Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Dinesh Phuyal, Postdoctoral Associate in Soil, Water and Ecosystem Sciences, University of Florida

When people think about agricultural pollution, they often picture what is easy to see: fertilizer spreaders crossing fields or muddy runoff after a heavy storm. However, a much more significant threat is quietly and invisibly building in the ground.

Across some of the most productive farmland in the United States, a nutrient called phosphorus has been accumulating in the soil for decades, at levels far beyond what crops actually require. While this element is essential for life-supporting root development and cellular chemistry to grow food, too much of it in the wrong places has become a growing environmental liability.

I’m part of a research effort to figure out how much phosphorus is already in the soil, to then determine how much more, if any, to add to particular fields.

Why farmers add phosphorus in the first place

Phosphorus is one of the three primary nutrients plants require for growth, along with nitrogen and potassium. Without enough phosphorus, crops struggle and production suffers.

For decades, applying phosphorus fertilizer has been a kind of insurance policy in American agriculture. If farmers weren’t sure how much was already in the soil, adding a little extra seemed safer than risking a shortfall. Fertilizer was relatively inexpensive, and the long-term consequences were poorly understood.

Unlike nitrogen, which easily escapes from soil into the air or groundwater, phosphorus sticks to soil particles. Once it’s added, it tends to remain in place. That trait made phosphorus seem environmentally benign.

However, phosphorus can still be carried off fields when rain or irrigation water erodes phosphorus-rich soil, or some of the built-up phosphorus dissolves into runoff.

Years of application have led to something no one initially planned for: accumulation.

How much phosphorus has built up?

Since the mid-20th century, farmers across the United States have applied hundreds of millions of tons of phosphorus fertilizer. From 1960 to 2007, phosphate fertilizer consumption in the U.S. increased from approximately 5.8 million metric tons per year to over 8.5 million metric tons annually.

In more recent decades, fertilizer use has continued to rise. In corn production alone, phosphorus applications increased by nearly 30% between 2000 and 2018. Crops absorb some of that phosphorus as they grow, but not all of it. Over time, the excess has piled up in soils.

In many regions across the United States, soil phosphorus levels are now far higher than what crops actually require. In parts of Florida, for example, some agricultural soils contain phosphorus concentrations more than 10 times above levels considered sufficient for healthy plant growth.

Scientists call this buildup “legacy phosphorus.” It’s a reminder that today’s environmental challenges are often the result of yesterday’s well-intentioned decisions.

When soil phosphorus becomes a water problem

If phosphorus stayed locked in the soil, farmers would have wasted money on fertilizer they didn’t need. And excess phosphorus in soil can hinder the uptake of essential plant micronutrients and alter the soil microbial community, reducing diversity that is important for good soil health.

Unfortunately, phosphorus doesn’t always remain in place. Rainfall, irrigation and drainage can transport phosphorus – either dissolved in water or attached to eroded soil particles – into nearby canals, streams, rivers and lakes. Once there, it becomes food for algae.

The result can be explosive algal growth, known as eutrophication, which turns clear water a cloudy green. When these algae blooms die, their decomposition consumes oxygen, sometimes creating low-oxygen “dead zones” where fish and other aquatic life struggle to survive. This process is primarily driven by phosphorus leaching, as seen in the Florida Everglades.

Another prime example is the largest dead zone in the United States, covering about 6,500 square miles (16,835 square kilometers), which forms each summer in the Gulf of Mexico. Cutting back on nitrogen without lowering phosphorus can worsen eutrophication.

Some algal blooms also produce toxins that threaten drinking water supplies. Communities downstream may be told not to drink or touch the water, and face high treatment costs and lost recreational opportunities. National assessments document toxins associated with algal blooms in many states, particularly where warm temperatures and nutrient pollution overlap.

Rising global temperatures are exacerbating the problem. Warmer waters hold less oxygen than colder waters, increasing the likelihood that phosphorus pollution will trigger eutrophication and dead zones.

Flawed testing hid the problem

Given the risks, a natural question arises: Why don’t farmers simply stop adding phosphorus where it isn’t needed?

Part of the answer lies in how the amount of phosphorus in the soil is measured. Most soil tests used today were developed decades ago and were designed to work reasonably well across many soil types. But soils are incredibly diverse. Some are sandy; others are rich in organic matter formed from centuries of decayed plants.

And those traditional soil tests use acids to extract phosphorus from the soil, delivering inaccurate findings of how much phosphorus plants can actually access. For instance, in soils that have more than 20% organic matter, like those found in parts of Florida and other agricultural regions, the tests’ acids may be partially neutralized by other compounds in the soil. That would mean they don’t collect as much phosphorus as really exists.

In addition, the tests determine a total quantity of phosphorus in the soil, but not all of that is in a form plants can take up through their roots. So soil where tests find high phosphorus levels may have very little available to plants. And low levels can be found in soil that has sufficient phosphorus for plant growth.

When farmers follow the recommendations that result from these inaccurate tests, they may apply fertilizer that provides little benefit to crops while increasing the risk of pollution. This isn’t a failure of farmers. It’s a mismatch between outdated tools and complex soils.

A smarter way forward

The solution isn’t to eliminate phosphorus fertilization. Crops still need it, and many soils genuinely require additional nutrients. The challenge is knowing when enough is truly enough.

Researchers, including me, are developing improved testing methods that better reflect how plants actually interact with soil. Some approaches mimic plants’ root behavior directly, estimating how much phosphorus crops can realistically take up from any given field or type of soil – rather than only measuring how much exists chemically.

Other tests look at the amount of phosphorous a field’s soil can hold before releasing excess nutrients into waterways. These approaches can help identify fields where farmers can use less phosphorus or pause it altogether, allowing crops to draw down the legacy phosphorus already present.

The phosphorus problem is a slow-moving one, built over decades and hidden below ground. However, its effects are increasingly visible in the form of algal blooms, fish kills and contamination of drinking water supplies. Farmers can measure and manage soil nutrients differently and reduce pollution, save money and protect water resources without sacrificing agricultural productivity.

Dinesh Phuyal 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. Why too much phosphorus in America’s farmland is polluting the country’s water – https://theconversation.com/why-too-much-phosphorus-in-americas-farmland-is-polluting-the-countrys-water-273326

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Guilherme Maricato, Pós-doutorando no Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, UFRJ

The ocean is under increasing pressure. Everyday human activities, from shipping to oil and gas exploration to urban pollution, are affecting the marine environment. Extensive research shows how this combination of stressors represents one of the greatest threats to marine wildlife, potentially affecting biodiversity on a global scale.

To protect the ocean, one of the primary tools we have is marine protected areas. But are they truly protecting species in the most critical locations?

In an attempt to answer this question in Brazil, we conducted a comprehensive study focusing on two key species: the Bryde’s whale, a nonmigratory species, and the bottlenose dolphin, found in coastal and oceanic waters around the world. We chose these species because they do not migrate and stay in the same areas all year long, where they are exposed to harmful human activities.

The news is unfortunately not good: Our findings, recently published in Marine Pollution Bulletin, show that the areas critical for these species’ survival are also the most threatened.

Where whales and dolphins eat and play

Through spatial analysis, specifically species distribution models, we uncovered these animals’ preferences. We cross-referenced thousands of occurrence records for Bryde’s whales and bottlenose dolphins with environmental data that can influence their presence. This included factors such as water temperature, depth and even food availability.

From this data, we created a map showing the most suitable habitats for these species. The results strongly indicated that southeastern Brazil is their “preferred area.” On the continental shelf, these areas are located in shallower waters rich in nutrients, often associated with colder waters and steep seabed slopes that bring food to the surface.

The problem with overlap

The preferred areas we identified, however, are not exclusive to whales and dolphins. Southeastern Brazil is also an economically vital marine region for the country, driven by activities in the Santos and Campos basins, where a new oil reserve was recently discovered.

In the second stage of our research, we overlaid our map of the most suitable habitats for these species with a map of human activity. This included the presence of ports, areas of oil and gas exploration, and various shipping routes.

The result is a near-perfect overlap. The areas where Bryde’s whales and bottlenose dolphins are most frequently found coincide exactly with where human activity is most intense.

Why protected areas aren’t helping them

Brazil has expanded its conservation coverage in recent years by creating four large marine protected areas, which we think is excellent news. However, the crux of the matter lies in the quality of that protection.

In 2024, we also participated in a global collaborative effort to evaluate marine protected area effectiveness, the results of which were published in Marine Policy. The findings revealed that the vast majority of Brazil’s designated protected areas actually permit activities that are incompatible with biodiversity conservation.

This quality gap was also evident in our study. Most marine protected areas in southeastern Brazil, even the most effective ones, are coastal. They do not encompass the suitable habitats for Bryde’s whales and bottlenose dolphins, which are more heavily affected by oil and gas exploration.

And what about the oceanic protected areas Brazil created?

For the most part, they are located in areas that are either not the most suitable for these two species or lack significant conflicts with human activity. There is an ongoing debate about whether governments are protecting the right places or leaving the most critical biodiversity hot spots and conflict zones unprotected.

The real impacts of the conflict

The risk of ship strikes is constant. Whales and dolphins must come to the surface to breathe, and in areas of heavy traffic such as southeastern Brazil, the risk of being hit by vessels is high. Meanwhile, constant noise – from both ship engines and oil and gas exploration – interferes with the navigation, communication and foraging of these animals.

Additionally, there is the risk of entanglement in fishing nets, particularly in areas with intense fishing activity, resulting in bycatch, the incidental capture of nontarget species. Finally, pollution from ports along with potential spills can degrade the health of these animals and weaken their immune systems.

A road map for the future

Our findings serve as a critical warning: Simply creating marine protected areas is not enough. They must be placed in the right locations, protecting species where they are most vulnerable. We have shown that there is an urgent need to rethink conservation strategies in Brazil.

In addition to strengthening the network of marine protected areas, our findings suggest the need for specific management actions to reduce conflicts. While reducing ship speeds can protect whales from collisions, establishing fishing exclusion zones and using acoustic deterrents can prevent dolphins from becoming entangled in nets.

Most importantly, however, we believe these actions must be applied in the areas of highest exposure for conservation to be truly effective. Protecting biodiversity while maintaining economic activity is a complex challenge, but we now have a map to begin this conversation.

---

This project was funded by the Foundation for Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro (Faperj), Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (Capes) and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). We also acknowledge the support of the Marine Ecology and Conservation Lab (ECoMAR-UFRJ), Brazilian Humpback Whale Project, Ilhas do Rio Project, Cetacean Monitoring Project, Marine Mammal Monitoring Support System, Marine Conservation Institute and Coral Vivo Project. The publication of this article was also supported by Capes.

Maria Alice S. Alves receives research funding from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development and the Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation for Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro.

Rodrigo Tardin receives funding from the Young Scientist of Our State program of FAPERJ.

Clinton N. Jenkins and Guilherme Maricato 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. Marine protected areas aren’t in the right places to safeguard dolphins and whales in the South Atlantic – https://theconversation.com/marine-protected-areas-arent-in-the-right-places-to-safeguard-dolphins-and-whales-in-the-south-atlantic-274256

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Lightning Jay, Assistant Professor of Teaching, Learning and Educational Leadership, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Many of our college freshman students will have seen and read about the Jan. 3, 2026, U.S. military operation in Venezuela that culminated in the arrest of its leader, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. The U.S. has charged Maduro and Flores with conspiracy and drug trafficking. Maduro and Flores are imprisoned in New York City, awaiting trial.

Some freshmen this semester will likely say Maduro’s unusual arrest violates international law. Others may view it as a decisive step in the U.S.’s fight against narco-terrorism.

That’s in part because the U.S has no national curriculum, and high school history courses often rely on teachers’ discretion, even more so than in other content areas. This results in history being taught a lot of different ways across schools.

As scholars of Latin American history and history education in the U.S., we know that most American high school students learn about the ancient civilizations in Latin America and a few other key flash points in history.

But few, we suspect, will understand Maduro’s arrest as part of a long history of the U.S.’s interventions in Latin America, stretching back to the Monroe Doctrine in the 1800s. President James Monroe introduced this foreign policy in an 1823 speech, saying that the U.S. would not allow European colonization or interference in the Western Hemisphere.

A partial, skewed history

In high school world history courses, teachers in the U.S. often rely on case studies and examples to indicate historical trends.

High school students are likely to learn about the Inca, Maya and Aztec civilizations as representatives of pre-Columbian Latin America. They read about Spanish conquistadors such as Hernán Cortés, who overthrew the Aztec empire, and Francisco Pizarro, who conquered the Incas in the early 1500s.

They will learn about how most Latin American countries, including Mexico, Argentina, Colombia and Guatemala, gained independence in the early 1800s.

Often, students learn about these countries’ fights for independence, with the case example of the Haitian Revolution. They may learn about Simón Bolívar, the grand Venezuelan military officer and liberator who played a decisive role in the independence movements of countries including Venezuela, Colombia and Bolivia.

Students also often learn about more recent eras, including the Cuban missile crisis, a dangerous tipping point between the U.S. and the Soviet Union that brought the world close to nuclear war in 1962.

But overall, in U.S. history courses the U.S. is typically the main character and Latin America is treated as a place where the U.S. exerts power.

An example of this narrative includes the U.S.’s failed attempt to overthrow the Cuban government in 1961, during the Bay of Pigs invasion.

What US high school students miss

It is no surprise that students who learned this version of Latin American history in high school would have many questions about Maduro’s recent arrest – including who the longtime leader is.

A fuller exposure to Latin American history would include, among other things, lessons about neoliberal capitalism, which has long shaped the politics, economies and societies of Latin America. This is a U.S.-government supported policy that promotes less internal government intervention and more free-market capitalism.

Even though most Latin American countries achieved independence just 30 to 40 years after the U.S., not all presidential administrations in the U.S. fully accepted these nations’ freedom.

In 1904, Theodore Roosevelt added an additional text called a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, stating that the U.S. could intervene in the internal affairs of any Latin American country in cases of wrongdoing.

By the late 1800s, the U.S. had conquered more than half of Mexico’s territory and annexed Puerto Rico. It also began occupying Cuba in 1898, after Spain lost the Spanish-American War and control over the island.

The U.S. militarily and politically then backed a 1903 revolution that gave Panama independence from Colombia. Panama’s independence led to a treaty that let the U.S. build and control the Panama Canal for nearly a century.

A strong influence

Overall, the U.S. intervened in Latin America more than 40 times from 1898 to the mid-1990s.

Some of these interventions involved coups against democratically elected officials – including Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán in Guatemala in 1954 and Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973. These coups often led to civil wars or enduring military regimes that the U.S. claimed were necessary to fight the spread of communism.

Chile was then among the countries – including Argentina and Uruguay – that implemented economic policies in the 1970s that kept markets open to foreign businesses and governments, fostering dependence on wealthier nations.

Some Latin American countries, including Mexico and Brazil, struggled financially in the 1990s.

The U.S. and international financial institutions gave conditional loans that promoted austerity – meaning raising taxes and cutting public spending – and market liberalization, which reduces governmental restrictions over an economy. These loans stabilized some economies in the short term, but also made other problems, such as inequality and debt, worse.

In the early 2000s, several countries, including Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia, elected left-leaning leaders who advocated for alternatives to this U.S.-backed economic policy. Ultimately, though, their reforms were often limited and not politically stable.

A more complete history

During a Jan. 4, 2026, press conference, President Donald Trump used a new term, the “Donroe Doctrine,” to describe his administration’s plans to claim dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

One day later, Vice President JD Vance doubled down: “This is in our neighborhood,” he said in an interview about Maduro’s capture. “In our neighborhood, the United States calls the shots. That’s the way it has always been. That’s the way it is again under the president’s leadership.”

Learning a more complete version of Latin American history in high school won’t prevent our college students from bringing questions to class about the U.S.’s capture of Maduro, and why Trump has said the U.S. will “run” Venezuela.

But this knowledge might help our students ask more complex, nuanced questions, such as whom national security strategies actually benefit the most.

Understanding Latin America is not merely a requirement for interpreting headlines about Venezuela but a prerequisite for Americans to understand themselves and their place in the world.

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. A more complete Latin American history, including centuries of US influence, helps students understand the complexities surrounding Nicolás Maduro’s arrest – https://theconversation.com/a-more-complete-latin-american-history-including-centuries-of-us-influence-helps-students-understand-the-complexities-surrounding-nicolas-maduros-arrest-272984

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Ilia Murtazashvili, Professor of Public Policy, University of Pittsburgh

When it comes to political polarization in the United States, the Pittsburgh region offers a useful window into what communities can do about it.

Pittsburgh is a “comeback city.” The once-prosperous steel industry may have declined, but universities, hospitals and technology are driving reinvention and a new emphasis on manufacturing.

It’s also a city where people’s economic situation and political orientation often depend on where they live and how their community and neighborhood are doing. Different neighborhoods experience different levels of safety, school quality, housing stability and responsiveness from public services. In the region’s hardest-hit communities, this shows up not only in frustration with local institutions, but in shifting voting patterns and growing openness to populist messages of renewal.

Our research at the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Governance and Markets examines Rust Belt revitalization and how economic decline reshapes civic life and political conflict in communities such as Pittsburgh and its surrounding mill towns.

It also shows how local government performance shapes trust and political conflict in distressed communities across the Pittsburgh region.

We’ve found that the region’s polarization is often less about culture war debates and political ideology and more about whether people think local institutions still work for them. It also grows out of economic despair, eroding trust and the feeling that the rules of the game no longer produce a future worth believing in.

This polarization plays out most visibly in practical disputes about safety, housing, schools and basic public services. Residents split between calls for tougher law enforcement and demands for alternative approaches to criminal justice; between building more housing and regulating affordability; between consolidating schools and maintaining neighborhood anchors; and between higher spending on basic services such as construction costs and frustration over government’s ability to deliver.

National politics do matter here, but local conflicts are where politics become tangible and where trust rises or falls based on performance. Those decisions happen locally through city departments, school boards, neighborhood meetings and county agencies.

Not just ‘blue city, red suburbs’

At its core, Pittsburgh is really about the differences in the neighborhoods and communities. This shapes how communities perceive fairness and whether they trust that the government is capable of solving problems.

In some neighborhoods, civic institutions are strong and residents feel empowered in public life. In others, decades of disinvestment have weakened the foundations of everyday governance.

Squirrel Hill is one of Pittsburgh’s most civically vibrant neighborhoods. It is affluent and educated, and it has a number of synagogues, bookstores, immigrant service organizations and active civic groups. When political conflict emerged in the aftermath of the Tree of Life synagogue mass shooting, residents had networks to absorb disagreement rather than let it spiral into hostility.

Now shift to the South Side, where gentrification shapes politics differently. The South Side Flats evolved from a blue-collar neighborhood into a place with many renters and younger residents. People are civic-minded, though local debates often revolve around nightlife, public safety, rising costs and development.

Carrick remains politically mixed, reflecting tensions in a working- and middle-class community navigating demographic change and uncertainty about the future. Local concerns include schools, traffic, infrastructure and neighborhood stability, but national polarization shapes how issues are interpreted. Potholes become a service complaint and a symbol of being left behind. Housing projects become flash points for who belongs.

Homewood is a historically Black neighborhood shaped by decades of disinvestment. Deep challenges include poverty, blight and long-standing concerns about safety. Yet it also shows civic resilience through churches, nonprofits, health centers and grassroots leaders who have kept public life intact even when government capacity falls short. Even in heavily democratic neighborhoods like Homewood, citizens feel a sense of being overlooked.

Different neighborhoods experience “Pittsburgh” through different governing realities. The suburbs and mill towns are part of the story, too.

In Braddock, where U.S. Sen. John Fetterman once served as mayor, the collapse of the steel economy severely damaged the tax base and weakened local capacity to provide reliable services. When municipal governments are forced to govern with fewer resources, politics become a battle over shortages of basic services, such as trash collection. Civic participation declines, and frustration is unabating.

In Aliquippa, the closure of major steel employers contributed to long-term economic contraction and political realignment. Communities once firmly Democratic have become more open to conservative populism, including among working-class and minority voters attracted to messages of economic renewal. This shift often involves less dramatic ideological conversation than a search for a political language that takes economic loss seriously.

And in McKeesport, a former manufacturing hub, economic distress combines with infrastructure decay and opioid addiction. Yet McKeesport also shows that polarization does not erase cooperation. Community organizations build partnerships around practical concerns, such as youth programming, small-business support and downtown development.

The Pittsburgh region is not “blue city, red suburbs.” Deindustrialization did more than eliminate jobs: It reduced mobility, strained families, shrank tax bases, weakened local civic institutions and made daily life feel less stable.

A lesson from Pittsburgh’s new mayor

Corey O’Connor, Pittsburgh’s new mayor, has emphasized economic revitalization, but also has argued what many officials forget or ignore: Residents judge government first by whether it delivers basic competence.

For many Pittsburghers, a government that cannot clear streets after a storm, fill potholes or maintain a functional snow removal fleet does not feel capable of managing large-scale economic revitalization or building civic trust. Snow removal and filling potholes aren’t trivial issues, but a test of whether public authority is reliable and fair.

When basic services cannot be provided in real time, mistrust becomes almost inevitable.

Rebuilding legitimacy from the bottom up

Escaping polarization requires a long-term strategy to rebuild opportunity, restore institutional credibility and strengthen civic infrastructure.

For Pittsburgh and its region, this depends on fostering frameworks for civic participation by expanding job training programs and delivering public services effectively, including through municipalities helping each other out to provide them.

Research shows that competence in the everyday work of government is a significant way to rebuild trust in public institutions. Starting with the basics in local government demonstrates that cooperation is possible and institutions can solve problems.

The lesson of Pittsburgh is that economic stability is civic stability. When it collapses, politics become less about disagreement than respect and recognition. Polarization is a consequence of people not feeling seen, heard or treated fairly by the institutions that govern them. Communities cannot wait for Washington to solve problems that are experienced – and addressed – locally.

Ilia Murtazashvili 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. Political polarization in Pittsburgh communities is rooted in economic neglect − not extremism – https://theconversation.com/political-polarization-in-pittsburgh-communities-is-rooted-in-economic-neglect-not-extremism-273175

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Beverly Moran, Professor Emerita of Law, Vanderbilt University

More than 6 million Americans receive paper tax refund checks annually. Often, those refunds go to purchase groceries or pay the bills. But this year, those taxpayers may be surprised to learn that the paper check they’re waiting for no longer exists.

That’s because of executive order 14247, which President Donald Trump signed in 2025. It directed the Treasury Department to stop issuing paper checks for tax refunds.

The executive order has its fans. Nacha, the organization that runs the network that electronically moves money between financial institutions, says the new rules could save the government US$68 million each year. The American Bankers Association is also excited, predicting the move will help people save on check-cashing fees. Other supporters argue the change will prevent mail theft and check fraud.

But what about the 6 million Americans without bank accounts – the so-called “unbanked”? Watchdogs warn that they will suffer if exceptions and outreach fall short.

As a professor who specializes in tax law, I think those concerns are valid.

Reform could leave the unbanked behind

Shifting to electronic payments is a classic modernization effort. So how could that be bad?

The problem is that a sizable number of Americans have no bank account. Twenty-three percent of people who earn under $25,000 were unbanked in 2023. Only 1% of people earning over $100,000 in 2023 lacked a bank account.

Black and Hispanic Americans, young adults, and people with disabilities are more likely to be unbanked than other people, and 1 in 5 unbanked households include someone with a disability.

Low-income families often use their refunds to pay for basics such as food and rent. And under the status quo, unbanked people already lose a large slice of those refunds to fees. Check cashers, for example, can charge up to 1.5% for government checks in New York, up to 3% in California, and even more in other states.

But the unbanked might find that they’re paying even higher fees in a post-check world. They might, for example, use paid tax preparation services to access refund loans. The federal courts and investigative journalists have discussed ways that prepaid tax preparers engage in false advertising and overpriced services.

Or they might forgo their tax refunds entirely.

Geography, race and the digital-banking divide

Where people live affects their access to banking.

Gaps in broadband coverage and lack of public transportation to reach libraries make computer access a problem for poor and rural people.

In so-called “banking deserts” – communities with few or no bank branches – people are more likely to use costly alternatives such as payday lenders and check-cashing services. Black-majority communities face distinct banking desert challenges, for both poor and middle class Black families. That’s because a middle-income Black family is more likely to live in a low-income neighborhood than a low-income white family.

Taken together, these barriers mean that many Americans who are legally entitled to tax refunds could soon struggle to receive them.

What should government do now?

The government is aware of the problem. The IRS promises that “limited exceptions” will be available to people who don’t have bank accounts, and that more guidance is on the way.

In the meantime, the agency stepped up on the day after Thanksgiving to urge people without bank accounts to open them, or to check whether their digital wallets can accept direct deposits, while the Bureau of the Fiscal Service has provided a website with all sorts of information for people who need to get up to speed on electronic payments.

For the moment, it’s unclear just how effective these efforts will be. Perhaps this is why the American Bar Association is urging Treasury to keep issuing paper refund checks unless Congress passes a law rather than relying on an executive order.

Consumer groups have urged the Treasury Department to fund robust exceptions, plain-language help lines and no-fee default payment options while also banning junk fees on refund- related cards and mandating easy access to cash-out at banks or retailers.

The problem is that the Treasury Department has lost over 30,000 employees and $20.2 billion in funding since January 2025. Add in the lingering effects of the last government shutdown, adopting a new system for tax filing and refunds might be too much to expect for the 2026 tax season.

Beverly Moran 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. Ending tax refunds by check will speed payments, but risks sidelining people who don’t have bank accounts – https://theconversation.com/ending-tax-refunds-by-check-will-speed-payments-but-risks-sidelining-people-who-dont-have-bank-accounts-266562