Category: Academic Reportage

Source: – By Stan Meiburg, Executive Director, Sabin Center for Environment and Sustainability, Wake Forest University

To understand the federal government’s true priorities, follow the money.

After months of saying his administration is committed to clean air and water for Americans, President Donald Trump has proposed a detailed budget for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for fiscal year 2026. The proposal is more consistent with his administration’s numerous recent actions and announcements that reduce protection for public health and the environment.

To us, former EPA leaders – one a longtime career employee and the other a political appointee – the budget proposal reveals a lot about what Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin want to accomplish.

According to the administration’s Budget in Brief document, total EPA funding for the fiscal year beginning October 2025 would drop from US$9.14 billion to $4.16 billion – a 54% decrease from the budget enacted by Congress for fiscal 2025 and less than half of EPA’s budget in any year of the first Trump administration.

Without taking inflation into account, this would be the smallest EPA budget since 1986. Adjusted for inflation, it would be the smallest budget since the Ford administration, even though Congress has for decades given EPA more responsibility to clean up and protect the nation’s air and water; handle hazardous chemicals and waste; protect drinking water; clean up environmental contamination; and evaluate the safety of a wide range of chemicals used in commerce and industry. These expansions reflected a bipartisan consensus that protecting public health and the environment is a national priority.

The budget process in brief

Federal budgeting is complicated, and EPA’s budget is particularly so. Here are some basics:

Each year, the president and Congress determine how much money will be spent on what things, and by which agencies. The familiar aphorism that “the president proposes, Congress disposes” captures the Constitution’s process for the federal budget, with Congress firmly holding the “power of the purse.”

EPA’s budget can be difficult to understand because individual programs may be funded from different sources. It is useful to consider it as a pie sliced into five main pieces:

• Environmental programs and management: the day-to-day work of protecting air, water and land.
• Science and technology: research on pollution, health effects and new environmental tools.
• Superfund and trust funds: cleaning up contaminated sites and responding to emergency releases of pollution.
• State and Tribal operating grants: supporting local implementation of environmental laws.
• State capitalization grants: revolving loans for water infrastructure.

The Trump administration’s budget proposals for EPA represent a striking retreat from the national goals of clean air and clean water enacted in federal laws over the past 55 years. In the budget document, the administration argues that the federal government has done enough and that the protection of gains already achieved, as well as any further progress, should not be paid for with federal money.

This budget would reduce EPA’s ability to protect public health and the environment to a bare minimum at best. Most dramatic and, in our view, most significant are the elimination of operating grants to state governments, drastic reductions in funding for science of all kinds, and elimination of EPA programs relating to climate change and environmental justice, which addresses situations of disproportionate environmental harm to vulnerable populations. It would cut regulatory and enforcement activities that the administration sees as inconsistent with fossil energy development. Other proposed changes, notably for Superfund and capitalization grants, are more nuanced.

These changes to EPA’s regular budget allocation are separate from changes to supplementary EPA funding that have also been in the news, including for projects specified in the Inflation Reduction Act and other specific laws.

Environmental programs and management

Funding for basic work to protect the environment and prevent pollution would be cut by 22%. The reductions are not spread equally, however. All activities related to climate change would be eliminated, including the Energy Star program and greenhouse gas reporting and tracking. Funding for civil and criminal enforcement of environmental laws and regulations would be cut by 69% and 50%, respectively.

The popular Brownfields program would be cut by 50%. Since 1995, $2.9 billion in federal funds have produced public and private investments totaling $42 billion for cleaning and redeveloping contaminated sites, and created more than 200,000 jobs.

A program to set standards and conduct training for safe removal of lead paint and other lead-containing materials from homes and businesses would be eliminated.

The administration has been clear that EPA will no longer do environmental justice work, such as funding to monitor toxic air emissions in low-income neighborhoods adjacent to industrial areas. This budget is consistent with that.

Science and technology

Scientific support functions would be cut by 34%. The Office of Research and Development would go from about 1,500 staff to about 500 and would be redistributed throughout the agency. This would diminish science that supports not just EPA’s work but that of organizations, industries, health care professionals and public and private researchers who benefit from EPA’s research.

Superfund and other trust funds

Superfund is by far the largest of EPA’s cleanup trust funds. It allows EPA to clean up contaminated sites. It also forces the parties responsible for the contamination to either perform cleanups or reimburse the government for EPA-led cleanup work. When there is no viable responsible party, Superfund gives EPA the funds and authority to clean up contaminated sites.

Prior to 2021, Superfund was funded through EPA’s annual budget. In 2021 and 2022, Congress restored taxes on selected chemicals and petroleum products to help pay for Superfund. During the Biden administration, EPA reduced the Superfund’s line in the general budget, with the expectation that the Superfund tax revenues would more than make up for the reduction. Administrator Zeldin, who has said that site cleanup is a priority, is proposing to shift virtually all funding for cleanups to these new tax revenues.

There is risk in this approach, however. The Superfund tax expires in 2031 and has raised less than Treasury Department predictions in both 2023 and 2024. In fiscal year 2024, available tax receipts were predicted to be $2.5 billion, but only $1.4 billion was collected. Future funding is uncertain because it depends on the amounts of various chemicals that companies actually use. Experts disagree on whether this is significant for the Superfund program. The petrochemical industry, on whom this tax largely falls, is lobbying for its repeal.

Funds to address leaks at gas station tanks would be cut nearly in half. Funds to clean up oil and petroleum spills would be cut by 24%.

State operating grants

The budget proposal seeks to reset the EPA’s relationship with state agencies, which implement the vast majority of environmental regulations.

EPA has long delegated some of its powers to state environmental agencies, including permitting, inspections and enforcement of regulations that govern air, water and soil pollution. Since the 1970s, EPA has helped fund those activities through basic operating grants that require minimum state contributions and reward larger state investments with additional federal dollars.

The proposed budget would eliminate all of those grants to states – totaling $1 billion. The document itself explains that federal funding over decades has totaled “hundreds of billions of dollars” and has resulted in programs that “are mature or have accomplished their purpose.”

States disagree. They note that EPA has delegated 90% of the nation’s environmental protection work to state authorities, and states have accepted that workload based on the expectation of federal funding. The states say reduced funding would greatly diminish the actual work of environmental protection – site inspections, air and water monitoring, and enforcement – across the country.

State capitalization grants

Since 1987, EPA has given states money for revolving loan programs that provide low-interest loans to state and local governments to clean up waterways and provide safe drinking water. The proposed budget would cut that funding by 89%, from $2.8 billion to $305 million.

These capitalization grants were originally envisioned as seed money, with future loans available as the initial and subsequent loans were repaid. But the need for water infrastructure continues to grow, and Congress has for many years allocated additional money to the program.

In protecting the environment, you get what you pay for. In past years, Congress has refused to accept proposed drastic cuts to EPA’s budget. It remains to be seen whether this Congress will go along with these proposed rollbacks.

Stan Meiburg is a volunteer with the Environmental Protection Network. He was an employee of the Environmental Protection Agency from 1977 to 2017.

i have worked at the US EPA twice. During the Obama Administration, i was first principal deputy to the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation and then Acting Assistant Administrator. During the Biden Administration, I was Deputy Administrator. I am also a volunteer with the Environmental Protection Network.

– ref. What Trump’s budget proposal says about his environmental values – https://theconversation.com/what-trumps-budget-proposal-says-about-his-environmental-values-258962

Source: – By Mariah Meek, Associate Professor of Integrative Biology, Michigan State University

The largest tract of public land in the United States is a wild expanse of tundra and wetlands stretching across nearly 23 million acres of northern Alaska. It’s called the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, but despite its industrial-sounding name, the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, or NPR-A, is much more than a fuel depot.

Tens of thousands of caribou feed and breed in this area, which is the size of Maine. Migratory birds flock to its lakes in summer, and fish rely on the many rivers that crisscross the region.

The area is also vital for the health of the planet. However, its future is at risk.

The Trump administration announced a plan on June 17, 2025, to open nearly 82% of this fragile landscape to oil and gas development, including some of its most ecologically sensitive areas.

I am an ecologist, and I have been studying sensitive ecosystems and the species that depend on them for over 20 years. Disturbing this landscape and its wildlife could lead to consequences that are difficult – if not impossible – to reverse.

What is the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska?

The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska was originally designated in 1923 by President Warren Harding as an emergency oil supply for the U.S. Navy.

In the 1970s, its management was transferred to the Department of Interior under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act. This congressional act requires that, in addition to managing the area for energy development, the secretary of the interior must ensure the “maximum protection” of “any significant subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife, or historical or scenic value.”

The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for overseeing the reserve and identifying and protecting areas with important ecological or cultural values – aptly named “special areas.”

The Trump administration now plans to expand the amount of land available for drilling in the NPR-A from about 11.7 million acres to more than 18.5 million acres – including parts of those “special areas” – as part of its effort to increase U.S. oil drilling and reduce regulations on the industry.

I recently worked with scientists and scholars at The Wilderness Society to write a detailed report outlining many of the ecological and cultural values found across the reserve.

A refuge for wildlife

The reserve is a sanctuary for many Arctic wildlife, including caribou populations that have experienced sharp global declines in recent years.

The reserve’s open tundra provides critical calving, foraging, migratory and winter habitat for three of the four caribou herds on Alaska’s North Slope. These herds undertake some of the longest overland migrations on Earth. Infrastructure such as roads and industrial activity can disrupt their movement, further harming the populations’ health.

The NPR-A is also globally significant for migratory birds. Situated at the northern end of five major flyways, birds come here from all corners of the Earth, including all 50 states. It hosts some of the highest densities of breeding shorebirds anywhere on the planet.

An estimated 72% of Arctic Coastal Plain shorebirds – over 4.5 million birds – nest in the reserve. This includes the yellow-billed loon, the largest loon species in the world, with most of its U.S. breeding population concentrated in the reserve.

Expanding oil and gas development in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska could threaten these birds by disrupting their habitat and adding noise to the landscape.

Many other species also depend on intact ecosystems there.

Polar bears build dens in the area, making it critical for cub survival. Wolverines, which follow caribou herds, also rely on large, connected expanses of undisturbed habitat for their dens and food. Moose browse along the Colville River, the largest river on the North Slope, while peregrine falcons, gyrfalcons and rough-legged hawks nest on the cliffs above.

A large stretch of the Colville River is currently protected as a special area, but the Trump administration’s proposed plan will remove those protections. The Teshekpuk Lake special area, critical habitat for caribou and migrating birds, would also lose protection.

Indigenous communities in the Arctic, particularly the Iñupiat people, also depend on these lands, waters and wildlife for subsistence hunting and fishing. Their livelihoods, food security, cultural identity and spiritual practices are deeply intertwined with the health of this ecosystem.

Oil and gas drilling’s impact

The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska is vast, and drilling won’t occur across all of it. But oil and gas operations pose far-reaching risks that extend well beyond the drill sites.

Infrastructure like roads, pipelines, airstrips and gravel pads fragment and degrade the landscape. That can alter water flow and the timing of ice melt. It can also disrupt reproduction and migration routes for wildlife that rely on large, connected habitats.

Networks of winter ice roads and the way exploration equipment compacts the land can delay spring and early summer thawing patterns on the landscape. That can upset the normal pattern of meltwater, making it harder for shore birds to nest.

ConocoPhillips’ Willow drilling project, approved by the Biden administration in 2023 on the eastern side of the reserve, provides some insight into the potential impact: An initial project plan, later scaled back, included up to 575 miles (925 kilometers) of ice roads for construction, an air strip, more than 300 miles (nearly 485 kilometers) of new pipeline, a processing facility, a gravel mine and barge transportation, in addition to five drilling sites.

Many animals will try to steer clear of noise, light and human activity. Roads and industrial operations can force them to alter their behavior, which can affect their health and how well they can reproduce. Research has shown that caribou mothers with new calves avoid infrastructure and that this impact does not lessen over time of exposure.

At Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay, the largest oilfield in the U.S., decades of oil development have led to pollution, including hundreds of oil spills and leaks, and habitat loss, such as flooding and shoreline erosion, extensive permafrost thaw and damage from roads, construction and gravel mining. In short, the footprint of drilling is not confined to isolated locations — it radiates outward, undermining the ecological integrity of the region. Permafrost thaw now even threatens the stability of the oil industry’s own infrastructure.

Consequences for the climate

The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the surrounding Arctic ecosystem also play an outsized role in regulating the global climate.

Vast amounts of climate-warming carbon is currently locked away in the wetlands and permafrost of the tundra, but the Arctic is warming close to three times faster than the global average.

Roads, drilling and development can increase permafrost thaw and cause coastlines to erode, releasing carbon long locked in the soil. In addition, these operations will ultimately add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, further warming the planet.

The decisions made today will shape the future of the Arctic – and one of the last wild ecosystems in the United States – for generations to come.

Mariah Meek has received funding from the National Science Foundation, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and several state agencies. In addition to being a professor, she is also the director of research for The Wilderness Society, where she supervises a team of scientists doing research to understand ecological interactions in the Alaskan Arctic.

– ref. What’s at risk for Arctic wildlife if Trump expands oil drilling in the fragile National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska – https://theconversation.com/whats-at-risk-for-arctic-wildlife-if-trump-expands-oil-drilling-in-the-fragile-national-petroleum-reserve-alaska-259493

Source: – By Chris Vagasky, Meteorologist and Research Program Manager, University of Wisconsin-Madison

About 600 miles off the west coast of Africa, large clusters of thunderstorms begin organizing into tropical storms every hurricane season. They aren’t yet in range of Hurricane Hunter flights, so forecasters at the National Hurricane Center rely on weather satellites to peer down on these storms and beam back information about their location, structure and intensity.

The satellite data helps meteorologists create weather forecasts that keep planes and ships safe and prepare countries for a potential hurricane landfall.

Now, meteorologists are about to lose access to three of those satellites.

On June 25, 2025, the Trump administration issued a service change notice announcing that the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, DMSP, and the Navy’s Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center would terminate data collection, processing and distribution of all DMSP data no later than June 30. The data termination was postponed until July 31 following a request from the head of NASA’s Earth Science Division.

I am a meteorologist who studies lightning in hurricanes and helps train other meteorologists to monitor and forecast tropical cyclones. Here is how meteorologists use the DMSP data and why they are concerned about it going dark.

Looking inside the clouds

At its most basic, a weather satellite is a high-resolution digital camera in space that takes pictures of clouds in the atmosphere.

These are the satellite images you see on most TV weather broadcasts. They let meteorologists see the location and some details of a hurricane’s structure, but only during daylight hours.

Meteorologists can use infrared satellite data, similar to a thermal imaging camera, at all hours of the day to find the coldest cloud-top temperatures, highlighting areas where the highest wind speeds and rainfall rates are found.

But while visible and infrared satellite imagery are valuable tools for hurricane forecasters, they provide only a basic picture of the storm. It’s like a doctor diagnosing a patient after a visual exam and checking their temperature.

For more accurate diagnoses, meteorologists rely on the DMSP satellites.

The three satellites orbit Earth 14 times per day with special sensor microwave imager/sounder instruments, or SSMIS. These let meteorologists look inside the clouds, similar to how an MRI in a hospital looks inside a human body. With these instruments, meteorologists can pinpoint the storm’s low-pressure center and identify signs of intensification.

Precisely locating the center of a hurricane improves forecasts of the storm’s future track. This lets meteorologists produce more accurate hurricane watches, warnings and evacuations.

Hurricane track forecasts have improved by up to 75% since 1990. However, forecasting rapid intensification is still difficult, so the ability of DMPS data to identify signs of intensification is important.

About 80% of major hurricanes – those with wind speeds of at least 111 mph (179 kilometers per hour) – rapidly intensify at some point, ramping up the risks they pose to people and property on land. Finding out when storms are about to undergo intensification allows meteorologists to warn the public about these dangerous hurricanes.

Where are the defense satellites going?

NOAA’s Office of Satellite and Product Operations described the reason for turning off the flow of data as a need to mitigate “a significant cybersecurity risk.”

The three satellites have already operated for longer than planned.

The DMSP satellites were launched between 1999 and 2009 and were designed to last for five years. They have now been operating for more than 15 years. The United States Space Force recently concluded that the DMSP satellites would reach the end of their lives between 2023 and 2026, so the data would likely have gone dark soon.

Are there replacements for the DMSP satellites?

Three other satellites in orbit – NOAA-20, NOAA-21 and Suomi NPP – have a microwave instrument known as the advanced technology microwave sounder.

The advanced technology microwave sounder, or ATMS, can provide data similar to the special sensor microwave imager/sounder, or SSMIS, but at a lower resolution. It provides a more washed-out view that is less useful than the SSMIS for pinpointing a storm’s location or estimating its intensity.

The U.S. Space Force began using data from a new defense meteorology satellite, ML-1A, in late April 2025.

ML-1A is a microwave satellite that will help replace some of the DMSP satellites’ capabilities. However, the government hasn’t announced whether the ML-1A data will be available to forecasters, including those at the National Hurricane Center.

Why are satellite replacements last minute?

Satellite programs are planned over many years, even decades, and are very expensive. The current geostationary satellite program launched its first satellite in 2016 with plans to operate until 2038. Development of the planned successor for GOES-R began in 2019.

Similarly, plans for replacing the DMSP satellites have been underway since the early 2000s.

Delays in developing the satellite instruments and funding cuts caused the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System and Defense Weather Satellite System to be canceled in 2010 and 2012 before any of their satellites could be launched.

The 2026 NOAA budget request includes an increase in funding for the next-generation geostationary satellite program, so it can be restructured to reuse spare parts from existing geostationary satellites. The budget also terminates contracts for ocean color, atmospheric composition and advanced lightning mapper instruments.

A busy season remains

The 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June 1 to Nov. 30, is forecast to be above average, with six to 10 hurricanes. The most active part of the season runs from the middle of August to the middle of October, after the DMSP satellite data is set to be turned off.

Hurricane forecasters will continue to use all available tools, including satellite, radar, weather balloon and dropsonde data, to monitor the tropics and issue hurricane forecasts. But the loss of satellite data, along with other cuts to data, funding and staffing, could ultimately put more lives at risk.

Chris Vagasky is a member of the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association.

– ref. Hurricane forecasters are losing 3 key satellites ahead of peak storm season − a meteorologist explains why it matters – https://theconversation.com/hurricane-forecasters-are-losing-3-key-satellites-ahead-of-peak-storm-season-a-meteorologist-explains-why-it-matters-260190

Source: – By Zarrina Talan Azizova, Associate Professor of Education, Health and Behavior, University of North Dakota

At first glance, calls from members of Congress to restore academic merit in college admissions might sound like a neutral policy.

In our view, these campaigns often cherry-pick evidence and mask a coordinated effort that targets access and diversity in American colleges.

As scholars who study access to higher education, we have found that when these efforts are paired with pressure to reinstate standardized tests, they amount to a rollback of inclusive practices.

A Department of Education letter sent to congressional offices from Feb. 14, 2025, stated that is “unlawful for an educational institution to eliminate standardized testing to achieve a desired racial balance or to increase racial diversity.” The letter also claimed that the most widely used admissions tests, the SAT and ACT, are objective measures of merit.

In our recent peer-reviewed article, we analyzed more than 70 empirical studies about the SAT’s and ACT’s roles in college admissions. Our work found several flaws in how these exams function, especially for historically underserved students.

Measuring college readiness

Several elite universities – including Yale, Dartmouth and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – have reinstated SAT or ACT requirements, reversing test-optional policies that institutions expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic.

These changes have reignited debates about how well these tests measure students’ academic preparedness and how colleges should weigh them in admissions decisions.

During a May 21, 2025, hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development, some witnesses argued that using test scores allows colleges to admit students based on merit. Others maintained that test scores can function as barriers to higher education.

Our research shows that while these tests are statistically reliable – that is, they produce consistent results for students across subjects and during multiple attempts under similar conditions – they are not as valid as some argue.

High school grade-point averages are typically better predictors of students’ success in college than either test.

In addition, the tests are not equitable or similarly predictive for all students, especially given gender, race and socioeconomic demographics.

That is because they systematically favor those with more access to high-quality schooling, stable socioeconomic conditions and opportunities to engage with test prep coaches and courses. That test prep can cost thousands of dollars.

In short, both tests tend to reflect privilege more than potential.

For example, students from higher-income households routinely outperform their peers on the ACT and SAT.

This isn’t surprising, considering wealthier families can afford test prep services, private tutoring and test retakes. These advantages translate into higher scores and open doors to selective colleges and scholarship opportunities.

Meanwhile, students from low-income families often face challenges – such as less experienced instructors and less access to high-level science, math and advanced placement courses – that test scores do not factor in.

Reflecting deep inequities

In our published review, we found that these disparities aren’t incidental – they’re systemic.

Our review revealed long-standing evidence of bias in test design and differences in average scores along lines of race, gender and language background.

These outcomes don’t just reflect academic differences; they reflect inequities that shape how students prepare for and perform on these tests.

We also found that high school GPA outperforms standardized tests in predicting college success. GPA captures years of classroom performance, effort and teacher feedback. It reflects how students navigate real-world challenges, not just how they perform on a single timed exam.

For many students, particularly those from historically marginalized backgrounds, grades can offer a better indication of how prepared they are for college-level work.

This issue matters because admissions decisions aren’t just technical evaluations – they are value statements. Choosing to center test scores in admissions rewards certain kinds of knowledge, experiences and preparation.

The American Council on Education defines equity as opportunities for success. It means building educational environments that recognize diverse forms of potential and equip all learners to thrive.

It’s worth noting that research on testing often focuses on elite institutions, where standardized test scores are more likely to be used as high-stakes screening tools. Our systematic review found that, even in elite schools, the tests’ ability to accurately predict college academic performance is often limited (moderate in statistical terms).

But most college students attend state universities, public regional universities, minority-serving institutions, or colleges that accept most applicants. Our study found that at these institutions, standardized test scores are even less likely to predict how students will do.

This may be because state universities and public regional universities are more likely to serve highly diverse student populations, including older, part-time and first-generation students and those who are balancing work and family responsibilities.

Where does higher ed go from here?

With the debate over the role of standardized tests in the admissions process, higher education stands at a crossroads: Will colleges yield to political pressure and narrow definitions of merit and ignore equity? Or will institutions reaffirm their mission by embracing broader, fairer tools for recognizing talent and supporting student success?

The answer depends on what values are prioritized.

Our research and that of others make it clear that standardized tests should not be the gatekeepers of opportunity.

If universities define merit on test scores alone, they risk closing the doors of opportunity to capable students.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The hidden bias in college admissions tests: How standardized exams can favor privilege over potential – https://theconversation.com/the-hidden-bias-in-college-admissions-tests-how-standardized-exams-can-favor-privilege-over-potential-256967

Source: – By Murugan Anandarajan, Professor of Decision Sciences and Management Information Systems, Drexel University

Every year, I tell my students in my business analytics class the same thing: “Don’t just apply for a job. Audition for it.”

This advice seems particularly relevant this year. In today’s turbulent economy, companies are still hiring, but they’re doing it a bit more carefully. More places are offering candidates short-term work experiences like internships and co-op programs in order to evaluate them before making them full-time offers.

This is just one of the findings of the 2025 College Hiring Outlook Report. This annual report tracks trends in the job market and offers valuable insights for both job seekers and employers. It is based on a national survey conducted in September 2024, with responses from 1,322 employers spanning all major industries and company sizes, from small firms to large enterprises. The survey looks at employer perspectives on entry-level hiring trends, skills demand and talent development strategies.

I am a professor of information systems at Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business in Philadelphia, and I co-authored this report along with a team of colleagues at the Center for Career Readiness.

Here’s what we found:

Employers are rethinking talent pipelines

Only 21% of the 1,322 employers we surveyed rated the current college hiring market as “excellent” or “very good,” which is a dramatic drop from 61% in 2023. This indicates that companies are becoming increasingly cautious about how they recruit and select new talent.

While confidence in full-time hiring has declined, employers are not stepping away from hiring altogether. Instead, they’re shifting to paid and unpaid internships, co-ops and contract-to-hire roles as a less risky route to identify talent and “de-risk” full-time hiring.

Employers we surveyed described internships as a cost-effective talent pipeline, and 70% told us they plan to maintain or increase their co-op and intern hiring in 2025. At a time when many companies are tightening their belts, hiring someone who’s already proved themselves saves on onboarding reduces turnover and minimizes potentially costly mishires.

For job seekers, this makes every internship or short-term role more than a foot in the door. It’s an extended audition. Even with the general market looking unstable, interest in co-op and internship programs appears steady, especially among recent graduates facing fewer full-time opportunities.

These programs aren’t just about trying out a job. They let employers see if a candidate shows initiative, good judgment and the ability to work well on a team, which we found are traits employers value even more than technical skills.

What employers want

We found that employers increasingly prioritize self-management skills like adaptability, ethical reasoning and communication over technical skills such as digital literacy and cybersecurity. Employers are paying attention to how candidates behave during internships, how they take feedback, and whether they bring the mindset needed to grow with the company.

This reflects what I have observed in classrooms and in conversations with hiring managers: Credentials matter, but what truly sets candidates apart is how they present themselves and what they contribute to a company.

Based on co-op and internship data we’ve collected at Drexel, however, many students continue to believe that technical proficiency is the key to getting a job.

In my opinion, this disconnect reveals a critical gap in expectations: While students focus on hard skills to differentiate themselves, employers are looking for the human skills that indicate long-term potential, resilience and professionalism. This is especially true in the face of economic uncertainty and the ambiguous, fast-changing nature of today’s workplace.

Technology is changing how hiring happens

Employers also told us that artificial intelligence is now central to how both applicants and employers navigate the hiring process.

Some companies are increasingly using AI-powered platforms to transform their hiring processes. For example, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia uses platforms like HireVue to conduct asynchronous video interviews. HR-focused firms like Phenom and JJ Staffing Services also leverage technologies such as AI-based resume ranking, automated interview scheduling and one-way video assessments.

Not only do these tools speed up the hiring process, but they also reshape how employers and candidates interact. In our survey, large employers said they are increasingly relying on AI tools like resume screeners and one-way video interviews to manage large numbers of job applicants. As a result, the candidate’s presence, clarity in communication and authenticity are being evaluated even before a human recruiter becomes involved.

At the same time, job seekers are using generative AI tools to write cover letters, practice interviews or reformat resumes. These tools can help with preparation, but overreliance on them can backfire. Employers want authenticity, and many employers we surveyed mentioned they notice when applications seem overly robotic.

In my experience as a professor, the key is teaching students to use AI to enhance their effort and not replace it. I encourage them to leverage AI tools but always emphasize that the final output and the impression it makes should reflect their own thinking and professionalism. The bottom line is that hiring is still a human decision, and the personal impression you make matters.

This isn’t just about new grads

While our research focuses on early-career hiring, these findings apply to other audiences as well, such as career changers, returning professionals and even mid-career workers. These workers are increasingly being evaluated on their adaptability, behavior and collaborative ability – not just their experience.

Many companies now offer project-based assignments and trial roles that let them evaluate performance before making a permanent hire.

At the same time, employers are investing in internal reskilling and upskilling programs. Reskilling refers to training workers for entirely new roles, often in response to job changes or automation, while upskilling means helping employees deepen their current skills to stay effective and advance in their existing roles. Our report indicates that approximately 88% of large companies now offer structured upskilling and reskilling programs. For job seekers and workers alike, staying competitive means taking the initiative and demonstrating a commitment to learning and growth.

Show up early, and show up well

So what can students, or anyone entering or reentering the workforce, do to prepare?

• Start early. Don’t wait until senior year. First- and second-year internships are growing in importance.

• Sharpen your soft skills. Communication, time management, problem-solving and ethical behavior are top priorities for employers.

• Understand where work is happening. Over 50% of entry-level jobs are fully in-person. Only 4% are fully remote. Show up ready to engage.

• Use AI strategically. It’s a useful tool for research and practice, not a shortcut to connection or clarity.

• Stay curious. Most large employers now offer reskilling or upskilling opportunities – and they expect employees to take initiative.

One of the clearest takeaways from this year’s report is that hiring is no longer a one-time decision. It’s a performance process that often begins before an interview is even scheduled.

Whether you’re still in school, transitioning in your career or returning to the workforce after a break, the same principle applies: Every opportunity is an audition. Treat it like one.

Murugan Anandarajan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Companies haven’t stopped hiring, but they’re more cautious, according to the 2025 College Hiring Outlook Report – https://theconversation.com/companies-havent-stopped-hiring-but-theyre-more-cautious-according-to-the-2025-college-hiring-outlook-report-257870

Source: – By Meredith Oyen, Associate Professor of History and Asian Studies, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

President Donald Trump appears to have walked back plans for the U.S. State Department to scrutinize and revoke visas for Chinese students studying in the country.

On June 11, 2025, Trump posted on his social media platform TruthSocial that visas for Chinese students would continue and that they are welcome in the United States, as their presence “has always been good with me!”

The announcement came weeks after Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that his department would begin scrutinizing and revoking student visas for Chinese nationals with ties to the Chinese Communist Party, or whose studies are in critical fields.

The contradictory moves have led to confusion among Chinese students attending college or considering studying in the United States.

Over time, Chinese nationals have faced barriers to studying in the U.S. As a scholar who studies relations between the two nations, I argue that efforts to ban Chinese students in the United States are not unprecedented, and historically they have come with consequences.

Student visas under fire

Since the late 1970s, millions of Chinese students have been granted visas to study at American universities. That total includes approximately 277,000 who studied in the United States in the 2023-2024 academic year.

It is difficult to determine how many of these students would have been affected by a ban on visas for individuals with Chinese Community Party affiliations or in critical fields.

Approximately 40% of all new members of the Chinese Communist Party each year are drawn from China’s student population. And many universities in China have party connections or charters that emphasize party loyalty.

The “critical fields” at risk were not defined. A majority of Chinese students in the U.S. are enrolled in math, technology, science and engineering fields.

A long history

Yung Wing became the first Chinese student to graduate from a U.S. university in 1852.

Since then, millions of Chinese students have come to the United States to study, supported by programs such as the “Chinese Educational Mission,” Boxer Indemnity Fund scholarships and the Fulbright Program.

The Institute for International Education in New York estimated the economic impact of Chinese students in the U.S. at over US$14 billion a year. Chinese students tend to pay full tuition to their universities. At the graduate level, they perform vital roles in labs and classrooms. Just under half of all Chinese students attending college in the U.S. are graduate students.

However, there is a long history of equating Chinese migrants as invaders, spies or risks to national security.

After the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, the U.S. Department of Justice began to prevent Chinese scholars and students in STEM fields – science, technology, engineering and math – from returning to China by stopping them at U.S. ports of entry and exit. They could be pulled aside when trying to board a flight or ship and their tickets canceled.

In one infamous case, Chinese rocket scientist Qian Xuesen was arrested, harassed, ordered deported and prevented from leaving over five years from 1950 to 1955. In 1955, the United States and China began ambassadorial-level talks to negotiate repatriations from either country. After his experience, Qian became a much-lauded supporter of the Communist government and played an important role in the development of Chinese transcontinental missile technology.

During the 1950s, the U.S. Department of Justice raided Chinatown organizations looking for Chinese migrants who arrived under false names during the Chinese Exclusion Era, a period from the 1880s to 1940s when the U.S. government placed tight restrictions on Chinese immigration into the country. A primary justification for the tactics was fear that the Chinese in the U.S. would spy for their home country.

Between 1949 and 1979, the U.S and China did not have normal diplomatic relations. The two nations recognized each other and exchanged ambassadors starting in January 1979. In the more than four decades since, the number of Chinese students in the U.S. has increased dramatically.

Anti-Chinese discrimination

The idea of an outright ban on Chinese student visas has raised concerns about increased targeting of Chinese in the U.S. for harassment.

In 1999, Taiwanese-American scientist Wen Ho Lee was arrested on suspicion of using his position at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico to spy for China. Lee remained imprisoned in solitary confinement for 278 days before he was released without a conviction.

In 2018, during the first Trump administration, the Department of Justice launched its China Initiative. In its effort to weed out industrial, technological and corporate espionage, the initiative targeted many ethnic Chinese researchers and had a chilling effect on continued exchanges, but it secured no convictions for wrongdoing.

Trump again expressed concerns last year that undocumented migrants from China might be coming to the United States to spy or “build an army.”

The repeated search for spies among Chinese migrants and residents in the U.S. has created an atmosphere of fear for Chinese American communities.

Broader foreign policy context

The U.S. plan to revoke visas for students studying in the U.S. and the Chinese response is being formed amid contentious debates over trade.

Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Lin Jian accused the U.S. of violating an agreement on tariff reduction the two sides discussed in Geneva in May, citing the visa issues as one example.

Trump has also complained that the Chinese violated agreements between the countries, and some reports suggest that the announcement on student visas was a negotiating tactic to change the Chinese stance on the export of rare earth minerals.

When Trump announced his trade deal with China on June 11, he added a statement welcoming Chinese students.

However, past practice shows that the atmosphere of uncertainty and suspicion may have already damaged the climate for Chinese international students, and at least some degree of increased scrutiny of student visas will likely continue regardless.

Meredith Oyen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Trump administration’s conflicting messages on Chinese student visas reflect complex US-China relations – https://theconversation.com/trump-administrations-conflicting-messages-on-chinese-student-visas-reflect-complex-us-china-relations-258351

Source: – By Elizabeth Bettini, Assistant Professor of Special Education, Boston University

Teachers of color positively impact all students, including students of color with disabilities. Yet, the special education teacher workforce is overwhelmingly white.

In our recent research, we found that special education teacher demographics are not keeping pace with changes in the student population.

In 2012, about 80% of U.S. public school teachers were white, including about 80% of special education teachers, while less than 20% were teachers of color. By contrast, in the same year, students of color constituted 47% of those diagnosed with disabilities.

In our recent study, we examined whether these numbers have changed. Analyzing multiple national datasets on the teacher workforce, we found the proportion of special education teachers of color has been static, even as the student population is rapidly becoming more diverse.

So, the special education teacher workforce is actually becoming less representative of the student population over time. Specifically, in 2012, 16.5% of special education teachers were people of color, compared with 17.1% in 2021. In that same span, the share of students with disabilities who are students of color rose from 47.3% in 2012 to 53.9% in 2021.

In fact, for the special education teacher workforce to become representative of the student population, U.S. schools would need to triple the number of special education teachers of color.

As scholars who study teacher recruitment and retention and teacher working conditions, we are concerned that this disparity will affect the quality of education students receive.

Why does a diverse teacher workforce matter?

For children of color, the research is clear: Teachers of color are, on average, more effective than white teachers in providing positive educational experiences and outcomes for students of color, including students of color with disabilities.

One study found that low-income Black male students who had one Black teacher in third, fourth or fifth grade were 39% less likely to drop out of high school and 29% more likely to enroll in college.

Moreover, teachers of color are just as effective as white teachers – and sometimes more effective – in teaching white students.

Providing pathways

The U.S. has institutions dedicated to attracting and retaining educators of color: Programs at historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions and other minority-serving institutions prepare a substantial number of new teachers of color annually.

Further, many local initiatives support educators of color and attract teachers who might not otherwise have opportunities to join the profession.

These include: Grow Your Own programs that recruit effective teachers of color from local communities, teacher residency programs that help schools retain teachers of color, and
scholarships and loan forgiveness programs that support all teachers, including teachers of color.

However, the U.S. educator workforce faces broad challenges with declining interest in the teaching profession and declining enrollment in teacher preparation programs. In this context, our findings indicate that without significant investments, the teacher workforce is likely to remain predominately white – at significant cost to students with disabilities.

Anti-DEI movement cuts funding

While there have been long-standing challenges, recent steps taken by the Trump administration could limit efforts to boost teacher diversity.

In its push to end diversity, equity and inclusion programs, the administration has cut grant funding for programs designed to develop a diverse educator workforce.

The administration has also cut millions of dollars dedicated to training teachers to work in underfunded, high-poverty schools and has threatened additional funding cuts to universities engaging in equity-based work.

These federal actions make the teacher workforce less adept at addressing the substantial challenges facing U.S. schools, such as declining interest in the teaching profession and and persistent racial disparities in student outcomes.

Given the strong evidence of the benefits of teachers of color and the national trends that our research uncovered, federal and state investments should prioritize supporting prospective teachers of color.

Elizabeth Bettini’s research has been funded by the US Department of Education’s National Center for Special Education Research within the Institute of Education Sciences, the US Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs, and the Spencer Foundation. She is affiliated with the Council for Exceptional Children’s Division for Research and Teacher Education Division, for which she edits the journal Teacher Education and Special Education.

LaRon A. Scott has received funding from the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs. He is affiliated with the Council for Exceptional Children’s Teacher Education Division and the American Association for Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

Tuan D. Nguyen receives funding from the National Science Foundation to do work around STEM teachers and computer science education.

– ref. Diversifying the special education teacher workforce could benefit US schools – https://theconversation.com/diversifying-the-special-education-teacher-workforce-could-benefit-us-schools-254916

Source: – By Daniel S. Schiff, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Purdue University

It is “the policy of the United States to promote AI literacy and proficiency among Americans,” reads an executive order President Donald Trump issued on April 23, 2025. The executive order, titled Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth, signals that advancing AI literacy is now an official national priority.

This raises a series of important questions: What exactly is AI literacy, who needs it, and how do you go about building it thoughtfully and responsibly?

The implications of AI literacy, or lack thereof, are far-reaching. They extend beyond national ambitions to remain “a global leader in this technological revolution” or even prepare an “AI-skilled workforce,” as the executive order states. Without basic literacy, citizens and consumers are not well equipped to understand the algorithmic platforms and decisions that affect so many domains of their lives: government services, privacy, lending, health care, news recommendations and more. And the lack of AI literacy risks ceding important aspects of society’s future to a handful of multinational companies.

How, then, can institutions help people understand and use – or resist – AI as individuals, workers, parents, innovators, job seekers, students, employers and citizens? We are a policy scientist and two educational researchers who study AI literacy, and we explore these issues in our research.

What AI literacy is and isn’t

At its foundation, AI literacy includes a mix of knowledge, skills and attitudes that are technical, social and ethical in nature. According to one prominent definition, AI literacy refers to “a set of competencies that enables individuals to critically evaluate AI technologies; communicate and collaborate effectively with AI; and use AI as a tool online, at home, and in the workplace.”

AI literacy is not simply programming or the mechanics of neural networks, and it is certainly not just prompt engineering – that is, the act of carefully writing prompts for chatbots. Vibe coding, or using AI to write software code, might be fun and important, but restricting the definition of literacy to the newest trend or the latest need of employers won’t cover the bases in the long term. And while a single master definition may not be needed, or even desirable, too much variation makes it tricky to decide on organizational, educational or policy strategies.

Who needs AI literacy? Everyone, including the employees and students using it, and the citizens grappling with its growing impacts. Every sector and sphere of society is now involved with AI, even if this isn’t always easy for people to see.

Exactly how much literacy everyone needs and how to get there is a much tougher question. Are a few quick HR training sessions enough, or do we need to embed AI across K-12 curricula and deliver university micro credentials and hands-on workshops? There is much that researchers don’t know, which leads to the need to measure AI literacy and the effectiveness of different training approaches.

Measuring AI literacy

While there is a growing and bipartisan consensus that AI literacy matters, there’s much less consensus on how to actually understand people’s AI literacy levels. Researchers have focused on different aspects, such as technical or ethical skills, or on different populations – for example, business managers and students – or even on subdomains like generative AI.

A recent review study identified more than a dozen questionnaires designed to measure AI literacy, the vast majority of which rely on self-reported responses to questions and statements such as “I feel confident about using AI.” There’s also a lack of testing to see whether these questionnaires work well for people from different cultural backgrounds.

Moreover, the rise of generative AI has exposed gaps and challenges: Is it possible to create a stable way to measure AI literacy when AI is itself so dynamic?

In our research collaboration, we’ve tried to help address some of these problems. In particular, we’ve focused on creating objective knowledge assessments, such as multiple-choice surveys tested with thorough statistical analyses to ensure that they accurately measure AI literacy. We’ve so far tested a multiple-choice survey in the U.S., U.K. and Germany and found that it works consistently and fairly across these three countries.

There’s a lot more work to do to create reliable and feasible testing approaches. But going forward, just asking people to self-report their AI literacy probably isn’t enough to understand where different groups of people are and what supports they need.

Approaches to building AI literacy

Governments, universities and industry are trying to advance AI literacy.

Finland launched the Elements of AI series in 2018 with the hope of educating its general public on AI. Estonia’s AI Leap initiative partners with Anthropic and OpenAI to provide access to AI tools for tens of thousands of students and thousands of teachers. And China is now requiring at least eight hours of AI education annually as early as elementary school, which goes a step beyond the new U.S. executive order. On the university level, Purdue University and the University of Pennsylvania have launched new master’s in AI programs, targeting future AI leaders.

Despite these efforts, these initiatives face an unclear and evolving understanding of AI literacy. They also face challenges to measuring effectiveness and minimal knowledge on what teaching approaches actually work. And there are long-standing issues with respect to equity − for example, reaching schools, communities, segments of the population and businesses that are stretched or under-resourced.

Next moves on AI literacy

Based on our research, experience as educators and collaboration with policymakers and technology companies, we think a few steps might be prudent.

Building AI literacy starts with recognizing it’s not just about tech: People also need to grasp the social and ethical sides of the technology. To see whether we’re getting there, we researchers and educators should use clear, reliable tests that track progress for different age groups and communities. Universities and companies can try out new teaching ideas first, then share what works through an independent hub. Educators, meanwhile, need proper training and resources, not just additional curricula, to bring AI into the classroom. And because opportunity isn’t spread evenly, partnerships that reach under-resourced schools and neighborhoods are essential so everyone can benefit.

Critically, achieving widespread AI literacy may be even harder than building digital and media literacy, so getting there will require serious investment – not cuts – to education and research.

There is widespread consensus that AI literacy is important, whether to boost AI trust and adoption or to empower citizens to challenge AI or shape its future. As with AI itself, we believe it’s important to approach AI literacy carefully, avoiding hype or an overly technical focus. The right approach can prepare students to become “active and responsible participants in the workforce of the future” and empower Americans to “thrive in an increasingly digital society,” as the AI literacy executive order calls for.

The Conversation will be hosting a free webinar on practical and safe use of AI with our tech editor and an AI expert on June 24 at 2pm ET/11am PT. Sign up to get your questions answered.

Funding from Google Research helped to support part of the authors’ research on AI literacy.

Funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research under the funding code 16DHBKI051 helped to support part of the authors’ research on AI literacy.

Arne Bewersdorff does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. AI literacy: What it is, what it isn’t, who needs it and why it’s hard to define – https://theconversation.com/ai-literacy-what-it-is-what-it-isnt-who-needs-it-and-why-its-hard-to-define-256061

Source: – By Heidi Hausse, Associate Professor of History, Auburn University

To think about an artificial limb is to think about a person. It’s an object of touch and motion made to be used, one that attaches to the body and interacts with its user’s world.

Historical artifacts of prosthetic limbs are far removed from this lived context. Their users are gone. They are damaged – deteriorated by time and exposure to the elements. They are motionless, kept on display or in museum storage.

Yet, such artifacts are rare direct sources into the lives of historical amputees. We focus on the tools amputees used in 16th- and 17th-century Europe. There are few records written from amputees’ perspectives at that time, and those that exist say little about what everyday life with a prosthesis was like.

Engineering offers historians new tools to examine physical evidence. This is particularly important for the study of early modern mechanical hands, a new kind of prosthetic technology that appeared at the turn of the 16th century. Most of the artifacts are of unknown provenance. Many work only partially and some not at all. Their practical functions remain a mystery.

But computer-aided design software can help scholars reconstruct the artifacts’ internal mechanisms. This, in turn, helps us understand how the objects once moved.

Even more exciting, 3D printing lets scholars create physical models. Rather than imagining how a Renaissance prosthesis worked, scholars can physically test one. It’s a form of investigation that opens new possibilities for exploring the development of prosthetic technology and user experience through the centuries. It creates a trail of breadcrumbs that can bring us closer to the everyday experiences of premodern amputees.

But what does this work, which brings together two very different fields, look like in action?

What follows is a glimpse into our experience of collaboration on a team of historians and engineers, told through the story of one week. Working together, we shared a model of a 16th-century prosthesis with the public and learned a lesson about humans and technology in the process.

A historian encounters a broken model

THE HISTORIAN: On a cloudy day in late March, I walked into the University of Alabama Birmingham’s Center for Teaching and Learning holding a weatherproof case and brimming with excitement. Nestled within the case’s foam inserts was a functioning 3D-printed model of a 500-year-old prosthetic hand.

Fifteen minutes later, it broke.

For two years, my team of historians and engineers at Auburn University had worked tirelessly to turn an idea – recreating the mechanisms of a 16th-century artifact from Germany – into reality. The original iron prosthesis, the Kassel Hand, is one of approximately 35 from Renaissance Europe known today.

As an early modern historian who studies these artifacts, I work with a mechanical engineer, Chad Rose, to find new ways to explore them. The Kassel Hand is our case study. Our goal is to learn more about the life of the unknown person who used this artifact 500 years ago.

Using 3D-printed models, we’ve run experiments to test what kinds of activities its user could have performed with it. We modeled in inexpensive polylactic acid – plastic – to make this fragile artifact accessible to anyone with a consumer-grade 3D printer. But before sharing our files with the public, we needed to see how the model fared when others handled it.

An invitation to guest lecture on our experiments in Birmingham was our opportunity to do just that.

We brought two models. The main release lever broke first in one and then the other. This lever has an interior triangular plate connected to a thin rod that juts out of the wrist like a trigger. After pressing the fingers into a locked position, pulling the trigger is the only way to free them. If it breaks, the fingers become stuck.

I was baffled. During testing, the model had lifted a 20-pound simulation of a chest lid by its fingertips. Yet, the first time we shared it with a general audience, a mechanism that had never broken in testing simply snapped.

Was it a printing error? Material defect? Design flaw?

We consulted our Hand Whisperer: our lead student engineer whose feel for how the model works appears at times preternatural.

An engineer becomes a hand whisperer

THE ENGINEER: I was sitting at my desk in Auburn’s mechanical engineering 3D print lab when I heard the news.

As a mechanical engineering graduate student concentrating on additive manufacturing, commonly known as 3D printing, I explore how to use this technology to reconstruct historical mechanisms. Over the two years I’ve worked on this project, I’ve come to know the Kassel Hand model well. As we fine-tuned designs, I’ve created and edited its computer-aided design files – the digital 3D constructions of the model – and printed and assembled its parts countless times.

Examining parts midassembly is a crucial checkpoint for our prototypes. This quality control catches, corrects and prevents any defects, such as misprinted or damaged parts. It’s crucial for creating consistent and repeatable experiments. A new model version or component change never leaves the lab without passing rigorous inspection. This process means there are ways this model has behaved over time that the rest of the team has never seen. But I have.

So when I heard the release lever had broken in Birmingham, it was just another Thursday. While it had never snapped when we tested the model on people, I’d seen it break plenty of times while performing checks on components.

After all, the model is made from relatively weak polylactic acid. Perhaps the most difficult part of our work is making a plastic model as durable as possible while keeping it visually consistent with the 500-year-old original. The iron rod of the artifact’s lever can handle more force than our plastic version, at least five times the yield strength.

I suspected the lever had snapped because people pulled the trigger too far back and too quickly. The challenge, then, was to prevent this. But redesigning the lever to be thicker or a different shape would make it less like the historical artifact.

This raised the question: Why could I use the model without breaking the lever, but no one else could?

The team makes a plan

THE TEAM: A flurry of discussion led to growing consensus – the crux of the issue was not the model, it was the user.

The original Kassel Hand’s wearer would have learned to use their prosthesis through practice. Likewise, our team had learned to use the model over time. Through the process of design and development, prototyping and printing, we were inadvertently practicing how to operate it.

We needed to teach others to do the same. And this called for a two-pronged approach.

The engineers reexamined the opening through which the release trigger poked out of the model. They proposed shortening it to limit how far back users could pull it. When we checked how this change would affect the model’s accuracy, we found that a smaller opening was actually closer to the artifact’s dimensions. While the larger opening had been necessary for an earlier version of the release lever that needed to travel farther, now it only caused problems. The engineers got to work.

The historians, meanwhile, created plans to document and share the various techniques to operating the model the team hadn’t realized it had honed. To teach someone at home how to operate their own copy, we filmed a short video explaining how to lock and release the fingers and troubleshoot when a finger sticks.

Testing the plan

Exactly one week after what we called “the Birmingham Break,” we shared the model with a general audience again. This time we visited a colleague’s history class at Auburn.

We brought four copies. Each had an insert to shorten the opening around the trigger. First, we played our new instructional video on a projector. Then we turned the models over to the students to try.

The result? Not a single broken lever. We publicly launched the project on schedule.

The process of introducing the Kassel Hand model to the public highlights that just as the 16th-century amputee who wore the artifact had to learn to use it, one must learn to use the 3D-printed model, too.

It is a potent reminder that technology is not just a matter of mechanisms and design. It is fundamentally about people – and how people use it.

Heidi Hausse received funding from the Herzog August Bibliothek; the Consortium for History of Science, Technology and Medicine; the American Council of Learned Societies; the Huntington Library; the Society of Fellows in the Humanities at Columbia University; and the Renaissance Society of America.

Peden Jones received funding from Renaissance Society of America.

– ref. 3D-printed model of a 500-year-old prosthetic hand hints at life of a Renaissance amputee – https://theconversation.com/3d-printed-model-of-a-500-year-old-prosthetic-hand-hints-at-life-of-a-renaissance-amputee-256670

Source: – By Michael R. Allen, Visiting Assistant Professor of History, West Virginia University

President Donald Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2026 discretionary budget is called a “skinny budget” because it’s short on line-by-line details.

But historic preservation efforts in the U.S. did get a mention – and they might as well be skinned to the bone.

Trump has proposed to slash funding for the federal Historic Preservation Fund to only $11 million, which is $158 million less than the fund’s previous reauthorization in 2024. The presidential discretionary budget, however, always heads to Congress for appropriation. And Congress always makes changes.

That said, the Trump administration hasn’t even released the $188 million that Congress appropriated for the fund for the 2025 fiscal year, essentially impounding the funding stream that Congress created in 1976 for historic preservation activities across the nation.

I’m a scholar of historic preservation who’s worked to secure historic designations for buildings and entire neighborhoods. I’ve worked on projects that range from making distressed neighborhoods in St. Louis eligible for historic tax credits to surveying Cold War-era hangars and buildings on seven U.S. Air Force bases.

I’ve seen the ways in which the Historic Preservation Fund helps local communities maintain and rehabilitate their rich architectural history, sparing it from deterioration, the wrecking ball or the pressures of the private market.

A rare, deficit-neutral funding model

Most Americans probably don’t realize that the task of historic preservation largely falls to individual states and Native American tribes.

The National Historic Preservation Act that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law in 1966 requires states and tribes to handle everything from identifying potential historic sites to reviewing the impact of interstate highway projects on archaeological sites and historic buildings. States and tribes are also responsible for reviewing nominations of sites in the National Register of Historic Places, the nation’s official list of properties deemed worthy of preservation.

However, many states and tribes didn’t have the capacity to adequately tackle the mandates of the 1966 act. So the Historic Preservation Fund was formed a decade later to alleviate these costs by funneling federal resources into these efforts.

The fund is actually the product of a conservative, limited-government approach.

Created during Gerald Ford’s administration, it has a revenue-neutral model, meaning that no tax dollars pay for the program. Instead, it’s funded by private lease royalties from the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas reserves.

Most of these reserves are located in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska. Private companies that receive a permit to extract from them must agree to a lease with the federal government. Royalties from their oil and gas sales accrue in federally controlled accounts under the terms of these leases. The Office of Natural Resources Revenue then directs 1.5% of the total royalties to the Historic Preservation Fund.

Congress must continually reauthorize the amount of funding reserved for the Historic Preservation Fund, or it goes unfunded.

Despite bipartisan support, the fund has been threatened in the past. President Ronald Reagan attempted to do exactly what Trump is doing now by making no request for funding at all in his 1983 budget. Yet the fund has nonetheless been reauthorized six times since its inception, with terms ranging from five to 10 years.

The program is a crucial source of funding, particularly in small towns and rural America, where privately raised cultural heritage funds are harder to come by. It provides grants for the preservation of buildings and geographical areas that hold historical, cultural or spiritual significance in underrepresented communities. And it’s even involved in projects tied to the nation’s 250th birthday in 2026, such as the rehabilitation of the home in New Jersey where George Washington was stationed during the winter of 1778-79 and the restoration of Rhode Island’s Old State House.

Filling financial gaps

I’ve witnessed the fund’s impact firsthand in small communities across the nation.

Edwardsville, Illinois, a suburb of St. Louis, is home to the Leclaire Historic District. In the 1970s, it was added to the National Register of Historic Places. The national designation recognized the historic significance of the district, protecting it against any adverse impacts from federal infrastructure funding. It also made tax credits available to the town. Edwardsville then designated LeClaire a local historic district so that it could legally protect the indelible architectural features of its homes, from original decorative details to the layouts of front porches.

Despite the designation, however, there was no clear inventory of the hundreds of houses in the district. A few paid staffers and a volunteer citizen commission not only had to review proposed renovations and demolitions, but they also had to figure out which buildings even contributed to LeClaire’s significance and which ones did not – and thus did not need to be tied up in red tape.

Edwardsville was able to secure a grant through the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office thanks to a funding match enabled by money disbursed to Illinois via the Historic Preservation Fund.

In 2013, my team created an updated inventory of the historic district, making it easier for the local commission to determine which houses should be reviewed carefully and which ones don’t need to be reviewed at all.

Oil money better than no money

The historic preservation field, not surprisingly, has come out strongly against Trump’s proposal to defund the Historic Preservation Fund.

Nonetheless, there have been debates within the field over the fund’s dependence on the fossil fuel industry, which was the trade-off that preservationists made decades ago when they crafted the funding model.

In the 1970s, amid the national energy crisis, conservation of existing buildings was seen as a worthy ecological goal, since demolition and new construction required fossil fuels. To preservationists, diverting federal carbon royalties seemed like a power play.

But with the effects of climate change becoming impossible to ignore, some preservationists are starting to more openly critique both the ethics and the wisdom of tapping into a pool of money created through the profits of the oil and gas industry. I’ve recently wondered myself if continued depletion of fossil fuels means that preservationists won’t be able to count on the Historic Preservation Fund as a long-term source of funding.

That said, you’d be hard-pressed to find a preservationist who thinks that destroying the Historic Preservation Fund would be a good first step in shaping a more visionary policy.

For now, Trump’s administration has only sown chaos in the field of historic preservation. Already, Ohio has laid off one-third of the staffers in its State Historic Preservation Office due to the impoundment of federal funds. More state preservation offices may follow suit. The National Council of State Historic Preservation Officers predicts that states soon could be unable to perform their federally mandated duties.

Unfortunately, many people advocating for places important to their towns and neighborhoods may end up learning the hard way just what the Historic Preservation Fund does.

Michael R. Allen is a member of the Advisor Leadership Team of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

– ref. Trump administration aims to slash funds that preserve the nation’s rich architectural and cultural history – https://theconversation.com/trump-administration-aims-to-slash-funds-that-preserve-the-nations-rich-architectural-and-cultural-history-258889