Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Pooja Shree Chettiar, Ph.D. Candidate in Medical Sciences, Texas A&M University

Recently, I found myself pouring my heart out, not to a human, but to a chatbot named Wysa on my phone. It nodded – virtually – asked me how I was feeling and gently suggested trying breathing exercises.

As a neuroscientist, I couldn’t help but wonder: Was I actually feeling better, or was I just being expertly redirected by a well-trained algorithm? Could a string of code really help calm a storm of emotions?

Artificial intelligence-powered mental health tools are becoming increasingly popular – and increasingly persuasive. But beneath their soothing prompts lie important questions: How effective are these tools? What do we really know about how they work? And what are we giving up in exchange for convenience?

Of course it’s an exciting moment for digital mental health. But understanding the trade-offs and limitations of AI-based care is crucial.

Stand-in meditation and therapy apps and bots

AI-based therapy is a relatively new player in the digital therapy field. But the U.S. mental health app market has been booming for the past few years, from apps with free tools that text you back to premium versions with an added feature that gives prompts for breathing exercises.

Headspace and Calm are two of the most well-known meditation and mindfulness apps, offering guided meditations, bedtime stories and calming soundscapes to help users relax and sleep better. Talkspace and BetterHelp go a step further, offering actual licensed therapists via chat, video or voice. The apps Happify and Moodfit aim to boost mood and challenge negative thinking with game-based exercises.

Somewhere in the middle are chatbot therapists like Wysa and Woebot, using AI to mimic real therapeutic conversations, often rooted in cognitive behavioral therapy. These apps typically offer free basic versions, with paid plans ranging from US$10 to $100 per month for more comprehensive features or access to licensed professionals.

While not designed specifically for therapy, conversational tools like ChatGPT have sparked curiosity about AI’s emotional intelligence.

Some users have turned to ChatGPT for mental health advice, with mixed outcomes, including a widely reported case in Belgium where a man died by suicide after months of conversations with a chatbot. Elsewhere, a father is seeking answers after his son was fatally shot by police, alleging that distressing conversations with an AI chatbot may have influenced his son’s mental state. These cases raise ethical questions about the role of AI in sensitive situations.

Where AI comes in

Whether your brain is spiraling, sulking or just needs a nap, there’s a chatbot for that. But can AI really help your brain process complex emotions? Or are people just outsourcing stress to silicon-based support systems that sound empathetic?

And how exactly does AI therapy work inside our brains?

Most AI mental health apps promise some flavor of cognitive behavioral therapy, which is basically structured self-talk for your inner chaos. Think of it as Marie Kondo-ing, the Japanese tidying expert known for helping people keep only what “sparks joy.” You identify unhelpful thought patterns like “I’m a failure,” examine them, and decide whether they serve you or just create anxiety.

But can a chatbot help you rewire your thoughts? Surprisingly, there’s science suggesting it’s possible. Studies have shown that digital forms of talk therapy can reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression, especially for mild to moderate cases. In fact, Woebot has published peer-reviewed research showing reduced depressive symptoms in young adults after just two weeks of chatting.

These apps are designed to simulate therapeutic interaction, offering empathy, asking guided questions and walking you through evidence-based tools. The goal is to help with decision-making and self-control, and to help calm the nervous system.

The neuroscience behind cognitive behavioral therapy is solid: It’s about activating the brain’s executive control centers, helping us shift our attention, challenge automatic thoughts and regulate our emotions.

The question is whether a chatbot can reliably replicate that, and whether our brains actually believe it.

A user’s experience, and what it might mean for the brain

“I had a rough week,” a friend told me recently. I asked her to try out a mental health chatbot for a few days. She told me the bot replied with an encouraging emoji and a prompt generated by its algorithm to try a calming strategy tailored to her mood. Then, to her surprise, it helped her sleep better by week’s end.

As a neuroscientist, I couldn’t help but ask: Which neurons in her brain were kicking in to help her feel calm?

This isn’t a one-off story. A growing number of user surveys and clinical trials suggest that cognitive behavioral therapy-based chatbot interactions can lead to short-term improvements in mood, focus and even sleep. In randomized studies, users of mental health apps have reported reduced symptoms of depression and anxiety – outcomes that closely align with how in-person cognitive behavioral therapy influences the brain.

Several studies show that therapy chatbots can actually help people feel better. In one clinical trial, a chatbot called “Therabot” helped reduce depression and anxiety symptoms by nearly half – similar to what people experience with human therapists. Other research, including a review of over 80 studies, found that AI chatbots are especially helpful for improving mood, reducing stress and even helping people sleep better. In one study, a chatbot outperformed a self-help book in boosting mental health after just two weeks.

While people often report feeling better after using these chatbots, scientists haven’t yet confirmed exactly what’s happening in the brain during those interactions. In other words, we know they work for many people, but we’re still learning how and why.

Red flags and risks

Apps like Wysa have earned FDA Breakthrough Device designation, a status that fast-tracks promising technologies for serious conditions, suggesting they may offer real clinical benefit. Woebot, similarly, runs randomized clinical trials showing improved depression and anxiety symptoms in new moms and college students.

While many mental health apps boast labels like “clinically validated” or “FDA approved,” those claims are often unverified. A review of top apps found that most made bold claims, but fewer than 22% cited actual scientific studies to back them up.

In addition, chatbots collect sensitive information about your mood metrics, triggers and personal stories. What if that data winds up in third-party hands such as advertisers, employers or hackers, a scenario that has occurred with genetic data? In a 2023 breach, nearly 7 million users of the DNA testing company 23andMe had their DNA and personal details exposed after hackers used previously leaked passwords to break into their accounts. Regulators later fined the company more than $2 million for failing to protect user data.

Unlike clinicians, bots aren’t bound by counseling ethics or privacy laws regarding medical information. You might be getting a form of cognitive behavioral therapy, but you’re also feeding a database.

And sure, bots can guide you through breathing exercises or prompt cognitive reappraisal, but when faced with emotional complexity or crisis, they’re often out of their depth. Human therapists tap into nuance, past trauma, empathy and live feedback loops. Can an algorithm say “I hear you” with genuine understanding? Neuroscience suggests that supportive human connection activates social brain networks that AI can’t reach.

So while in mild to moderate cases bot-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy may offer short-term symptom relief, it’s important to be aware of their limitations. For the time being, pairing bots with human care – rather than replacing it – is the safest move.

Pooja Shree Chettiar 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. The AI therapist will see you now: Can chatbots really improve mental health? – https://theconversation.com/the-ai-therapist-will-see-you-now-can-chatbots-really-improve-mental-health-259360

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By John C. Quindry, Professor of Integrative Physiology and Athletic Training, University of Montana

As the summer’s sunny days take hold, many people turn to outdoor exercise.

But in parts of North America, pleasant weather often aligns with wildfire season. As summers get drier, both the frequency and the intensity of wildfires have grown, producing more polluting smoke.

A fire’s smoke can spread across several states, leaving people at risk for the health consequences of air pollution.

Exercisers and health experts are asking whether the benefits of outdoor exercise are negated when the skies are hazy with wildfire smoke.

How does air pollution make people sick?

Air pollution’s components depend on its source. For instance, traffic-related air pollution consists largely of vehicle exhaust and brake and tire wear, while industrial pollution contains significant amounts of ozone.

Wildfires produce huge quantities of airborne particles, also called fine particulate matter. These particles are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter – about a tenth the size of a pollen grain.

Particles of that size, which air quality experts refer to as PM2.5, raise serious health concerns because they are tiny enough to be carried to the air sacs in the deepest parts of the lungs. From there, they can cross into the blood stream, leading to bodywide inflammation – essentially, the immune system’s fight response – which can promote or aggravate multiple chronic illnesses.

Research shows that long-term exposure to wildfire smoke is linked to lung diseases, heart disease and other conditions. Since these illnesses take decades to develop, scientists think that the health problems caused by wildfire smoke inhalation accumulate after years of exposure.

One-time smoke exposures may have cumulative effects

My research team and others are investigating how short-term smoke exposure might also influence long-term health outcomes such as heart and lung diseases.

To estimate the effects of exposure from a single fire event, environmental scientists can study a variety of factors such as immune system markers of inflammation, signs of physiologic stress and changes in heart, blood vessel and nervous system function. How exactly smoke exposures worsen disease is still poorly understood, but these immediate responses in the body may also be linked to developing chronic disease.

In a study published in June 2025, my colleagues and I examined these outcomes in healthy participants who exercised during a wildfire simulation in our air inhalation lab. The air was filtered to contain high concentrations of PM2.5 particles produced by burning local pine trees – the equivalent to being downwind of a major wildfire.

We asked 20 generally healthy participants in their mid-20s to exercise on a stationary cycle at about half their maximum effort for two hours while breathing the smoke. We found that participants’ blood vessel and nervous system function declined immediately after their smoky exercise session. These stress indicators bounced back to normal within an hour of returning to a clean air environment.

Half of our study participants had a heightened response to physiological stress, which scientists think may signify a heightened risk of chronic diseases. We selected them based on a stress test administered before the experiment: Specifically, their blood pressure spiked when their hands were dipped in ice water for two minutes. The stress-responsive participants experienced significantly stronger declines in blood vessel and nervous system function than people in the typical response group, suggesting that exercise in a very smoky climate may affect some people more than others.

While it isn’t possible to predict who is most at risk, our study underscores the need to think carefully about exposure to wildfire smoke.

How smoky is too smoky for outdoor exercise?

Unfortunately, precise air quality thresholds based on factors such as age and medical condition do not exist. But some simple guidelines and considerations can help.

The first step is to check the air quality where you live at the government website AirNow. It uses a scale called the Air Quality Index, created by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1999 – which ranks air quality regionally on a scale from 0 to 500. The website is searchable by ZIP code. The reading for a given region reflects the contribution of several pollutants, including PM2.5 levels.

When the air quality is ranked “good,” the decision is simple – get out there and enjoy the outdoors. And there is little debate that people should generally limit their outdoor exposure when air quality levels cross into the “unhealthy” threshold – or at least be aware that doing so poses health risks.

The risks and benefits of exercising outdoors when air quality is in the “moderate” and “unhealthy for sensitive” ranges are less clear, particularly for people who don’t have chronic health conditions.

Gauging your risk

One major factor in deciding when and whether to exercise outdoors is your health status. AirNow recommends that people with chronic conditions err on the side of caution and remain indoors when smoke levels cause the air quality rating to approach the “unhealthy for sensitive” category.

That advice may be obvious for people with diagnosed lung conditions such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, given that particles from wildfire smoke aggravate the lungs. But studies suggest it’s true for milder disease states, too. For example, a large study of people with elevated but not clinically high blood pressure indicated that those who lived downwind of air pollution were more likely to develop high blood pressure and, ultimately, heart disease.

Another consideration is the time of day. As the afternoon heats up, the column of air we breathe expands, diluting the particulate counts. And afternoon winds frequently blow stagnant air out of the valleys and downtown areas where particulate matter can concentrate during the cooler parts of the day. That means evening workouts may be safer than early-morning ones, though direct confirmation with air quality readings is key.

Also important is the intensity at which you exercise. Higher-intensity exercise means deeper, more frequent breathing, which likely elevates your exposure to harmful air. So you might choose a shorter jog over a longer run when air quality is moderate or poor.

My lab is currently working to quantify how much pollution a person breathes in while exercising in smoky conditions, based on their exercise intensity, exercise duration and local particulate counts. This line of research is still in its infancy, but our early findings and other published research suggest that when wildfire smoke puts air quality into the “moderate” and “unhealthy for sensitive” range, people can dial down the effects of smoke exposure by decreasing their exercise intensity or the time they spend outside.

John C. Quindry received funding from the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the National Institutes of Health – INBRE/RAIN.

– ref. Wildfire smoke can make your outdoor workout hazardous to your health – an exercise scientist explains how to gauge the risk – https://theconversation.com/wildfire-smoke-can-make-your-outdoor-workout-hazardous-to-your-health-an-exercise-scientist-explains-how-to-gauge-the-risk-255812

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Diane Winston, Professor and Knight Center Chair in Media & Religion, USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism

Jimmy Swaggart, one of the most popular and enduring of the 1980s televangelists, died on July 1, 2025, but his legacy lives.

Along with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, he drew an audience in the millions, amassed a personal fortune and introduced a new generation of Americans to a potent mix of religion and politics.

Swaggart was an old-time evangelist whose focus was “saving souls.” But he also preached on conservative social issues, warning followers about the evils of abortion, homosexuality and godless communism.

[Swaggart also denounced] what he called “false cults,” including Catholicism, Judaism and Mormonism. In fact, his denunciations of other religions, as well as his attacks on rival preachers, made him a more polarizing figure than his politicized brethren.

As a reporter, I covered Swaggart in the 1980s. Now, as a scholar of American religion, I argue that while Swaggart did not build institutions like Falwell’s Moral Majority or Robertson’s 700 Club, he helped to spread right-wing positions on social issues, such as sexual orientation and abortion, and to shape the image of televangelists in popular culture..

Swaggart’s cousins

Born into a hardscrabble life in a small Louisiana town, Swaggart grew up alongside his cousins Jerry Lee Lewis, the future rockabilly pioneer, and future country singer Mickey Gilley.

All three loved music and singing. They polished their playing on an uncle’s piano and sneaked into African American nightclubs to hear the jazz and blues forbidden by their parents.

While Gilley and Lewis turned their musical talent into recording and performing careers, Swaggart felt called to the ministry. He dropped out of high school, married at 17, began preaching at 20 and was ordained at 26.

He was licensed by the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal denomination that believes the Holy Spirit endows believers with spiritual gifts that include speaking in tongues and faith healing.

The glory years

Pentecostals were nicknamed Holy Rollers because of their tendency to shake, quake and roll on the floor when feeling the Holy Spirit. Their preachers excelled at rousing audiences’ ardor, and Swaggart commanded the stage better than most. He paced, pounced and poured forth sweat while begging listeners to turn from sin and accept Jesus.

Starting small, he drew crowds while preaching on a flatbed trailer throughout the South. His following grew, and in 1969 he opened the Family Worship Center in Baton Rouge.

At capacity, the church held 10,000 worshippers, who represented a broad swath of America: young girls and grannies, white and Black, bankers and farmers. His sermons began calmly but built to a fever pitch. CBS newsman Dan Rather once called him the “country’s greatest speaker.”

During services, Swaggart also sang and played piano. In 1982, Newsweek magazine noted his musical chops, naming him the “King of Honky Tonk Heaven.” His music crossed gospel, country and honky-tonk – songs with a strong rhythmic beat – and he sold 17 million albums over his lifetime.

By 1975, Swaggart’s on-stage charisma powered the launch of a television ministry that would reach millions within a decade. Viewers were captivated by his soulful tunes and fire-and-brimstone sermons. At its height, Swaggart’s show was televised in 140 countries, including Peru, the Philippines and South Africa.

His ministry also became the largest mail-order business in Louisiana, selling books, tapes, T-shirts and biblical memorabilia. Thanks to the US$150 million raised annually from donations and sales, Swaggart lived in an opulent mansion, possessed a private jet previously owned by the Rockefellers, sported a yellow gold vintage Rolex and drove a Jaguar.

The downfall

Swaggart disliked competition and had a history of humiliating rival preachers. Wary of the Rev. Marvin Gorman, a Pentecostal minister whose church also was in Louisiana, Swaggart accused the man of adultery. Gorman admitted his infidelity and was defrocked.

Gorman had heard rumors about Swaggart’s own indiscretions, and he and his son decided to tail the famed evangelist. In 1988, they caught Swaggart at a motel with a prostitute, and Gorman reported the incident to Swaggart’s denomination. He also gave news outlets photos of Swaggart and the prostitute. In a tearful, televised apology, Swaggart pleaded for a second chance.

While his fans were willing, the Assemblies of God had conditions: Swaggart received the standard two-year suspension for sexual immorality. Defying the ruling, Swaggart went back to work after three months, and the denomination defrocked him.

Swaggart might have succeeded as an independent minister, but in 1991 the police stopped his car for driving on the wrong side of the road. Inside they found the preacher with a prostitute. This time, Swaggart did not ask for forgiveness. Instead, he informed his congregation, “The Lord told me it’s flat none of your business.”

Afterward, Swaggart never regained his former standing. His mail-order business dried up, donations fell, and attendance at services cratered. But up until his death, he kept on, in his own words, as an “old-fashioned, Holy Ghost-filled, shouting, weeping, soul-winning, Gospel-preaching preacher.”

Swaggart’s legacy

Swaggart, like other 1980s televangelists, brought right-wing politics into American homes. But unlike Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, Swaggart was less interested in winning elections than saving souls. In fact, when Robertson considered a presidential run in 1988, Swaggart initially tried to dissuade him – then changed his mind and supported him.

Swaggart’s calls for a return to conservative Christian norms live on – not just in Sunday sermons but also in today’s world of tradwives, abortion restrictions and calls to repeal gay marriage. His music lives on, too. The day before he died, the Southern Gospel Music Association Hall of Fame inducted him as a member.

But his legacy also survives in popular culture. In recent years, both reality television and scripted series have starred preachers shaped in the image of Swaggart and his peers. Most exaggerate his worst characteristics for shock and comedic effect.

“Preachers of L.A.,” a 2013 reality show that profiled six Los Angeles pastors, featured blinged-out ministers whose sermons mixed hip-hop with the Bible. The fictional “Greenleaf” followed the scandals of an extended family’s Memphis megachurch, while “The Righteous Gemstones,” a dark spoof of Southern preachers, turned a family ministry into a site for sex, murder and moneymaking.

But these imitations can’t match the reality. Swaggart was a larger-than-life minister whose story – from small-town wannabe to disgraced pastor, to preaching to those who would listen – had it all: sex, politics, music and religion.

For those who want a taste of the real thing, The King of Honky Tonk Heaven lives on. You can see his old services and Bible studies streaming daily on his network.

Diane Winston 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. Jimmy Swaggart’s rise and fall shaped the landscape of American televangelism – https://theconversation.com/jimmy-swaggarts-rise-and-fall-shaped-the-landscape-of-american-televangelism-260377

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Lauren Berger, Ph.D. Student in Geology, Texas A&M University

Our two-person team loaded the car with a GPS, a drone, notebooks, sample bags, a trowel and a flat spatula lovingly called a scoopula. Then we drove 30 minutes in our rented truck from Yuma, Arizona, to the Algodones Dunes, a sandy field bordering California, Arizona and Mexico. The day was sunny, with a strong breeze. Turning off the highway, we carefully headed onto a gravelly path that acted as our road.

After making decent – if bumpy – progress, we pulled off onto the sand flats and drove slowly toward the dunes, worried we might get stuck in the sand. Having arrived on the outskirts of the Algodones, we stopped and loaded our backpacks, then set off into the desert on foot.

It was November 2022. As a graduate student at Texas A&M University, I was beginning part of my Ph.D. research with my adviser, geology professor Ryan Ewing. We were looking for coarse-grained sand ripples, which are patterned piles of sand shaped by wind. Sand ripples and sand dunes are types of aeolian bedforms, which are wind-created geologic features.

Aeolian bedforms are common on Earth and across the solar system, including on Mars, Venus, Pluto, the Saturn moon Titan, the Neptune moon Triton, and Comet 67P. These geological features, among the first landforms observed by remote images of planetary surfaces, are robust indicators of a world’s wind patterns.

Measuring sand patterns in person

The shapes and patterns of aeolian bedforms can reveal the environmental conditions that created them.

Two sizes of the same bedform, such as small dunes on top of big dunes, are called compound bedforms. I study compound bedforms at two scales – the meter- and centimeter-sized coarse-grained ripples at the dunes here on Earth, and the kilometer- and meter-sized dunes on Mars.

At the Algodones, I measured the height of each large coarse-grained sand ripple and the distance between neighboring ripples. Then we flew our drone low and steady, above the ripples, to create high-resolution images. The drone data allows us to do further measurements on the ripples later, back at my desk.

On that day, I learned an essential rule of fieldwork in the desert: Don’t forget a shovel. Otherwise, if your vehicle gets stuck, as ours did, you’ll have to dig it out by hand. Luckily for us, a dune buggy driver passing by helped us out and we were able to get back to Yuma in time for dinner.

My introduction to Mars

I first became interested in aeolian bedforms during my sophomore year of college, when I interned at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. My job was to view surface images of Mars and then map the sand ripples in the regions where Perseverance, the Mars rover, might land. I assessed the areas where ripples could be hazards – places where the rover could get stuck in the sand, the way our rental truck did in the Algodones.

I mapped those sand ripples on Mars for two years. But while I mapped, I became fascinated with the patterns the ripples made.

Now, as a graduate student and aspiring planetary geologist, my time is split between work in the field and at my computer, where I have stitched together the drone’s photographs of the Algodones to create a large image of the entire study area. I then look for compound dunes on the Martian surface in images taken by the Mars reconnaissance orbiter’s context camera.

Scientists already know about Earth’s weather patterns, sand grain size and wind data. By measuring different parts of bedforms on both planets – such as their height, shape and spacing – I can compare the similarities and differences of the bedforms to find clues to the wind patterns, grains and atmosphere on Mars. Slowly but surely, as I listen to Studio Ghibli soundtracks, I’m creating the first database of compound dunes on Mars.

Developing this database is essential to the proposed human mission to Mars. Dust storms are frequent, and some can encircle the entire planet. Understanding aeolian bedforms will help scientists know where to put bases so they don’t get buried by moving sand.

It is wonderful to spend an afternoon ping-ponging all over a planet that’s 140 million miles from us, seeing gorgeous terrain while I try to answer questions about the compound dunes on Mars. How common are they? Where do they form? How do they compare to those on Earth? I hope to answer these questions as I work toward earning my Ph.D in geology.

Lauren Berger receives funding from NASA FINESST. Lauren Berger would like to acknowledge the help of her mentors Dr. Ryan Ewing (NASA Johnson Space Center), Dr. Marion Nachon (Texas A&M University), and Dr. Julia Reece (Texas A&M University).

– ref. Dune patterns in California desert hold clues that help researchers map Mars’ shifting sands – https://theconversation.com/dune-patterns-in-california-desert-hold-clues-that-help-researchers-map-mars-shifting-sands-251761

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Daniel Hungerman, Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame

The multitrillion-dollar bill that President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025, will change how the U.S. tax code treats charitable donations. It also has several tax provisions that affect some colleges, universities and other nonprofits. The Conversation U.S. asked Daniel Hungerman, an economist who studies charitable activities and public policy, to explain how these tax policies could influence charitable giving and affect nonprofits.

What will change for donors?

The consequences generally vary depending on how much money a donor gives to charity. They also depend on whether a donor claims the standard deduction – as about 90% of U.S. taxpayers have done since the 2017 tax reforms took effect during the first Trump administration – or itemizes their tax returns.

Anyone taking the standard deduction, which will rise in 2025 to US$15,750 for an individual and $31,500 for married couples filing jointly, will get a new broadly available tax break of up to $1,000 for giving to a charitable nonprofit if they file on their own. Married couples filing jointly may deduct $2,000 from their taxable income if they give at least that amount to charity. To put this into sharper perspective, the average middle-income household gives about $3,300 annually.

Americans who give a bit more than the typical donor – say, between $5,000 and $20,000 – will see major changes too. In some places, it will become easier for people to deduct more of the amount they pay in state and local taxes from their federal taxes – at least for a few years. Those taxpayers may also deduct their charitable giving from their income when they file their taxes.

But there’s a new catch. People who itemize their taxes can’t claim the charitable deduction unless they give at least the equivalent of 0.5% of their adjusted gross income to charity. For example, someone who earns $100,000 a year would have to donate at least $500 to qualify for this tax break.

A similar new catch will apply to corporate donations: Unless corporations give at least 1% of their taxable income to charity, they will no longer get a charitable tax deduction.

The tax law also revises a rule that limits how much the biggest donors can give to charity and still get a tax break.

What could that mean for charitable giving?

Based on my research on tax policies and donations, I don’t expect the $1,000 charitable deduction for taxpayers who take the standard deduction to boost giving. The government has tried this before.

The first time was in the 1980s. Starting in 1982, people taking the standard deduction could take a charitable deduction. The amount changed annually. In 1984, for example, it was $75 – $236 in 2025 dollars. Congress ended this experiment with the 1986 tax reforms.

There was also a temporary $300 charitable deduction for people who took the standard deduction in 2020.

The results were underwhelming both times, for two reasons.

First, the maximum size of those tax breaks was too small in those earlier efforts. Many people were already giving enough to max out this new benefit. When that happens, the government is giving up tax revenue without encouraging people to donate more.

To be fair, there are a couple of reasons that things might be better this time. First, $1,000 in 2025 – or $2,000 for married couples filing jointly – is more money than the $300 deduction in 2020. Also, this time it is permanent. A permanent provision gives charities time to publicize the bill and people time to learn about it.

Another concern with this bill is that Americans who have not given to charity in the past might not begin to open their wallets but will still try to get the new $1,000 charitable deduction anyway by lying about it on their tax returns. There is evidence that a growing number of taxpayers try to game the tax system this way. The only way to stave off that sort of tax evasion would require additional work by the IRS, costing more tax dollars.

This part of the tax law also sends a message that giving is not just for the wealthy, but that everyone can do it and get a tax break for it. That could help halt or reverse a decline in gifts from people who aren’t rich. And it makes me wonder whether a charitable deduction for people who don’t itemize their tax returns will work better this time around.

What’s happening to higher education?

The government will raise its tax on the income earned by the endowments held by some colleges and universities from 1.4% to as much as 8%. The system is complicated and hinges on how large an endowment is per student enrolled. Colleges attended by fewer than 3,000 students don’t have to pay this tax.

Endowments are pooled financial investments that belong to a nonprofit. Those assets usually come from donations, and the income they earn typically flows into the nonprofit’s budget.

Several prominent schools are bracing for higher taxes. Yale University, for example, says it will have to pay $280 million once this goes into effect.

The higher endowment tax is unlikely to raise a whole lot of tax revenue, but it could force some schools to scale back financial aid, hike tuition or freeze hiring.

What about K-12 schools?

Perhaps the most significant change will be a new federal K-12 educational tax credit. Starting in 2027, it will be available to help offset the cost of private K-12 school tuition or other educational expenses, such as homeschooling. If someone makes a $1 gift to a nonprofit scholarship-granting organization – which would then deliver those funds to the school the donor designates – the government will cut their tax bill by $1. This tax credit can be worth up to $1,700 per year.

Many details about how this system would work are yet to be determined.

I believe that this provision could mark another step in the transformation of how private schools are funded in the United States. Beyond that, many private schools are run by churches, and many churches running schools already get large amounts of their funding from vouchers issued by state and local governments. Ultimately, private K-12 education could become an increasing source of revenue for churches.

What about nonprofits that provide social services?

Even if the megabill boosts charitable giving, nonprofits providing social services are likely to find themselves financially squeezed.

That’s because the bill also cuts spending and tightens eligibility restrictions on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, and Medicaid, the public health insurance program that mainly covers people who are low-income or have disabilities.

I have researched the effects of the welfare reforms President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996. One of my findings was that when the government cut spending on safety net programs by a dollar, charities, including churches, stepped in to provide 25 cents of services or more. But for every extra dollar needed to compensate for lost government spending, donors only gave 5 cents more.

Another concern is that this bill makes permanent increases in the standard deduction – which I’ve found to have historically lowered charitable giving considerably. Perhaps the deduction for people who don’t itemize their tax returns, together with the state-and-local-taxes change, will counteract this trend. But it is certainly possible that Americans will give less to charity starting in 2025 compared with a world where there were no Trump tax reforms at all.

Daniel Hungerman is a professor at the University of Notre Dame, and a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

– ref. Trump’s ‘big’ bill gives millions of taxpayers a new charitable tax break, but whether it will help nonprofits is unclear – https://theconversation.com/trumps-big-bill-gives-millions-of-taxpayers-a-new-charitable-tax-break-but-whether-it-will-help-nonprofits-is-unclear-260379