Category: The Conversation

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Tesla Monson, Professor of Anthropology, Western Washington University

Until Homo floresiensis was discovered, scientists assumed that the evolution of the human lineage was defined by bigger and bigger brains. Via a process called encephalization, human brains evolved to be relatively more massive than would be expected based on corresponding body size.

This proportionally bigger brain is what anthropologists argued enabled us and our relatives to perform more complex tasks such as using fire, forging and wielding tools, making art and domesticating animals.

But these theories had to be thrown out the window when archaeologists announced our fossil cousins Homo floresiensis via scientific publication in 2004. Homo floresiensis lived from about 700,000 to 60,000 years ago in the rainforests of Indonesia, partially contemporaneous with our own species.

Aptly nicknamed Hobbits, Homo floresiensis were short-statured, at just over 3 feet (1 meter) tall, and had a chimp-size brain. This discovery upended the assumption that brains have been increasing in size over the past several million years and generated confusion about what separates recent human relatives in our genus Homo from our more ancient ancestors.

Our new research on the skulls and teeth provides a novel theory for how the Hobbits evolved to be small.

We are professors of anthropology at Western Washington University. After attending a 2023 workshop for biological anthropologists studying juveniles in the fossil record, we began looking at brain size changes across human evolution.

Our previous work on the proportions of molar teeth generated new insights into the evolution of pregnancy by demonstrating that fetal growth rates are tightly linked to molar proportions in primates. Now, we wanted to see whether we could uncover a relationship between tooth proportions and brain size among our fossil relatives.

Paleontologists have only limited skeletal materials, sometimes only a few teeth, for many fossil species, including Homo floresiensis. If tooth proportions can provide information about fossil brain size, it opens up a world of possibilities for assessing past changes in encephalization.

Reconstructing brain size using teeth

We collated data on tooth and brain size for 15 fossil species on the human family tree, spanning about 5 million years of evolution. Somewhat oxymoronically, the third molars – otherwise known as wisdom teeth – have gotten proportionally smaller as brain size has gotten larger throughout human evolution, for most species.

Overall, human relatives with relatively larger wisdom teeth are more ancient and had smaller brains. More recent taxa, like Homo neanderthalensis, had relatively smaller third molars, compared to their other teeth, and larger brains.

This relationship allows researchers to figure out something about brain size for fossils that are incomplete, perhaps existing only as a few lone teeth. Since teeth are predominately made of inorganic matter, they survive in the fossil record much more often than other parts of the body, making up the vast majority of paleontological materials recovered. Being able to know more about brain size from just a few teeth is a truly useful tool.

Scientists recognize now that the formation of the brain and the teeth are inextricably connected during gestation. And for most species, larger brains are correlated with smaller wisdom teeth.

The one exception in genus Homo is Homo floresiensis, the Hobbit. The wisdom teeth of the Hobbits are small proportional to the other molars – the typical pattern for members of genus Homo. But their brains are also small, which is quite unusual.

There are two primary ways for brain size to decrease: by slowing down growth during gestation before birth or by slowing down growth after birth, during childhood. Because teeth develop early in gestation, slowing down growth rates during pregnancy tends to affect tooth shape and size, or even whether the teeth develop at all. Slowing growth later, during childhood, influences skeletal shape and size in other ways, because different parts of the body develop at different times.

Our new research provides evidence that the body size of Homo floresiensis likely shrank from a larger-bodied Homo ancestor by slowing down growth during childhood. The Hobbits’ small wisdom teeth suggest that, at least in utero, they were on track for the proportionally bigger brains that are the trademark of humans and their relatives. Any brake that slowed down brain growth likely occurred after birth.

In fact, this is the same mechanism through which some short-statured modern human populations have adapted to their local ecological conditions.

Getting small on islands

The small body size of Homo floresiensis was likely an adaptation to the unique conditions of their island environment on Flores.

Evolving small body size as an adaptation to living on an isolated island is known as insular nanism. There are many examples of other mammals becoming small on islands over the past 60 million years. But one of the most relevant examples is the dwarf elephant, Stegodon sondaarii, that lived on Flores and was hunted by H. floresiensis for food.

Both Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis, another short, island hominin from southeast Asia, likely evolved very short stature because of the ecological effects of limited food availability and lack of large predators, which tends to characterize island habitats.

Because brain size and body size are tightly linked, body size evolution inherently affects brain evolution. Among modern humans, larger people have larger brains, and smaller people have smaller brains.

But people with smaller brains are certainly no less intelligent than people with larger brains. Variation in body size dictates brain size; it is not a measure of cognitive ability. The island Hobbits crafted tools, hunted large-for-them game in the form of pygmy elephants, and likely made and used fire.

Our research supports that their small body size originated from a slowdown in growth during childhood. But this process would likely have had little impact on brain function or cognitive ability. We hypothesize that the Hobbits were small but highly capable.

Understanding the evolution of us

New research, including our study, continues to reinforce the importance of understanding how pregnancy and child growth and development evolved. If we want to know what distinguishes humans from our evolutionary ancestors, and how we evolved, we must understand how the earliest moments of life have changed and why.

Our work also encourages the reevaluation of endless attention on increasing brain size as the predominant force in human evolution. Other species in genus Homo had small brains but were likely not much different from us.

Tesla Monson receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

Andrew Weitz 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. Hobbits of Flores evolved to be small by slowing down growth during childhood, new research on teeth and brain size suggests – https://theconversation.com/hobbits-of-flores-evolved-to-be-small-by-slowing-down-growth-during-childhood-new-research-on-teeth-and-brain-size-suggests-261257

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Charlotte Oliver, Extension Associate Professor, Colorado State University

Grape phylloxera, or Daktulosphaira vitifoliae, is an aphidlike insect that attacks grapevines with devastating effects. In Colorado, where wine is an estimated US$3.9 billion dollar industry, phylloxera poses a significant threat.

In 2015, several vineyards in the Grand Valley American Viticultural Area on Colorado’s Western Slope observed that groups of their vines were not thriving. The vines were yellowing and producing limited fruit. All the normal issues, such as nutritional deficiencies and irrigation problems, were investigated and nothing turned up.

So, in 2016, two Colorado State University researchers began surveying vineyards in Mesa County and found the industry’s worst nightmare – phylloxera, which had infested the roots in several local vineyards.

The pair expanded their survey and covered more than 350 vineyard acres across Mesa, Delta and Montezuma counties, where wine grapes are grown. Phylloxera was found in both Mesa and Delta counties in 18 vineyards for a total of 34 scattered acres. The phylloxera wasn’t centralized, which made controlling its spread complicated.

In response to the researchers’ findings, the Colorado Wine Industry Development Board and the Colorado Association for Viticulture and Enology began an education campaign in 2017 to minimize visitors to vineyards and help vineyards manage soil movement, the primary mode of phylloxera spread.

As the viticulture extension specialist at Colorado State University, I spend a lot of time helping Coloradans work with their grapevines. In 2024, I took over the research at Colorado State University on the phylloxera infestation that is still active nine years after it was discovered. I plan to continue tracking phylloxera’s spread and training producers on what to do when, not if, this pest appears in their vineyard.

What is phylloxera?

Phylloxera have two discrete forms during their life cycle: an above-ground, winged form called alates and a below-ground, wingless, root-feeding form called radicoles.

The above-ground form of the insect causes galls, which are lumpy swellings on the grape leaves, that generally have limited impact on the vine’s health.

However, the below-ground insects that feed on the vine’s roots cause severe damage. The roots are the vine’s main tool for foraging for nutrients and water, so when they are compromised the vine starts to suffer and eventually dies four to seven years after being infected. Sometimes phylloxera’s infestation looks like a lack of nutrition or water, so knowing what is wrong with the vines can require a lot of searching and testing. The real issue is that as the vine declines, it also stops producing a commercially viable quantity of fruit, which is 2.5-4 tons per acre. No fruit means no wine, so the vines have to be removed.

Managing the ‘wine blight’

Grapevines, like a lot of other perennial crops, including peaches and apples, are usually grafted, which is when the top of one plant and the roots of another plant are combined to make one continuous plant. Usually, the grafting is to change something about the physicality of the plant, such as making it bigger or smaller. With grapes, the main reason to graft is to protect the vine from damage from a single pest – grape phylloxera.

There are alternatives such as insecticides, but they are Band-Aids, because insecticides suppress only the pest. Grape roots, and the phylloxera on them, can go far deeper into the soil than the soil insecticide treatments, and some of the treatments to the leaves can be damaging to honeybees.

Another potential solution is using modern varieties of grapes that were bred by crossing native North American grapes with the standard European wine grape. By adding in North American grapes, the new varieties are more tolerant of the phylloxera and can handle some damage. The issue with these varieties, such as Chambourcin and Aromella, is that consumers have never heard of them, which is a major factor when people buy wine. These varieties also have more Concord grape flavors that are less common to wine drinkers outside of the East Coast of the U.S.

Globe-trotting pests

Phylloxera is native to the East Coast and Midwestern United States, but now it’s found in all grape-growing regions worldwide.

In the late 1800s, phylloxera started making its way around the world. Phylloxera can fly when it is in its above-ground life cycle, but the below-ground insects can be spread any time soil is moved. It hitched a ride to France in the early 1860s on North American grape plants that were being imported to help with powdery mildew, which is the most economically damaging fungal disease of grapes. Powdery mildew, or Erysiphe necator, can attack all growing tissues of a vine, including blooms, leaves and shoots, and control can account for approximately 37% of gross grape production cost.

Over the course of three decades after phylloxera was introduced to France, it caused approximately 2.5 million acres of vines to be replaced.

Once it crossed the Atlantic, phylloxera was flying over borders and road-tripping from vineyard to vineyard on workers’ shoes and tractors. By the beginning of the 1900s, phylloxera had spread throughout France, Portugal, Germany and then Spain and established itself as a permanent problem. The European varieties of grapes had no resistance to phylloxera, and the insects found ways to evade chemical management, making yearly insecticide applications a necessity.

While phylloxera is native to the U.S., until recently, there were several states that did not have it, including Colorado, Oregon and Washington.

Colorado’s 50-year-old wine grape industry benefited from the absence of phylloxera. Vineyards owners planted mostly self-rooted European variety vines starting around the mid-1980s. Self-rooted vines are not grafted, which means that a Chardonnay vine was Chardonnay both above and below ground.

Currently, there are areas in multiple countries such as Australia and China, and certain states such as Washington, where phylloxera is present but well contained through quarantine. However, there are concerns for the future. Computer modeling has offered ideas about the future expansion of phylloxera’s survival range on both a regional and global scale.

What does the future hold?

In a 2019 survey by the same research team, more phylloxera was found in vineyards in Delta County as well as a new vineyard outside of Denver. Currently, many Colorado vineyards are in the middle of overhauling their vineyards. The spread of phylloxera as well as the frequency of freezes has led to extensive death in vineyards across the Western Slope.

The percentage of acreage planted with nongrafted, non-European grapes has increased to 25% in recent years, according to results from statewide surveys. Approximately 30% of the replaced vineyards were with new modern varieties, and the rest were replaced with grafted European varieties.

While the European grafted vine may provide a higher-priced fruit due to market demand, the modern varieties have a lot of appeal. Since the vines are more phylloxera tolerant, they do not have to be grafted, so they can easily be recovered when a harsh fall freeze happens.

While the Colorado wine industry has accepted that phylloxera is here to stay, expanded surveys are needed to better understand how far this pest has spread, especially in the more isolated areas of the West Elks American Viticultural Area, in Delta County, the southwest corner of Colorado, in Montezuma County, and in Fremont and Pueblo counties.

Additionally, future phylloxera spread may be better estimated by studying soil texture and temperature, which has been done in models created by Washington State University. Phylloxera may be less likely to survive in certain areas of Colorado. If those areas are also suitable for grape production, it could help direct the locations of future plantings, especially of European varieties.

Read more of our stories about Colorado.

Charlotte Oliver 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. How a devastating grape pest is reshaping vineyards across Colorado’s Western Slope – https://theconversation.com/how-a-devastating-grape-pest-is-reshaping-vineyards-across-colorados-western-slope-263088

Source: The Conversation – USA – By John M. Horack, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The Ohio State University

For 24 hours a day, seven days a week since November 2000, NASA and its international partners have sustained a continuous human presence in low-Earth orbit, including at least one American – a streak that will soon reach 25 years.

When viewed in the history of spaceflight, the International Space Station is perhaps one of humanity’s most amazing accomplishments, a shining example of cooperation in space among the United States, Europe, Canada, Japan and Russia. But all good things must come to an end.

In 2030, the International Space Station will be deorbited: driven into a remote area of the Pacific Ocean.

I’m an aerospace engineer who has helped build a range of hardware and experiments for the ISS. As a member of the spaceflight community for over 30 years and a 17-year member of the NASA community, it will be hard for me to see the ISS come to an end.

Since the first pieces of the International Space Station were launched in 1998, the station has been home to significant research accomplishments across domains that include materials science, biotechnology, astronomy and astrophysics, Earth science, combustion and more.

Astronauts performing research inside the space station and payload experiments attached to the station’s exterior have generated many publications in peer-reviewed science journals. Some of them have advanced our understanding of thunderstorms, led to improvements in the crystallization processes of key cancer-fighting drugs, detailed how to grow artificial retinas in space, explored the processing of ultrapure optical fibers and explained how to sequence DNA in orbit.

In total, more than 4,000 experiments have been conducted aboard the ISS, resulting in more than 4,400 research publications dedicated to advancing and improving life on Earth and helping forge a path for future space exploration activities.

The ISS has proven the value of conducting research in the unique environment of spaceflight – which has very low gravity, a vacuum, extreme temperature cycles and radiation – to advance scientists’ understanding of a wide range of important physical, chemical and biological processes.

Keeping a presence in orbit

But in the wake of the station’s retirement, NASA and its international partners are not abandoning their outpost in low-Earth orbit. Instead, they are looking for alternatives to continue to take advantage of low Earth orbit’s promise as a unique research laboratory and to extend the continuous, 25-year human presence some 250 miles (402 kilometers) above the Earth’s surface.

In December 2021, NASA announced three awards to help develop privately owned, commercially operated space stations in low-Earth orbit.

For years, NASA has successfully sent supplies to the International Space Station using commercial partners, and the agency recently began similar business arrangements with SpaceX and Boeing for transporting crew aboard the Dragon and Starliner spacecraft, respectively.

Based on the success of these programs, NASA invested more than US$400 million to stimulate the development of commercial space stations and hopefully launch and activate them before the ISS is decommissioned.

Dawn of commercial space stations

In September 2025, NASA issued a draft announcement for Phase 2 partnership proposals for commercial space stations. Companies that are selected will receive funding to support critical design reviews and demonstrate stations with four people in orbit for at least 30 days.

NASA will then move forward with formal design acceptance and certification to ensure that these stations meet NASA’s stringent safety requirements. The outcome will allow NASA to purchase missions and other services aboard these stations on a commercial basis – similar to how NASA gets cargo and crew to the ISS today.

Which of these teams will be successful, and on what timescale, remains to be seen.

While these stations are being built, Chinese astronauts will continue to live and work aboard their Tiangong space station, a three-person, permanently crewed facility orbiting approximately 250 miles (402 km) above the Earth’s surface. Consequently, if the ISS’s occupied streak comes to an end, China and Tiangong will take over as the longest continually inhabited space station in operation: It’s been occupied for approximately four years and counting.

In the meantime, enjoy the view

It will be several years before any of these new commercial space stations circle the Earth at around 17,500 miles per hour (28,000 kilometers per hour) and several years before the ISS is deorbited in 2030.

So while you have a chance, take a look up and enjoy the view. On most nights when the ISS flies over, it is simply magnificent: a brilliant blue-white point of light, usually the brightest object in the sky, silently executing a graceful arc across the sky.

Our ancestors could hardly have imagined that one day, one of the brightest objects in the night sky would have been conceived by the human mind and built by human hands.

John M. Horack receives extramural research funding from NASA, Voyager Technologies, and other spaceflight-related sources, as part of his work as a Professor at The Ohio State University.

– ref. NASA will say goodbye to the International Space Station in 2030 − and welcome in the age of commercial space stations – https://theconversation.com/nasa-will-say-goodbye-to-the-international-space-station-in-2030-and-welcome-in-the-age-of-commercial-space-stations-264936

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paul Draus, Professor of Sociology, University of Michigan-Dearborn

Watching the space between two nations shrink became a regular pastime for Detroiters over the past decade as the segments of the Gordie Howe International Bridge gradually grew, extending meter by meter from Ontario on one side and Michigan on the other.

The gap finally closed in July 2024 with the two halves coming together in a long-awaited kiss.

The official grand opening of the bridge was originally scheduled for fall of 2025, but it seems now likely to be delayed into 2026.

I’m a sociologist who has worked alongside neighborhood revitalization projects in Detroit for the past 15 years. I’ve observed the bridge project – and the many tensions around it – from the perspective of adjacent communities of Delray and Mexicantown, communities that are largely hometo low-income Latino, Black and white residents.

The costs and benefits of this binational behemoth are complex and intertwined.

Clearing a chokehold

Boosters on both sides of the border have spoken frequently of the bridge’s expected benefits.

Detroit and Windsor would finally be free of the perpetual chokehold produced by the privately owned Ambassador Bridge.

Auto parts will flow more freely over the border, according to the Cross-Border Institute at the University of Windsor. And the Detroit Greenways Coalition is celebrating that its advocacy led to the inclusion of free pedestrian and bike lanes.

People living close to the existing bridge will gain some relief from truck traffic and pollution. But this burden won’t simply disappear – it will be shifted nearby, where others will have to cope with increased traffic flowing over six lanes 24 hours a day.

A political football

The costs and benefits of the bridge were contested from the beginning.

In the early days, the debate concentrated on who would own the bridge and who would pay for it.

Once just a concept known by the acronym DRIC, or Detroit River International Crossing, the project became real under former Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. In July 2018, representatives from both Ottawa and Washington broke ground on the bridge situated in an area of Detroit empty enough to contain its significant footprint and bear its weight without fear of sinkholes from underground salt mines.

“Every Michigander should thank every Canadian,” said Snyder at the time, alluding to the agreement that Canadian taxpayers alone would pay for the bridge’s construction in exchange for collecting all the tolls.

The bridge’s designers attempted to honor the cultural and natural history of the region. It was named after the legendary Canadian hockey player who was also a longtime stalwart for the Detroit Red Wings. The bridge’s towers are adorned with murals by First Nations artists.

But serious questions remain.

Today the debates center on whether the Trump administration’s increased tariffs and trade conflicts with Canada could negatively affect the value of the bridge – and if it will ever pay for itself. Even before President Donald Trump took office for the second time, truck traffic on the Ambassador Bridge was down, falling 8% from 2014 to 2024.

One bridge was always a bad idea, (nearly) everyone agreed

Residents and politicians have long agreed that having a single, privately owned bridge connecting Detroit and Windsor was a bad idea. This felt especially apparent after the 9/11 terrorist attacks laid bare the possibility of suddenly losing critical infrastructure.

For many years, travelers’ only other connection between Canada and Detroit has been a tunnel that runs underneath the Detroit River. However, the tunnel doesn’t offer direct access to interstate highways, making it less suitable for commercial trucks.

Adding another bridge makes it harder to disrupt trade and transport.

But the project has had one stalwart critic. Matty Moroun, the trucking billionaire who purchased the Ambassador Bridge in 1979, ferociously protected his asset against potential competition. He actively sought to thwart the construction, launching numerous lawsuits against the state of Michigan and the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority, the entity managing construction of the new bridge.

Those lawsuits continued even after Moroun’s death in 2020, as his heirs asserted significant damages to the value of their property.

Was enough done for nearby homeowners?

Others have criticized the attempts to compensate the residents of Delray, a once-vibrant neighborhood that has been impacted by industrialization since the 1960s.

Benefits negotiated for residents and homeowners affected by the construction have not increased as the project’s costs ballooned and the timeline to complete it stretched out.

The cost of the Gordie Howe bridge is now estimated at around $6.4 billion Canadian – or about $US4.7 billion. That is $700 million more than the original projected cost. The project is at least 10 months behind schedule.

Simone Sagovac, director of the SW Detroit Community Benefit Coalition, said they did not anticipate the immense scale of the development and its continued effects on the community.

“That scale affected health and quality of life significantly every day, with years of continuous industrial dust causing sinus problems, headaches, and increasing asthma, and then there will be thousands of daily truck impacts to come,” Sagovac wrote to me in an email.

A baseline health impact assessment, issued in 2019 by University of Michigan researchers working closely with the coalition, expressed concern about the heightened airborne pollution that would likely activate asthma, especially in children. Matching the findings of so many other epidemiological studies, the assessment found that residents living within 500 feet (152 meters) of a truck route reported a significantly higher likelihood of experiencing asthma or allergies affecting their breathing.

Sagovac wrote that the project took 250 homes, 43 businesses and five churches by eminent domain, and “saw the closing of more after.” One hundred families left the neighborhood via a home swap program funded as a result of the benefits agreement administered by a local nonprofit. Two hundred and seventy families remain, but most businesses have left the area over decades of decline.

The families that remain are often long-term residents wanting or needing a cheap place to live and willing to put up with dust, noise and smells from nearby factories and a sewage treatment plant.

“They constantly face illegal dumping and other unanswered crimes, and will face the worst diesel emissions exposure and other trucking and industry impacts,” Sagovac wrote.

Heather Grondin, chief relations officer of the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority, wrote in an emailed statement
that they have taken steps to minimize impacts from construction and that they regularly meet with the community to hear concerns.

“Construction traffic is using designated haul routes to minimize community impacts, traffic congestion and wear and tear on existing infrastructure while maximizing public and construction safety,” Grondin wrote.

According to Grondin, cars will be forced to follow a “no idling” rule on the American side to minimize pollution. Other aspects of the Community Benefits Plan included $20,000 in free repairs for 100 homes, planting hundreds of trees and investing in programs addressing food insecurity and the needs of young people and seniors, Grondin wrote.

An updated Health Impacted Assessment is expected to be released later in 2025.

History lost

Lloyd Baldwin, a historian for the Michigan Department of Transportation, was tasked with evaluating whether local landmarks like the legendary Kovacs Bar needed to be preserved.

“Kovacs Bar was one among many working-class bars in the Delray neighborhood but stands out for its roughly eight-decade association as a gathering place for the neighborhood and downriver Hungarian-American community,” Baldwin wrote in one such report.

The bar was nonetheless demolished in November 2017.

This was not MDOT’s only loss. While the agency made some sincere efforts to leverage other benefits for residents who remained, dynamic factors at many levels were out of the agency’s control.

For one thing, the numerous lawsuits filed by the bridge company over parcels of contested land limited MDOT’s ability to talk openly to the public about the land acquisition process.

In the period of legal limbo, Baldwin said, “the neighborhood imploded.”

Baldwin gave the example of the Berwalt Manor Apartments, built in the 1920s and located on Campbell Street near the bridge entrance. MDOT committed to preserve the historic building and proposed to mitigate the environmental impacts on mostly low-income residents by paying for new windows and HVAC units once the bridge was built.

But the speed of development outstripped the pace of community compensation. The building passed through probate court in 2018 and has since changed hands multiple times, so it is now unclear whether there are any low-income residents left to benefit from upgrades.

Benefits yet to be measured

On the brighter side, environmentalists have pointed to the expansion and connection of bicycle trails and bird migration corridors as long-term benefits of the Gordie Howe bridge.

On the Canadian side, the bridge construction falls largely outside of Windsor’s residential neighborhoods, so it caused less disruption. As part of the project,bike lanes, enhanced landscaping, and gathering spaces were added to an approach road called Sandwich Street.

Cross-border tourism spurred on by a proposed system of greenways called the “Great Lakes Way” may provide new opportunities for people and money to flow across the Detroit River, improving the quality of life for communities that remain.

But if the trade war between the Trump administration and Canada continues, observers may question whether the bridge is a graceful gift of infrastructure to two nations or one of the world’s longest and skinniest white elephants.

Paul Draus is affiliated with the Downriver Delta CDC and Friends of the Rouge. The Fort Street Bridge Park, a project that Draus is affiliated with, received a donation for a public sculpture from the Windsor Detroit Bridge Authority in 2020.

– ref. Detroit’s Gordie Howe bridge is poised to open as truck traffic between US-Canada slows – and low-income residents decide whether to stay or go – https://theconversation.com/detroits-gordie-howe-bridge-is-poised-to-open-as-truck-traffic-between-us-canada-slows-and-low-income-residents-decide-whether-to-stay-or-go-260280

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jennifer L. Steele, Professor of Education, American University

As an education researcher who has studied the economic returns of higher education, I know that college degrees remain cost-effective investments for most students.

But college tuition has risen at roughly twice the rate of inflation during the past two decades, and federal student debt climbed 500% to US$1.6 trillion during that same period.

The Biden administration sought to address this problem with plans that accelerated student loan forgiveness for lower-income borrowers with small balances, allowing debt cancellation after 10 years of repayment, instead of 20 or 25.

However, the courts blocked those efforts, and the Trump administration has taken a sharply different approach.

Guided by evidence that higher borrowing limits contribute to tuition increases, the tax breaks and spending cuts bill that President Donald Trump signed into law in July 2025 brings changes to the federal financial aid system that prospective higher education students should understand.

The Pell Grant – a need-based higher education grant from the U.S. Department of Education that, unlike a loan, does not need to be repaid – lies at the heart of the federal financial aid system.

While the Trump administration is slightly expanding people’s eligibility for Pell Grants, the new policies also aim to reduce the national student loan spiral by reducing limits on how much some students can borrow for their educations.

Rising college costs and government involvement

The average annual cost of tuition, fees, room and board for a student at a four-year college in the U.S. in the 2022-23 school year was $30,884, according to the latest available Department of Education data.

But the cost of tuition alone varies dramatically between in-state rates for public colleges, which receive state funding, and private nonprofit colleges, which do not.

While the average annual tuition was $9,750 per year for in-state students at public four-year colleges in 2022-23, it reached $38,421 at private nonprofit colleges, even if a student lived at home and did not pay for room and board.

These prices are roughly two to 200 times those of 42 other countries across six continents that have high-quality education data – not including seven countries, including Sweden and Saudi Arabia, that essentially have free tuition.

While many countries around the world subsidize tuition directly, the U.S. government focuses assistance toward individual students based on their financial need.

It does this through a combination of federal grants, loans and subsidies for campus jobs, all administered by the Department of Education.

In 2019-20, about 40% of the nation’s 17 million undergraduates received federal grants – mostly Pell Grants, according to the latest federal data.

Meanwhile, 34% of undergraduates and 39% of the country’s 3 million graduate students received federal loans during this same time period.

Roughly 5% of undergraduates received subsidized on-campus jobs through federal work study in the 2019-20 school year.

Changes ahead for Pell Grants

The U.S. government first awarded Pell Grants to students in 1973. They are designed to make college affordable for families, as determined by their income, family size and savings.

Historically, Pell Grants have focused just on undergraduates.

In 2022-23, about 75% of Pell funds went to students from families earning less than $40,000 per year.

Still, a family of four earning as much as $92,000 a year in 2024 would also qualify for a small Pell Grant in some circumstances.

A version of the Trump administration’s budget proposal for October 2025 through September 2026 called for reducing the maximum federal Pell Grant award to $5,710 a year from $7,395.

This caused some observers to worry that the Trump administration would try to scale back federal Pell Grants, which offer $740 to $7,395 per year to students in the 2025-26 school year.

Instead, the budget bill shores up overall Pell Grant funding and holds grant amounts level with those of previous years. It also creates a new type of Pell Grant to support workers seeking short-term retraining in a particular industry.

The budget bill also introduces another new grant called the Workforce Pell Grant. Starting July 1, 2026, this program will make small Pell Grants available for students pursuing career training programs of eight to 15 weeks toward recognized credentials in “in-demand industry sectors or occupations,” even if students already have bachelor’s degrees.

Controversially, a new House of Representatives appropriations bill proposes to rename the Workforce Pell Grants as
“Trump Grants.”

But whether or not Congress approves the renaming, the grants will for the first time make Pell funds available to people who need short-term training to stay current in the labor market.

This is particularly important as long-term unemployment rises among the college-educated, driven by federal layoffs as well as the growth of artificial intelligence.

The role played by federal student loans

Despite some of their advantages, Pell Grants cover only about a quarter of the total cost of college attendance. As a result, 83% of Pell Grant recipients also receive other forms of aid – mostly through federal direct loans, which must be repaid.

The average undergraduate direct loan borrower graduated with about $26,000 in federal debt in 2019-20.

Assuming the 6.08% interest rate on federal loans at that time, it would have cost a graduate $290 a month to repay the loans under the standard 10-year payment plan.

Even so, about 10% of student loan borrowers default, meaning they stop paying on their loans entirely.

Loan default rates are higher among students who attended less-selective colleges and those who did not finish their degrees.

Under existing rules that are not changing under the Trump administration, undergraduates will still be able to borrow up to roughly $10,000 per year in federal direct loans, depending on how far along they are in school.

Graduate students, meanwhile, will still be able to borrow up to $20,500 per year.

New limits for part-time and graduate students

One important change following the Trump budget bill’s passage is that the Department of Education will pro-rate, or reduce, Pell Grant limits for students enrolled part time.

This means tuition at some higher-priced colleges may become unaffordable for part-time students.

This change will force some students to choose between enrolling part time in a low-tuition program or full time in a higher-tuition program.

The other change to federal borrowing limits pertains to graduate students.

The budget bill lowers the lifetime borrowing limit for graduate study from $138,500 to $100,000.

For students pursuing professional degrees such as law and medicine, the limit rises to $200,000.

But the law does away with a program for graduate students called PLUS Loans that now serves about 11% of graduate students, including about 40% of students seeking professional doctorates.

These changes may make it more expensive for graduate students to receive a degree, which could steer them toward lower-priced programs.

The effect for prospective students

As prospective students weigh their options, they should remember that most facets of federal financial aid remain unchanged.

Key changes aim at limiting high debt levels, specifically for part-time and graduate students and those attending high-tuition colleges when lower-priced institutions are readily available.

These changes may reroute some students from private to in-state colleges and from part-time to full-time study. Faced with increased price competition, some colleges may feel pressure to scale back costs through cuts to programs, services and amenities. For prospective students, such moves could reduce colleges’ luxuries but improve their affordability in the long run.

Jennifer L. Steele 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 isn’t cutting Pell Grants, after all − but other changes could complicate financial aid for some students – https://theconversation.com/trump-isnt-cutting-pell-grants-after-all-but-other-changes-could-complicate-financial-aid-for-some-students-265136