Hess: In 2017, just like this year, you took office with unified Republican control of Congress. In that kind of environment, what’s it take to establish productive relationships with the Hill and get priorities moving?
DeVos: Yes, though it’s important to recall that the Republican Senate majority was very thin between 2017 and 2019—starting at 52 and shrinking to 50 or 51 votes at various points. That required the vice president to tie-break a lot of things, as I’m acutely aware. The 2025 majority is much stronger in the Senate and hopefully will be in the House as well following some special elections.
Congress is perhaps the most change-averse entity I’ve ever dealt with. Many members of Congress talk a big game, but when it comes time to vote, many are more comfortable with maintaining the status quo. That requires employing change-management techniques, including spending a lot of time talking through benefits and ways to mitigate risk. I spent an immense amount of time on the Hill during my four years. Prioritizing students over systems forces people to rethink long-held assumptions, even within the party and especially within the appropriations process.
Hess: What are a couple of those assumptions that need to be rethought? And what would it mean for legislation or appropriations?
DeVos: The biggest assumption is that the programs are working. They’re not, and when being honest, most people acknowledge as much. I recall our first internal budget meeting in 2017, where the career staff pointed out that the only federal program that had empirical research showing its success was the charter school program. Similarly, I had numerous discussions with teachers and administrators about how poorly Title II—the funding for teacher professional development—functions. The list of examples goes on. This was one of many reasons we ultimately proposed block granting the funds to the states—in most programs, the money is thinly spread with too many restrictions for it to really be productive.
Hess: I’ve long held that the coverage of your tenure was anything but fair-minded. Given your experience, any advice for the next secretary when it comes to navigating the media?
DeVos: Your critiques of this have been really spot-on, and I don’t just say that because they accrue to my benefit. The education press corps is a truly agenda-driven group. Most of them assumed the worst of us, with very few putting in any effort to understand where we were coming from on policy decisions.
What I learned is you can’t let that distract you. If you’re pushing for meaningful change, those whose apple carts you intend to upset will come after you. It’s the cost of doing business. I also learned that you can counter slanted coverage by going around the legacy media. There are so many ways to talk directly to the American people. That includes talking to local news, which is often much more fair-minded than national outlets. I didn’t hold many press conferences in D.C., but I did one in almost every town I visited.
My advice to Linda, if confirmed, and to anyone stepping into a public leadership role, is to stay focused on your mission. Know why you’re there and keep your eyes on the people you serve, not the chattering class or legacy media. For me, the louder the media noise became, the more I knew we were hitting nerves and making a difference.
Hess: When it comes to education, Republicans have long suffered from a thin bench of potential appointees. When you left office, this was a challenge that you and some of your former deputies discussed pretty frankly. Have things changed since 2017?
DeVos: Dramatically so. There have been intentional efforts around this in D.C., but importantly, the states—especially those led by Republican governors—have really dug into education issues and advanced reforms over the past several years. This has created a new talent pipeline that didn’t exist before. Similarly to the ’90s, we again have “education governors” like Iowa’s Kim Reynolds, Florida’s Ron DeSantis, and Arkansas’s Sarah Sanders today. That changes—and improves—the landscape significantly.
Hess: During your tenure, the teachers unions were extraordinarily critical of you. How much did that matter? And, given that McMahon is already being fiercely attacked by union leaders, any suggestions on how she should respond, if confirmed?
DeVos: It was to be expected, so I’m not sure it was that impactful. I was unapologetically for empowering parents, and they were unapologetically for protecting the system. We were diametrically opposed on our priorities.
The only place I think the unions’ opposition mattered was the tone they set and the millions they spent amplifying that message, both with their allies in the Democrat Party and in school communities. I think their shrill, over-the-top criticisms served as a permission slip for others to assume the worst about us.
I think of our work on Title IX as an example. Randi Weingarten alleged that I wasn’t serious about combating sexual assault. My response was that I approached the issue first and foremost as a woman, a mother, a grandmother, a person of faith, and really just as a decent human being. Her accusation was just absurd. But the language took hold and created conditions for others to say even more vile things.
With any such criticisms, I’d urge the next secretary to fight back twice as hard. I think the tides have turned, following how the unions overplayed their hands during Covid. The public is much more attune to their games.
Hess: What’s the best piece of advice you got after you were nominated by Trump?
DeVos: It was something that ended up being a motto of sorts in our office: focus on doing something good for kids every day. There are going to be endless distractions, problems, hiccups, frustrations, and the like, but if you come to work every morning with fresh eyes and that posture, it’s easy to keep moving forward.
Hess: What’s one thing you wish you’d known on your first day that you learned later?
DeVos: It may be a bit cliché, but the time does go fast. When you start, four years seems like a long time; the truth is it goes by incredibly quickly. I wished I’d pushed harder and faster from the jump, appreciating this phenomenon fully.
Doing anything in Washington is hard and slow. There were policies we advanced that had broad, bipartisan support, like expanding career and technical education options, and even those were painfully slow to move forward. Some of that legislation is still stalled in Congress today. In that sense, every minute counts.
Upon reflection, I think we also spent too much time talking to people who had no interest in listening to what we had to say. So much of Washington is entrenched in their positions, perspectives, and ways. You really have to focus on those who are intellectually curious enough to consider there might be a different and better way to do things—and who are self-assured enough to say so.
