department remains in a weakened state without clear direction, while states receive mixed signals about future funding.
Opponents, however, warn of chaos. Teachers’ unions, civil rights groups, and Democratic lawmakers have already labeled the plan reckless. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called it “the most cynical publicity stunt in modern government” during a committee hearing last week. The National Education Association released a statement saying that “playing games with the leadership of an agency that oversees student loans, special education funding, and protections for vulnerable children is nothing short of dangerous.” Even some conservative education advocates have expressed caution, noting that dismantling the department without a clear transition plan could leave millions of low-income students and students with disabilities without guaranteed federal support.
**Fontes**
- Multiple senior administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. - Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, remarks during White House press briefing, October 22, 2026. - Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), statement during Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing, October 21, 2026. - National Education Association, public statement released October 22, 2026. - Congressional Budget Office, historical data on Department of Education appropriations and staffing levels. - U.S. Department of Education, public records on agency structure and funding.