← Pod Force One
Pod Force One
Secretary Linda McMahon: U.S. Education, Professional Wrestling, & President Trump
00:57:06
Loading summary
Transcript90 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is a failed education system that we have within our country. I was pregnant with Stephanie and we went bankrupt. And it's, you know, you just got to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and stay after it. When he's talking about putting America first, there's no storyline attached to that.
- [00:22]
B
Today on Podforce One, we're joined by US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. Before she went into public service, of course, she led the amazing WWE, the global wrestling entertainment powerhouse. Secretary McMahon, thanks for joining podpors1.
- [00:43]
A
Thank you so much for having me today, Miranda. This is great.
- [00:46]
B
Now, I have to tell you, just before we get into important things, I guess my sons were both avid WWE fans. They loved John Cena and Stone Cold Steve Austin and all those guys. And during the research for this interview, I saw a video of you being given the tombstone pile driver by Cain, I believe it was, and it was magnificent. And I just wondered if that was very good practice for becoming a cabinet member in the second Trump administration.
- [01:27]
A
Well, I've actually not been turned upside down and made to look as though I landed on my head yet, but there is a lot of toing and froing, that is for sure.
- [01:39]
B
Well, obviously, you're, you're a tough cookie and a, and a trooper to have endured all of that on stage.
- [01:46]
A
Well, that was my, my, my performance, you know, at WWE was, were few. My performances were few and far between. And I really, you know, played myself. And as I watched, as I watched some of those segments, I said, yeah, you better stick to your day job because you're really not very good at this.
- [02:06]
B
Well, I want to talk more about wrestling later on, but first, you know, you have managed to cut the workforce, cut in half, the Department of Education, and with really hardly a ripple unusually. That's a big cut, and yet we don't hear a lot of squealing from Washington. How did you do that?
- [02:28]
A
Well, it actually started even before I was sworn in as secretary because, you know, the president had certainly given indication that he wanted the, you know, the bureaucracy of the Department of Education cut, but across all of government, he really wanted to see reduction in spending. And we were working very closely at the beginning, if you recall, with Doge, to make all of the, you know, smart cuts that could be made with any, within any department. And I think that those who started before I came on board and then I continued after I came on board, I think we looked at what was really necessary to run things and just proceeded to make things work.
- [03:12]
B
And I mean, if you could get Rid of. How many people do you think have been cut and what were they doing?
- [03:19]
A
I think there were a little over 2,000, just maybe around 2,200 in total that were cut. Some of them took early retirement. Some of them took some buyout provisions that we'd made you available for them because we wanted everyone to land in a good place, because this was not something that came about as a result of them not doing a good job or not doing what they were hired to do. So we wanted to make sure that as best as possible, they had a soft landing, if you will, and a place to go from there. And some actually, Miranda, you'll find often when you're making cuts, your intention is to only cut fat. Sometimes you cut into muscle a little bit. We did bring some people back, and so we've moved on.
- [04:11]
B
Now. Some of the things that you've decided to do, you have put a real focus on literacy, I understand, and particularly on getting back to basics. And this is something very dear to my heart because spending so much time as a journalist in Australia, the issue of abandoning phonics and going into whole word, that fad, I think an old fad now, I think it started in the 60s with reading, has led to great tragedy in children who leave school illiterate. I think the same issue in America where something like 30% of children only are fully, functionally literate after 12, 13 years of school. What can be done about that? And is it something that you've really made part of your mission?
- [05:07]
A
Each secretary defines what their priorities are. And I had said my first number one priority as being the Secretary of Education was illiteracy. And then we were returning education to the states. And so those are two really driving forces. But, you know, it's interesting because I think it's in the context of this question, I think it's important for those who are listening to the podcast to understand what the Department of Education does and what it does not do. We don't establish curriculum, we don't hire teachers. We don't indicate which books to buy or what programs to use. And so the Department of Education is really a pass through of funding, you know, that is set by Congress. There's formula funding that goes into place through our title programs, through our IDEA programs, which services, you know, our children with disabilities. And so the Department of Education really doesn't set forth, you know, curriculum or studies. I can say what successes I have seen in different schools I have visited. And as we look at the NAEP scores, which are the national report card scores, you know, for our country. I can show where, you know, clear advances are being made, and they're being made with innovations at state levels.
- [06:35]
B
Mississippi and I think Louisiana have had these amazing results with reading scores. And they did it by going back to basics, didn't they?
- [06:44]
A
They did. It was called the Science of Reading. And they went back to that program of phonetics. I mean, I bet it's how you learn to read. It's certainly how I learned to read. And it's just proven to be effective. It was called the miracle of Mississippi. Now, it didn't happen overnight. It took years for them to put that program in place and teach teachers how to teach so that teachers could then teach children how to read. But then it went much more quickly in other states, and Louisiana adopted it. Florida did. Texas, other states have now as well, and we're seeing other programs, you know, the science of numeracy come in as well, because not only did we see that children in K through 12, only about 3 out of 10 could read proficiently is what you mentioned, but also just about that same number, maybe a little higher in some areas, were proficient in math. But if you can't read by the end of the third grade, you are really, you know, up until then, you're learning to read. By the end of the third grade, you're reading to learn. And if you can't read to learn, you're just going to be left behind from then on. And that's what we've been seeing in our scores. You know, students could read words, but they couldn't read comprehensively and they couldn't read proficiently. And so that's what was lacking, you know, so desperately, you know, in our schools.
- [08:09]
B
And those poor kids were consigned to a life on the margin. And we've now had at least a generation who've been failed like that. Do you know, just from your experience now leading the Federal Board of Education, what is it that. Why does the ideology creep in like that? Why did it become an ideological battle about whether you used whole word or phonics for reading?
- [08:40]
A
You know, I wasn't part of that administration, so I don't really know what was being proposed. And I would like to give the benefit of the doubt to say that different programs like no Child Left behind or Race to the Top, those things, or core curriculum that were introduced during the Bush administration and the Obama administration, I don't think they were introduced with mal intent. I believe that they probably were trying to solve, you know, some of the Issues of seeing those scores not come up. But then they took the wrong approach because then it was from top down trying to force feed states, which you just can't do because no one size fits all. States and state boards of education and governors and superintendents and secretaries of education in those states know what's best for their states. And that's why President Trump's whole program and his philosophy and belief, as is mine, is that the best education is that that's closest to the child. Parents, teachers know what's best in their communities, what needs need to be served. They're watching and observing these children and looking at the test scores and what, you know, rural schools are different than suburban schools or urban schools. And those needs need to be met. And they can't do it with one size fits all.
- [10:12]
B
It has education been an ideological battleground for a long time. And so I guess you've waited into a lot of, some of the sort of cultural fissures in society that President Trump and you have been trying to remedy, such as, for instance, you know, DEI and Woker, and particularly the gender bending that the transgender transitions that teachers are assisting children to do or encouraging them. In some cases, the schools are without the permission of the parents or even the knowledge of the parents. How much headway are you making in trying to tackle that?
- [11:02]
A
I think we're making good headway. And you know, Miranda, I had,
- [11:06]
B
I
- [11:07]
A
think I had about 25 or 30 parents and young adults in my conference room not too long after I became secretary. And these were parents who now were looking, you know, with remorse at their children who had gone through transgender, some had changed their sexual through surgery and had made those decisions when these children were really not capable yet of making those kind of adult decisions. One parent had told me about their child who committed suicide because they couldn't really deal with it. So these are heart rendering stories when you're sitting and listening to parents and to the children themselves who then were young adults. But for those schools, and we are, you know, investigating schools in, in California, especially at this particular time, because, you know, you can't take Tylenol or give a child Tylenol in school, and yet they could be counseled about pronouns and transgender and hormone therapy without their parents being notified and not just making the decision not to notify them, to actually hide it from parents and not sharing those records. And so I just think that's unconscionable. That should not be allowed. If anyone wants to make decisions about what their gender ought to be, it should be after they're an adult. But President Trump has made it very clear. And then we'll segue a little bit to men and women's sports, which is what happens when there were males identifying as females and competing against women in women's sports, taking away their opportunities in many instances for scholarships or just, or sponsorships or for even maybe a place on the Olympic roster. And not only that taking away opportunity, but also women were actually put in danger playing against males. There was, you know, the one volleyball competition in which the ball was spiked, hit the female in the face, broke her nose, she had a concussion. And she said that she was, was absolutely mentally harmed by this as well, because then she was afraid of so many other things that, you know, were that she might, you know, be facing. And so, you know, all of these decisions have long lasting consequences. And these decisions should be made by adults and not by teachers or superintendents of schools or any of that, because it's just wrong.
- [13:46]
B
So what is it that you federally can do to stop California from doing these sneaky gender transitions without the parents knowing?
- [13:57]
A
Well, you know, there are investigations. I mean, that's the law. Ferpa, you know, is a law that parents must be advised. And so we can investigate. We can then work with schools who might want to change programs, et cetera, but if not, we can then refer them to the Department of Justice to, you know, for them to take further action or worst case scenario, for those schools who will not comply, they are at risk of losing their federal funding. So those are two pretty stiff measures that schools will have to deal with.
- [14:30]
B
So have you met resistance? And is that something those measures that you've had to take with any school?
- [14:37]
A
There are some schools, yes. That are in Title IX violations that we have referred to the Department of Justice and not only at the middle to high school level, but also at universities for Title IX violations as well. We're working very closely with the Department of Justice because these are issues that were long fought for and rights given that should have already been in place. But then to have those rights given and then to have them taken away, we're just not going to stand for that.
- [15:11]
B
How do you mean? You mean Title IX in terms of.
- [15:14]
A
Yeah, it'll be investigated. For instance, you know, University of Penn, which was when you, you know, we investigated them very thoroughly for Title IX violations, they actually came to the table, reversed decisions that they had made. I mean, Leah Thomas had to give up her title. She was competing against the female and all any of the other titles that were won by males who were competing against females when the female would have won otherwise. Those titles were returned and apologies made by the University of Pennsylvania to all of the women. So that was a really significant step that was taken by UPenn, and we were really pleased to see them come to the table.
- [15:58]
B
And do you think that would have happened without your and President Trump's pressure?
- [16:02]
A
I do not. And, you know, Riley Gaines, who has made, you know, has made herself known as well, she was one that she was absolutely the number one female who came out and said, you know, this is just wrong. And so certainly she gained, I think, national media attention. And then we backed her at the Department of Education, so did the president and had her own committees. And she's just been a force. And it's so interesting now she has a little girl herself and she's such a cute little girl. And Riley said, you know, she's so happy for making such a stand, you know, for women, she said, because I know it's going to be easier for my daughter.
- [16:45]
B
Yeah, she was incredibly courageous because there was so much peer pressure at the time. It's hard to remember, really, even now, so soon after just the, the sort of cultural pressure that was on young women then to put up with really unspeakable things like having grown men in the locker room with them.
- [17:05]
A
Sure.
- [17:06]
B
I mean, and also children, like little girls were having grown men naked in the, in the bathrooms with them.
- [17:12]
A
And, you know, not only that these schools who were not telling parents that there were men and boys, sports often were on travel teams, that there were overnight sleepovers and so that there were boys and, you know, sharing beds with girls. And this common sense would tell you that this is just wrong.
- [17:38]
B
Now, the other battle that you've waded into is with the universities with the anti Semitism that had been allowed to flourish. I think what we've seen with the latest round of socialists or communists that have just won elections in New York in a clean sweep and going to Washington, D.C. that sort of far left antisemitism and so on really began at the university level. And you have managed to bring some of those universities to heel. But I think there are still lawsuits going on out there.
- [18:20]
A
There are lawsuits. In fact, the Department of Justice has filed lawsuits against Harvard. But I think we continue to see antisemitism, and I think it's just rearing its ugly head again and becoming even a little bit more front and center again after the election. As you mentioned just a couple of nights ago, it's outside the university, but outside a coffee shop, you know, in Brooklyn. It's just, I think it's just incredible that we could see this kind of hatred, you know, in our country, but especially on our college campuses, when we saw these encampments and when we argued, you know, this isn't just antisemitism. This is actually Title 6 violations because you can't infringe on the rights of others just to have, you know, rights for yourself. And so if you're preventing a student from getting the class because you're barring the doorway to that classroom or preventing a student from entering a building, or in worst case scenarios, we saw at Columbia and Barnard that we saw students actually barricaded in a library and couldn't come out. And I talked to some of the Jewish students who were on campus at Columbia who told me that they actually were afraid to walk across campus to go to their classes and to do these things. And so that does warrant, from a federal standpoint, the Department of Education investigating and looking at, you know, withholding funds. We reached an agreement with Columbia, which I believe there was some, you know, I think it was a very good agreement that really was tough, you know, for them, involved, you know, some payments of cash over the period of time and also putting in measures that didn't or should not impact on everyone's rights and kept the right to protest. Everyone should have the right to peacefully protest. Time and manner protest. And those kind of measures should be on campus. But our universities have just steered away from being places of debate and truth seeking into more of ideology. And when we look at universities that aren't balanced in their teaching, I think it was the Harvard Crimson even said that only by their own investigation, only 3% of professors on campus were conservative. That's certainly not a balanced viewpoint. There was a Harvard student talking about the antisemitism factor again. There was a Harvard student who was allowed not to work in partnership on a project with another student in the classroom because that student was Jewish and felt that the student didn't have to work with an oppressor. So it's just amazing still to see these things. And so the Department of Justice is continuing to investigate Harvard and has followed lawsuit, not more than one lawsuit. Harvard is the poster child for the Students v. Harvard case that said that Harvard was not any longer admitting students on merit or hiring or promoting professors on merit. That race clearly was part of the equation. And so we've gone in and said, no, that's just not allowed. And so those lawsuits you know, Harvard's in violation, so we're investigating.
- [21:58]
B
And Harvard being in violation, particularly on those race based admission procedures and you know, hiring procedures, I guess they're still in breach. Are they?
- [22:12]
A
Well, that's why we're investigating. The Department of Justice has filed its lawsuit because we believe that they are. They claim that they're not. They've gone through, they took great pains to list all of the steps that they had done to address some of the issues that had been brought up again by the Harvard Crimson. So the continuing investigations and lawsuits that are ongoing will show whether or not they are in fact in compliance. One of the lawsuits that we turned over to the Department of Justice is under section 117 of the higher Education act, universities are required to report the amounts that they receive, you know, from, from foreign, foreign funds that are coming into the universities. And so they weren't reporting, you know, those numbers or they weren't reporting a lot of the student numbers that are there required to do so. That is part of the lawsuit the Department of Justice has filed.
- [23:11]
B
And I noticed that some of the, some of the universities have changed the names of their sort of DEI departments to other names. But do you think that's window dressing or do you think that their heart's in it? That they actually understand that what they're doing is sort of against not just the law, but the spirit of the law and what's best for the country?
- [23:36]
A
It is my sincere hope that many of them have seen the error in doing that. However, if I'm looking at it objectively, I would bet that there are many who have just changed the name and maybe given it enough window dressing to pass muster for the time being. However, what we have seen as a result of a lot of the action that we have taken is there have been civics institutes set up on many of the campuses where civics is taught, the history of our country is taught, and less of the ideology. There are more open debates that are happening. And so they are being more truth seeking institutes. So I do believe we've had an impact so far and we're going to want to continue to do that. And I think other universities have looked and said, hey, you know what, we've strayed too far and we want being compliance, of course, having always the hammer, if you will, of investigation of losing federal funding for research and programs as well as having lawsuits potentially brought by the Department of Justice are certainly things that they bear in mind as well.
- [24:54]
B
So roughly what percentage of Harvard's funding would be or budget would come from the federal government.
- [25:01]
A
You know, I don't know that number. I'd be happy to get back. Back to you with that. But they have a $57 billion endowment, right?
- [25:10]
B
So they're not going to go shrivel up and die if. If you cut all their funding.
- [25:15]
A
Yeah, well, but what happens is. Well, it's a substantial amount of funding, but what happens is if the federal government, because it's primarily research funding that they're losing. And so, you know, those scientists or doctors or whatever path that those who are conducting all of that research are following, they can take, you know, they can take their research funding and move to a different university because they are the ones really who are doing the work. So the universities stand to lose the benefit, you know, of that funding. You know, and by the way, it is not the goal or the desire of the federal government to take away that funding, because our research universities provide unbelievable amount of very effective and good research and invention for the country. So we want to make sure that that research can continue. But they just need to know that they're going to have to operate within the confines of the law, you know, to do that.
- [26:27]
B
And now President Trump, when he gave you this appointment, said that he expected you to do yourself out of a job and basically wind down and siphon off the functions of the federal Department of Education, because really, it's duplicating all the work in the states, isn't it?
- [26:48]
A
It's duplicating much of the work in different agencies, also within the government. So there is that, you know, bureaucratic creep that can happen, you know, once an agency is established. I mean, you know, the Department of Education did not exist before 1980. It was established. It was established under President Carter. And since then, we've spent $3 trillion in education to watch our scores continue to decline. In the meantime, administrative levels in states and certainly administration, administrative levels throughout government, especially in the Department of Education, have just grown and grown. And who's being served by that? Clearly not our students. We have failed our students. This is a failed education system that we have within our country. And our students will be better served to reduce the regulatory burden that are attached to funds and grants that come through the Department of Education and let them go through agencies that already have in place where that work can be done as it was being done before there was a Department of Education. What we've been doing here at the department through, and I have the authority to do this, is to take a lot of the programs that have landed at the Department of Education or been developed here and to co administer them in other departments and to detail employees from the Department of Education to other departments. For instance, the Department of Labor, where we've looked at how can we better serve students under our WIOA programs and Perkins Grant programs. And for the first time, those applications can now be combined and saving on the regulatory burden of those who are applying. We've done interagency agreements with hhs, Department of State, with treasury for student loans, and Department of Interior for tribal education. All of these make incredible sense to better serve our students and to reduce the cost and the administration of these programs and to get bureaucracy out of education for our students.
- [29:11]
B
So do you think you'll be able to shut down the department?
- [29:13]
A
Well, we're certainly. I call what we're doing a proof of concept because Congress has to vote to do that. Congress had to vote to establish the Department of Education and to establish the position of a Secretary of Education. And they will have to vote to, you know, to dismantle the department. So my goal is hopefully to show them by the work that we're doing, and I've said this to them, let me show you. Let us prove that these agencies can take on this work, some of it existed in that agency before, or other programs have been put in place where it will be handled more efficiently, less costly, but with better results. And we do that. Then I'll ask for your vote.
- [29:55]
B
Now, this is your second time serving in the Trump administration. You served in the first Trump administration as small business administrator. Tell me what you see is different between the way Donald Trump is now compared to his first presidency.
- [30:15]
A
Well, first of all, let me say it's just the honor of a lifetime to serve, period. And I consider myself incredibly fortunate to have served, you know, in two, two administrations with the same president. And, and so I think there are differences, certainly President Trump, of himself, that he took that time in between the two elections, that he was reflective on the first one. He knew more what to expect from Congress, how to work more with Congress, all the things that he wanted to push through, the mistakes that he saw that the Biden administration made that he felt they were going to make. And he just, I mean, he hit the ground running full bore. You know, when he came back, he was ready to sign. I think he signed almost 50 executive orders, you know, in his first week. And he just knew where he wanted to go. And I've known him for 30 years, so he's a friend as well as a boss. I have great respect for him as president. And it's an honor to serve in his administration. And so he knows where he wants to go, where he wants to take the country. He is, of course, he was always very definitive and aggressive in his movements because he's loved this country for a long time. And as a businessman, he saw a lot of the mistakes that he believed were being made relative to trade, relative to being made as to apologize for America and not have America be first. And so his goal in making America first and making America great again, I think he is serving our country well in this administration.
- [32:02]
B
And does it feel as if this Cabinet is more cohesive than the first Cabinet when there seemed to be more turnover and also people who were actively working against him or sabotaging him perhaps?
- [32:17]
A
Well, you know, I am so much enjoying serving in this cabinet. And I think one of the things that makes it, I think, more collaborative and more cohesive is that many of us knew each other. We had known each other from the first administration, not necessarily from the Cabinet, but we'd known each other in the first administration. Some of us came from the America First Policy Institute, of which I was a very proud co founder. And we worked together and helped develop some policy, I think, that were along the lines that the President was thinking. We helped to provide some of that policy to the Domestic Policy Council and to the administration. And so we all, I think, work to have each other's back. And we work together with our programs. You know, for instance, I'm working now with the acting Secretary of Labor because we are mutually working for our short term workforce Pell programs, which came in effect under the Working Families Tax Cuts act to make sure that we can get schools to buy into these programs. And now the programs don't have to be 18 months to two years long. They can be six to eight weeks up to 15 weeks long and get people in the workforce faster. So we're working together on those programs. And I see the small business administrator, Kelly Loeffler out also working with different secretaries. And you just see that cooperation. And Friday morning I'll be over at the Department of Agriculture with Secretary Rollins addressing a group that are in from out of town that are going to be part of the National State Fair. And so it's really that kind of great cooperation which helps push policy forward and helps, I think, give confidence to the American public that this is an administration that is working, you know, hand in hand with each other.
- [34:18]
B
President Trump, you say you've known him for 30 years. Did you meet him through the, his love of wrestling. I know that he's been inducted into the WWE hall of Fame. When did you first meet him and how did you become fast friends?
- [34:36]
A
Well, we weren't social friends, we were business friends. And we did get to know each other because he loved to come to Madison Square Garden when World Wrestling Entertainment was at Madison Square Garden. And when he came, he was always at ringside and he just thoroughly enjoyed the entertainment value, the athletic value of the superstars who were in the ring. And then he participated in two or three of our television programs in a pay per view, which is how he became to be inducted into the hall of Fame. And so we did Battle of the Billionaires. Who could think that's exactly right. And he loves to say that he has the highest pay per view numbers. He was the Battle of the Billionaires. And so he has a big poster from that event hanging at the Trump International Golf Course down in up Palm Beach. So it's, it's fun to see that. And he still really enjoys wwe. And as you can see, UFC as well.
- [35:38]
B
Yes, it's the interesting thing about wow and UFC is it's morphed into the cage matches. The more, I don't know, realistic. I mean, they do actually punch each other's lights out, I think in the UFC cage matches, it. Was that an evolution that came from wwe?
- [36:01]
A
No, no. And they're very, very, very different. UFC is a sport.
- [36:07]
B
Right.
- [36:07]
A
You know, it, it combines different martial art forms and has its own set of rules. And it, it is a sport. WWE is sports entertainment. So there wasn't an evolution of one to the other. WWE is still very separate and distinct. UFC is very separate and distinct. Even though we are now co owned by tko, because that was a merger of companies, but not of product.
- [36:34]
B
But the. Yes, you're right, they're distinctly different because as you say, one's a real sport, but it just seems like all the razzmatazz and the entertainment and the sort of characters that you had in WWE and created those stories have translated now and become UFC's sort of branding.
- [36:59]
A
Well, I think UFC clearly, Dana White, I know very well, and I, I think that he saw it to take UFC from where it was to just, you know, not, not much of the pizzazz, et cetera. And I think he saw, you know, the success of what it would be like to have these characters and their personalities, but they are themselves the athlete. And even though they might have sort of showmanship qualities when they get in the octagon, if you will they're not living a role or a storyline. They are competing for that knight, for that title. But to have the showmanship and the pizzazz. Well, if you, I mean, just think back to Muhammad Ali, you know, when he got into the boxing ring, he was the first one, you know, to have, you know, the Ali shuffle. And so when anyone, and even in football today or other sports, you see characterizations. Because if you can associate and be entertained by personalities, you know, you're going to be attracted more, you know, for that sport or for that entertainment value. And so it's a good thing to, you know, to have a little razzmatazz and to create some, some excitement. And that's what fans like and that's what keeps coming them, keeps them coming back.
- [38:24]
B
You made a lot of people very happy with wwe. And was that something, I mean, you, you and your husband Vince, or your former husband Vince started, you know, brought that sort of wrestling entertainment, but you made it into a global phenomenon and you really ramped up the entertainment value. What made you realize that that was the future?
- [38:52]
A
Well, it wasn't my vision. Vince was the visionary for the entertainment value and the storyline creations and all of that. At wwe, I was more the business side. Occasionally I did, as we talked about earlier, appear in the ring and have a slight role to advance a storyline. But you know, for many, many years professional wrestling was called, oh, it's such a fake sport, you know, that was staged and all of that. And in point of fact, it was always a storyline. And so we realized that the real, the value, and it's along the lines of what I was just talking about. We created more of the show, quality aspect of it and the lights and the flashes and some of the bigger than life characterizations, I mean, who would have ever thought that a character called the Undertaker, which came to the ring, you know, accompanied by a man whose name was Paul Bearer, if you will, carrying an urn of ashes, could become one of the greatest, you know, sports phenomenons, you know, in the world. And so it is just that bit of fantasy combined with, I think, the most incredible athleticism that there is in the world. You know, there's no season to what WWE does. And these are the, I think, the most fit athletes in the world. They have great stuntman and women abilities, you know, in the ring and I think they are just marvelous to watch. It is, it is a great performance and with some risk taking, but they're clearly professionals in what they do. And I love to watch. I'm still a fan I love to sit and watch and watch the matches and because I don't know any of the outcomes or what's going to happen. And so I get caught up in the storyline as well.
- [40:57]
B
Did you have any favorites?
- [41:00]
A
Well, of course, you know, one, of course, my son in law is Triple H and my son was the character for a while and so truly their favorites. But Andre the Giant, I think Andre the Giant was a big favorite of mine because he literally was a giant, but just an incredible personality to get to know. So Stone Cold Steve Austin, you know, and Hulk Hogan, all of, you know, a lot of the, all of the greats, you can't say you ever have one favorite because they were all a necessary part of a story plot line because it always takes a protagonist and an antagonist to tell the story in the ring, which really was the culmination of some injustice that was going to have to be rectified, you know, through
- [41:49]
B
that match, good versus evil. Do you ever look at Donald Trump and his rallies and so on and think that he's borrowed quite a bit from wwe, you know, heels and the
- [42:03]
A
good guys, you know, I think he certainly enjoyed, you know, what we did and I think, you know, he has music at his rallies and, you know, and yes, he's, you know, he, there is some Persona that's attached to him, but I think when he comes on stage and he takes the microphone to talk about the policies that he's putting in place and where the United States needs to be, and when he's talking about putting America first, there's no storyline attached to that because he realized the seriousness of the decisions that he's making.
- [42:43]
B
Let's just go back, first of all to your childhood and what formed you. You were an only child and you were an army brat or a marine brat, I believe.
- [42:54]
A
No, but neither of my parents were in the service, but they were civilian employees at Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station in Cherry Point, North Carolina. So I grew up around service men and women, you know, all my life, and had such a great respect for them. So I was an only child and so. And I was an incredible tomboy. I was my father's son and my mother's daughter. My father taught me to play basketball. That was his sport. And when I started playing basketball, there weren't girls teams, you know, in schools, but our local recreation center had girls basketball and teams. And so I learned to play there. But the rules were very different then when I first started playing basketball, which really dates me back to the age when I was Playing. And my father came and watched a couple of games. And there was a girl that always guarded me and she was much taller than I was. And as soon as she put her arms up, I just couldn't shoot or get around her. She was much larger than I was. And so he took me home and he said, okay, we're going to fix this. And he showed me how to do a jump shot. Girls did not do jump shots. So he taught me how to do a fade away jump shot and a driving layup. And I hence then became a phenom of getting around this overbearing guard and learned to score against her. So I had a great childhood of having that kind of influence of both parents. You know, I did all of the girl things with my mom. I did the, you know, the tomboy things with my dad, which also included chores and mowing the lawn and learning how to repair the lawnmower and those kinds of things, and being my father's carpentry helper and learning all about which tools to use. And so I learned the tools to build something and the tools in the kitchen and how to cook and, and how to iron well. So I had a complete education from both parents. However, my mother was a budget analyst in the government. So I also had a mom who had a career. So I learned growing up that, you know, there were no barriers to what women could do because I never saw my mom stopped in any way from getting promotions or from doing the things that she wanted to do. So great role models on both sides
- [45:15]
B
and unusual really in those days for women to have a career. And I know that you're. That Vince McMahon, you met him when you were just very young And I think 13 and he was 17.
- [45:32]
A
Is that right? Yeah, 13, 14. And he was 17. We met in church.
- [45:36]
B
Yeah. And he, he was once quoted saying that your family was sort of like the perfect, you know, leave it to Beaverstyle family, whereas his wasn't.
- [45:45]
A
His was not. His parents were divorced. My parents, my parents had also been married. My mom was only 16 when she married my dad.
- [45:55]
B
Wow.
- [45:56]
A
He was almost 10 years older. But, but my mom was very young when she married my dad and Vince and I were very young when we got married. But he, he really did enjoy, you know, making. You know, I grew up in a small town in North Carolina, and so he enjoyed things like cooking out on the grill and, and making homemade ice cream on Sunday afternoons and being part of a neighborhood where people got together for cookouts and that sort of thing. He didn't have that as part of his life growing up. And I think he, I think he, he's often said he fell in love with my family before he did me. So I said, well, at least that wound up in there somewhere.
- [46:38]
B
And you were an incredible partnership for so long. And would it be fair to say that you were really the brains and the business behind Vince McMahon and then he was the sort of creative force of. Behind Linda Mann?
- [46:55]
A
I don't know that I would put it exactly that way. We had a great partnership. I think we each utilized the best skills that they had. I had really good business and organizational skills and attention to detail and all of those kinds of things. And he certainly had the creative genius and drive behind, I think, what made the product so great. And it was just an incredible partnership, you know, that we for many, many years built a company that, you know, became a global brand and then that we took public and is, you know, still today on the New York Stock Exchange under the TKO symbol now.
- [47:37]
B
And you managed to, while you were being CEO of this, like, growing business, you managed to bring up children at a time when, again, it wasn't so common for women to have a big career. How did you manage to juggle all of that?
- [47:55]
A
Well, you used the right word. It's juggle. And someone asked me, you know, well, you know, what is the balance? You know, what is the work life balance? In fact, my own daughter asked me that, you know, as she was sort of coming of age. And I said, well, you have to understand that it's never 50, 50, you know, some days it's 90, 10, some days it's 75, 25. And you just have to know that you're going to put your full force behind doing the best that you can. I tried very hard. I think I only missed one opening night play. I think I was, I didn't. I might have missed a couple of football games, but not very many. And so you, you do wedge the things in that are most important first and foremost for me was my family and my children especially. And so I wanted to make sure that they had the kind of parenting and the support, you know, that they needed. So we were. I was very fortunate to have some, some people who were helpful with my children when they were growing up. But I, I tried very hard not to be on the road. Vince traveled almost all the time, but I was mostly at home, you know, in the evenings and weekends, you know, with them, so wanted to make sure that they have always felt that they had the support that they needed at home and clearly the love of two parents who certainly love them very much.
- [49:22]
B
And you and Vince had a problem at one point with bankruptcy, and I think your car was repossessed and so on. How did you. How did that affect you and how did you get through?
- [49:35]
A
Well, you know, it's often the story I tell. I've told that story often, especially when I was the small business administrator, to let small business owners know, hey, I've walked in your shoes. I know what it's like to put everything you've got at risk and to lose it, and hopefully you won't lose it. I said, but I know what's that, what that's like. I was pregnant with Stephanie and we went bankrupt, and it's, you know, you just got to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and, and stay after it. I often say it's not how often you get knocked down, but it's how you get back up. And that's the philosophy that I've always given. And I've always said, don't be afraid to take risks because you have to fail some. I believe in order to understand what it means to be successful and to continue to strive to be successful and don't pay that much attention in the long run to being knocked down, but get back up because you know where you're going, you know what you want to do, learn from your mistakes. You know, don't. You know, don't, don't. The other thing I always advise the small businesses now today is manage your cash flow, because that is the one thing that will absolutely kill you in business if you are. If your cash flow is not solid and you start spending more than you're making because you're betting on something that you believe is going to be successful, and it might not be, but you've committed those funds and when you can't make payroll and you have to stop paying yourself and then you have to do other things or go bankrupt. That is a hard lesson. So pay attention to your cash flow.
- [51:17]
B
Can I ask you a couple of things? One is every cabinet member I have interviewed of Donald Trump has told me, you know, that they've suffered adversity in their youth. Almost every one of them has suffered some sort of adversity. Was there something that you ever suffered?
- [51:38]
A
Well, the bankruptcy. That was clearly in my youth.
- [51:41]
B
Yeah.
- [51:42]
A
But I didn't have any. I mean, I had. If anyone could write, you know, a fairy tale story of their childhood and growing up, I mean, I had two wonderful, loving parents, and I Just, you know, I love them. We had a wonderful home. I had great education and school life and friends. And so I didn't suffer any kind of adversity there. So I really think the biggest adversity in my youth was building a business and going bankrupt and having almost two children at that time and having to rebuild. And so but you know, when you're going through it and you know you're not going to let might have knocked you down, but you know, you're not going to let it keep you down. And that happened when we were in our 20s, so we were clearly young when that happened. And so we learned quickly from those mistakes and didn't repeat them.
- [52:36]
B
And do you, I hope you don't mind my asking, but do it seems sad that after you and your husband had gone through all that, that you're not together anymore. Is that something that you've resolved or that you still have heartache about?
- [52:48]
A
You know, I look at and Vince and I are, even though we're not together, we're still certainly friends. We have children and grandchildren together. We talk occasionally. And so it's something that's, you know, clearly resolved for me.
- [53:05]
B
Last question. What's the secret of success of all the people that you've met who've been successful and in your own career?
- [53:12]
A
I think it's akin to something I've already said. You cannot be afraid to take risks, but take measured risks and protect your downside. And I think one of the things I learned early on, even if you were, you know, had 20 bucks to go to Las Vegas and play the slot machines, don't bet on more than you can afford to lose.
- [53:34]
B
Great advice. Thanks so much, Secretary McMahon.
- [53:37]
A
Thank you so much. Been nice talking to you.
- [53:39]
B
You, too. Thanks for watching. Please hit the like and subscribe button and we'll be back with more great interviews next week.