MIL Submissions Engine

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

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

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

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

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

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

The budget process in brief

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental programs and management

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

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

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

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

Science and technology

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

Superfund and other trust funds

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

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

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

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

State operating grants

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

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

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

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

State capitalization grants

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: – By Brian J. Yanites, Associate Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Science. Professor of Surficial and Sedimentary Geology, Indiana University

Hurricane Helene lasted only a few days in September 2024, but it altered the landscape of the Southeastern U.S. in profound ways that will affect the hazards local residents face far into the future.

Mudslides buried roads and reshaped river channels. Uprooted trees left soil on hillslopes exposed to the elements. Sediment that washed into rivers changed how water flows through the landscape, leaving some areas more prone to flooding and erosion.

Helene was a powerful reminder that natural hazards don’t disappear when the skies clear – they evolve.

These transformations are part of what scientists call cascading hazards. They occur when one natural event alters the landscape in ways that lead to future hazards. A landslide triggered by a storm might clog a river, leading to downstream flooding months or years later. A wildfire can alter the soil and vegetation, setting the stage for debris flows with the next rainstorm.

I study these disasters as a geomorphologist. In a new paper in the journal Science, I and a team of scientists from 18 universities and the U.S. Geological Survey explain why hazard models – used to help communities prepare for disasters – can’t just rely on the past. Instead, they need to be nimble enough to forecast how hazards evolve in real time.

The science behind cascading hazards

Cascading hazards aren’t random. They emerge from physical processes that operate continuously across the landscape – sediment movement, weathering, erosion. Together, the atmosphere, biosphere and the earth are constantly reshaping the conditions that cause natural disasters.

For instance, earthquakes fracture rock and shake loose soil. Even if landslides don’t occur during the quake itself, the ground may be weakened, leaving it primed for failure during later rainstorms.

That’s exactly what happened after the 2008 earthquake in Sichuan Province, China, which led to a surge in debris flows long after the initial seismic event.

Earth’s surface retains a “memory” of these events. Sediment disturbed in an earthquake, wildfire or severe storm will move downslope over years or even decades, reshaping the landscape as it goes.

The 1950 Assam earthquake in India is a striking example: It triggered thousands of landslides. The sediment from these landslides gradually moved through the river system, eventually causing flooding and changing river channels in Bangladesh some 20 years later.

An intensifying threat in a changing world

These risks present challenges for everything from emergency planning to home insurance. After repeated wildfire-mudslide combinations in California, some insurers pulled out of the state entirely, citing mounting risks and rising costs among the reasons.

Cascading hazards are not new, but their impact is intensifying.

Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of wildfires, storms and extreme rainfall. At the same time, urban development continues to expand into steep, hazard-prone terrain, exposing more people and infrastructure to evolving risks.

The rising risk of interconnected climate disasters like these is overwhelming systems built for isolated events.

Yet climate change is only part of the equation. Earth processes – such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions – also trigger cascading hazards, often with long-lasting effects.

Mount St. Helens is a powerful example: More than four decades after its eruption in 1980, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to manage ash and sediment from the eruption to keep it from filling river channels in ways that could increase the flood risk in downstream communities.

Rethinking risk and building resilience

Traditionally, insurance companies and disaster managers have estimated hazard risk by looking at past events.

But when the landscape has changed, the past may no longer be a reliable guide to the future. To address this, computer models based on the physics of how these events work are needed to help forecast hazard evolution in real time, much like weather models update with new atmospheric data.

Thanks to advances in Earth observation technology, such as satellite imagery, drone and lidar, which is similar to radar but uses light, scientists can now track how hillslopes, rivers and vegetation change after disasters. These observations can feed into geomorphic models that simulate how loosened sediment moves and where hazards are likely to emerge next.

Researchers are already coupling weather forecasts with post-wildfire debris flow models. Other models simulate how sediment pulses travel through river networks.

Cascading hazards reveal that Earth’s surface is not a passive backdrop, but an active, evolving system. Each event reshapes the stage for the next.

Understanding these connections is critical for building resilience so communities can withstand future storms, earthquakes and the problems created by debris flows. Better forecasts can inform building codes, guide infrastructure design and improve how risk is priced and managed. They can help communities anticipate long-term threats and adapt before the next disaster strikes.

Most importantly, they challenge everyone to think beyond the immediate aftermath of a disaster – and to recognize the slow, quiet transformations that build toward the next.

Brian J. Yanites receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

– ref. Hurricane Helene set up future disasters, from landslides to flooding – cascading hazards like these are now upending risk models – https://theconversation.com/hurricane-helene-set-up-future-disasters-from-landslides-to-flooding-cascading-hazards-like-these-are-now-upending-risk-models-259502

Source: – By Adriana Costa, Assistant Professor of Sustainable Bioproducts, Mississippi State University

People dedicated to the art of grilling often choose lump charcoal – actual pieces of wood that have been turned into charcoal – over briquettes, which are compressed charcoal dust with other ingredients to keep the dust together and help it burn better.

The kinds of wood used to make lump charcoal affect how it burns and how the food tastes when grilled. Dedicated grillers are often willing to pay a premium for higher heat, no additives, particular flavors and the cleaner burn they get from particular wood species in lump charcoal.

Buyers probably expect the label to accurately report how much charcoal they are getting, what kind of wood it is, and where the wood was grown.

A spot-check I helped conduct on lump charcoal for sale in the U.S. has revealed that the information on the label does not always match what is inside the bag. Customers might not know what they are actually buying, potentially affecting their purchasing choices and even their grilling experience.

Origin matters

Charcoal is made from wood heated in a low-oxygen environment to remove water and volatile compounds. This process leaves behind a carbon-rich material that burns hotter and more cleanly than raw wood, making it ideal for grilling.

The origin of the trees used affects charcoal’s ecological sustainability. Some charcoal produced in Mexico, Paraguay and Brazil has been linked to deforestation and unsustainable logging practices. Charcoal from hardwood trees harvested in the U.S. is generally considered to be more sustainable.

We decided to investigate more deeply what consumers are actually getting when they buy a bag of lump charcoal.

We looked at a range of products, some of which were labeled as from the U.S., some from other countries and others that did not specify a country of origin.

We purchased one bag each of 15 major U.S. lump charcoal brands online. We did not identify the specific producers. Instead, we wanted to give an overall sense of the products available on the market and evaluate how closely product claims on the packaging matched what was actually in the bags.

Kinds of charcoal we found

We determined the type of wood the charcoal was made from by examining each lump under a microscope or handheld magnifying lens and matching the patterns in the wood structure with the ones in our collection.

Identifying the species allowed us to broadly infer the origin of the charcoal based on where those kinds of trees typically grow.

Nearly half of all the lump charcoal we examined was oak or mesquite, which are both hardwoods that grow in North America, including in the U.S. and Mexico.

In two out of five bags claiming their charcoal had come from the U.S., 15% or more of the material was actually tropical woods, such as ipe, which are not native to the U.S. These woods may have been harvested unsustainably. Other species we found included pine and sweet gum, which perform poorly as grilling woods.

Much of the tropical wood was in small fragments, which made us think it might have been intentionally used as cheap filler.

We found one bag that was labeled “One ingredient: Oak hardwood” that contained no oak at all. Instead, it was a mix of at least six tropical woods.

What else was in the bag?

We also discovered concerns related to product weight and the quantity of extraneous material in the bags. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act is a U.S. law that requires product containers to carry labels that accurately describe the contents. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has specific methods for measuring and characterizing contents of packaged goods.

These requirements do allow some variations in weight, but nearly half the bags we examined were underfilled, and one-third were far enough underweight that their label claims fell outside what is legally acceptable.

Also, in every bag we found bark and tiny charcoal fragments, which burn quickly and unevenly. Six bags had rocks in them. Without those extra materials, all 15 bags were underweight, and none gave buyers as much effective grilling fuel as they promised.

So when consumers pay more for what they think is a premium charcoal product, they may, in fact, be getting nothing of the sort.

Adriana Costa has received funding from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, McIntire Stennis, USDA Agricultural Research Service, and the USDA Forest Products Laboratory. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.

– ref. Grilling with lump charcoal: Is US-grown hardwood really in that bag? – https://theconversation.com/grilling-with-lump-charcoal-is-us-grown-hardwood-really-in-that-bag-258157

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why does a diverse teacher workforce matter?

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

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

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

Providing pathways

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

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

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

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

Anti-DEI movement cuts funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Student visas under fire

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

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

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

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

A long history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-Chinese discrimination

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

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

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

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

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

Broader foreign policy context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s what we found:

Employers are rethinking talent pipelines

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

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

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

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

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

What employers want

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

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

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

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

Technology is changing how hiring happens

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

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

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

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

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

This isn’t just about new grads

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

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

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

Show up early, and show up well

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Measuring college readiness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflecting deep inequities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where does higher ed go from here?

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

The answer depends on what values are prioritized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What AI literacy is and isn’t

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

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

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

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

Measuring AI literacy

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

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

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

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

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

Approaches to building AI literacy

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

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

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

Next moves on AI literacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: – By Skip York, Nonresident Fellow in Energy and Global Oil, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University

Global energy markets, such as those for oil, gas and coal, tend to be sensitive to a wide range of world events – especially when there is some sort of crisis. Having worked in the energy industry for over 30 years, I’ve seen how war, political instability, pandemics and economic sanctions can significantly disrupt energy markets and impede them from functioning efficiently.

A look at the basics

First, consider the economic fundamentals of supply and demand. The risk most people imagine in the current crisis between Israel, the U.S. and Iran is that Iran, which is itself a major oil-producing country, might suddenly expand the conflict by threatening the ability of neighboring countries to supply oil to the world.

Oil wells, refineries, pipelines and shipping lanes are the backbone of energy markets. They can be vulnerable during a crisis: Whether there is deliberate sabotage or collateral damage from military action, energy infrastructure often takes a hit.

For instance, after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990, Iraqi forces placed explosive charges on Kuwaiti oil wells and began detonating them in January 1991. It took months for all the resulting fires to be put out, and millions of barrels of oil and hundreds of millions of cubic meters of natural gas were released into the environment – rather than being sold and used productively somewhere around the world.

Logistics can mess markets up too. For instance, closing critical maritime routes like the Strait of Hormuz or the Suez Canal can cause transportation delays.

Whether supply is lost from decreased production or blocked transportation routes, the effect is less oil available to the market, which not only causes prices to rise in general, but it also makes them more volatile – tending to change more frequently and by larger amounts.

On the flip side, demand can also shift radically. During the 1990-1991 Gulf War, demand rose: U.S. forces alone used more than 2 billion gallons of fuel, according to an Army analysis. By contrast, during the COVID-19 pandemic, industries shut down, travel came to a halt and energy demand plummeted.

When crisis looms, countries and companies often start stockpiling oil and other raw materials rather than buying only what they need right now. That creates even more imbalance, resulting in price volatility that leaves everyone, both consumers and producers, with a headache.

Regional considerations

In addition to uncertainties around market fundamentals, it’s important to note that many of the world’s energy reserves are located in regions that have not been models of stability. In the Middle East, wars, revolutions and diplomatic disputes there can raise concerns about supply, demand or both.

Those worries send shock waves through the world’s energy markets. It’s like walking on a tightrope: One wrong move – or even the perception of a misstep – can make the market wobble.

Governments’ economic sanctions, such as those restricting trade with Iran, Russia or Venezuela, can distort production and investment decisions and disrupt trade flows. Sometimes markets react even before sanctions are officially in place: Just the rumor of a possible embargo can cause prices to spike as buyers scramble to secure resources.

In 2008, for example, India and Vietnam imposed rice export bans, and rumors of additional restrictions fueled panic buying and nearly doubled prices in months.

In those scrambles, the role of investor speculation enters the picture. Energy commodities, such as oil and gas, aren’t just physical resources; they’re also traded as financial assets like stocks and bonds. During uncertain times, traders don’t wait around for actual changes in supply and demand. They react to news and forecasts, sometimes in large groups, which can shift the market just with the actions that result from their fears or hopes.

The events on June 22, 2025, are a good example of how this dynamic works. The Iranian parliament passed a resolution authorizing the country’s Supreme Council to close the Strait of Hormuz. Immediately, oil prices started rising, even though the strait was still open, with oil tankers steaming through unimpeded.

The next day, Iran launched a missile strike on Qatar, but coordinated in advance with Qatari officials to minimize damage and casualties. Traders and analysts perceived the action as a de-escalatory signal and anticipated that the Supreme Council was not going to close the strait. So prices started to fall.

It was a price roller coaster, fueled by speculation rather than reality. And computer algorithms and artificial intelligence, which assist in making automated trades, only add to the chaos of price changes.

A broader look

International crises can also cause wider changes in countries’ economies – or the global economy as a whole – which in turn affect the energy market.

If a crisis sparks a recession, rising inflation or high unemployment, those tend to cause people and businesses to use less energy. When the underlying situation stabilizes, recovery efforts can mean energy consumption resumes. But it’s like a pendulum swinging back and forth, with energy markets caught in the middle.

Renewable energy is not immune to international crisis and chaos. The supply is less affected by market forces: The amount of available sunlight and wind isn’t tied to geopolitical relations. But overall economic conditions still affect demand, and a crisis can disrupt the supply chains for the equipment needed to harness renewable energy, like solar panels and wind turbines.

It’s no wonder energy markets are so jittery during international crises. A mix of imbalances between supply and demand, vulnerable infrastructure, political tensions, corporate worries and speculative trading all weave together into a complex web of volatility.

For policymakers, investors and consumers, understanding these dynamics is key to navigating the ups and downs of energy markets in a crisis-prone world. The solutions aren’t simple, but being informed is the first step toward stability.

Skip York is a nonresident fellow for Global Oil and Energy with the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. He also is the Chief Energy Strategist at Turner Mason & Company, an energy consulting firm.

– ref. Why energy markets fluctuate during an international crisis – https://theconversation.com/why-energy-markets-fluctuate-during-an-international-crisis-259839

Source: – By Linda J. Bilmes, Daniel Patrick Moynihan Senior Lecturer in Public Policy and Public Finance, Harvard Kennedy School

The word “reconciliation” sounds benign, even harmonious.

But in Washington, D.C., reconciliation refers to a potent legislative shortcut that allows the party in power to avoid opposition and enact sweeping changes to taxes and spending with a simple majority vote. Democrats used the process to pass the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. Reconciliation helped Republicans pass large tax cuts in 2017.

Reconciliation is also at the heart of the current budget debate, as Senate Republicans rush to advance their version of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” also known by its acronym OBBBA, which passed the House in May 2025.

I served as assistant secretary of Commerce for management and budget during the Clinton administration, when my colleagues and I helped forge bipartisan legislation that balanced the federal budget and produced surpluses over four years, from 1998 to 2001. We were even able to pay off some debt.

But since 2001, the country’s fiscal situation has deteriorated significantly. And the reconciliation process has strayed from its original purpose as a mechanism to promote sound fiscal policy. Instead, it is now used to pass partisan legislation, often without regard to its economic impact on future generations of Americans.

Reconciliation 101

The reconciliation process was created by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which was overwhelmingly supported by both parties. It was designed to align policy goals with budget targets to help rein in deficits.

The rules specify that a bill using the reconciliation process must pertain directly to budgetary or fiscal matters, cannot change Social Security, Medicare or the budget process itself, or deliberately extend deficits beyond a 10-year window. As part of the process, the parliamentarian goes through each element of the bill and determines whether it meets the requirements, removing any that don’t.

This caused the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to hit a snag in the Senate on June 25, 2025, after the parliamentarian ruled several major parts of it couldn’t be included as written, such as an effort to crack down on efforts by states to get more Medicaid funds and a limit on student debt repayment options.

In the Senate, reconciliation has special procedural advantages. Debate is limited to 20 hours. Conveniently for the party in power, the final bill can pass with a simple majority of 51 votes. This avoids the usual 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster.

Over its 50-year history, 23 reconciliation bills have become law.

Reconciliation on rise as budget process breaks down

Over time, reconciliation has become the dominant method for enacting major tax and spending legislation, as the regular congressional budget process has broken down.

Since 1974, there have been multiple government shutdowns, near-shutdowns and short-term, stopgap “continual resolutions” instead of annual budgets, accompanied by rising deficits and national debt.

With few other tools at its disposal, Congress has used reconciliation to push through many pieces of major economic legislation, including the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts under President George W. Bush, the 2017 tax cuts during President Donald Trump’s first term, and the American Rescue Plan in 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 during the Biden administration.

However, reconciliation has significant flaws. Because debate is limited, senators often vote on bills over 1,000 pages long with little time to review the details. And once tax cuts are enacted under reconciliation, it is devilishly hard to get rid of them.

Given the compressed timelines and lack of transparency inherent in such huge, messy spending bills, it is fairly easy for lawmakers to slip in earmarks, tax loopholes and other extraneous items that that don’t get removed by the parliamentarian.

What’s in the bill?

At the heart of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by the House, is an extension of President Trump’s tax cuts from his first term, which would otherwise expire at the end of 2025, according to the procedural rules for reconciliation.

But it also includes multiple new tax cuts – such as an end to taxes on overtime and tips and lower estate taxes – introduces new Medicaid work requirements and repeals various energy credits. In line with the Trump administration’s policies, the bill slashes federal funding for education, Medicaid, public housing, environmental programs, scientific research and some national park and public land protection programs. It also boosts defense spending.

The bill would sharply worsen the nation’s fiscal outlook, according to analyses by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and other organizations.

Currently, the national debt exceeds US$36 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury, and net interest payments account for some 16% of federal revenue, based on the Congressional Budget Office’s projections for 2025.

In its analysis, the Congressional Budget Office – which was also created by the 1974 act – said the House-passed version would increase deficits by more than $3.1 trillion over the next decade. The overwhelming share of this cost comes from the permanent extension of individual tax cuts initially enacted in 2017.

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis, by 2035 households earning at least $1 million would receive an average annual tax cut of about $45,000. Most middle- and lower-income households would receive a cut of less than $500 per year, if anything.

The costs of reconciliation

A number of Senate Republicans have questioned some aspects of the reconciliation package. Since they hold only a 53-47 majority, and with all Democrats expected to vote “no,” they need to use reconciliation to pass their version.

Although it differs from the House version in many ways, the Senate version still favors tax cuts for high-income households and large corporations.

Senate Republicans also employ a flawed accounting gimmick to minimize its apparent cost. It assumes the 2017 Trump tax cuts, which are set to expire, have already been extended and embeds that assumption into the budget baseline.

This makes extending the tax cuts appear costless, even though it would grow the debt substantially. The move violates normal scorekeeping conventions and misleads the public. Honest accounting would show that the Senate plan would add to the debt about $500 billion more than the House version.

Abusing the process

Lots of wrangling and changes are expected before the Senate is able to pass its version. After that, the House and Senate will need to resolve their differences in a conference committee of Republicans from each house of Congress.

Once they agree on a final version, each house votes again – and the Senate version will still need to meet the terms of reconciliation in order to pass with a majority vote. President Trump is pressuring Congress to deliver the bill to his desk before he goes on July Fourth vacation.

In my view, while reconciliation remains a powerful budgetary tool, its current use represents a fundamental inversion of its original purpose. Americans deserve an honest debate about trade-offs, rather than more debt in disguise. Some estimates of the fiscal impact of the Senate’s version of the bill are as high as $3.8 trillion over a decade. Simply waving a magic accounting wand won’t make them go away.

This article was updated to include a Senate parliamentarian ruling about several provisions of the Republican bill.

Linda J. Bilmes served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the US Department of Commerce from 1997-1998 and as CFO and Assistant Secretary for Management, Budget and Administration from 1999-2001.

– ref. What is reconciliation − the legislative shortcut Republicans are using to push through their ‘big, beautiful bill’? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-reconciliation-the-legislative-shortcut-republicans-are-using-to-push-through-their-big-beautiful-bill-255487