Society
Trump’s push to abolish the Education Department: Could it really transform schools?
So, what would an America without the Department of Education look like?
President-elect Donald Trump wants the Department of Education gone. During his presidential campaign, Trump made waves by repeatedly pledging to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, calling it a symbol of federal overreach and an unnecessary drain on taxpayer money. The promise was bold: “We will ultimately eliminate the federal Department of Education,” he declared at a rally in Wisconsin back in 2016. His critics and supporters alike raised eyebrows, but what would actually happen if such a move were to be made?
The Department of Education, created in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, has long played a pivotal role in shaping America’s education system. If Trump’s plan were to move forward, it could mean sweeping changes to how K-12 schools are funded and how federal education policies are implemented.
The Core Functions of the Department
The Department of Education performs several essential roles in the American education system. For one, it funnels billions of federal dollars to states and schools. Its two major funding programs—Title I and IDEA—help support schools serving low-income students and children with disabilities. These programs provide nearly $28 billion annually to K-12 schools, although they represent only a small fraction of overall school funding. The bulk of K-12 school budgets comes from state and local taxes. The Department of Education also manages federal student loans and financial aid programs, including Pell grants, which distribute about $30 billion annually to help low-income college students.
Without these programs, how would schools and students fare? The answer isn’t clear-cut, but one thing is certain: federal funding has become a significant tool in ensuring access to education, especially for marginalized groups.

The Bureaucratic Web: Oversight and Regulations
In addition to distributing funding, the Department of Education plays an oversight role, ensuring that schools meet federal standards and investigating issues of discrimination. Through its Office of Civil Rights, the department enforces rules aimed at preventing discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and disability in schools. Over the years, the department has also been a key player in regulating hot-button issues—such as protections for transgender students and regulations on student loan forgiveness programs.
But what happens if this regulatory body no longer exists? One potential scenario could involve the transfer of these responsibilities to other federal agencies or a decentralization of decision-making power to state and local governments.
Federal Funds: The Strings Attached
Federal money doesn’t come without conditions. For instance, schools that receive funding through programs like Title I must adhere to certain rules and regulations. These guidelines can sometimes create what many consider “red tape.” For years, critics of the Department have argued that the bureaucracy tied to federal funding slows down school improvement efforts and imposes undue burdens on local administrators.
According to experts, the funding programs might survive, albeit in a different structure
Some policy experts suggest that even if the Department of Education were dissolved, the funding itself could continue—possibly in the form of block grants that offer more flexibility to local districts. But others warn that dismantling the department could result in a loss of essential oversight and services, especially for students with special needs.
What Happens to Federal Education Programs?
Interestingly, many of the funding programs the Department of Education oversees—particularly Title I and IDEA—were in place before the agency itself existed. This raises the question: Would these programs disappear if the department were abolished?
According to experts, the funding programs might survive, albeit in a different structure. Congress, which ultimately controls federal spending, has historically resisted efforts to cut education funding, even during budget negotiations when past presidents proposed cuts. Many believe that, even if the Department were to close its doors, the political and public support for these funding streams would likely push them into different agencies or programs.
Can Congress Actually Abolish the Department of Education?
While Trump’s rhetoric may have made abolition sound simple, shutting down a federal agency is no small feat. It would require an act of Congress—a challenge that previous efforts have failed to overcome. Even President Ronald Reagan, shortly after the department’s creation in 1980, proposed its elimination but eventually backed down due to lack of congressional support. The Trump administration also tried to merge the Education and Labor Departments, but that effort stalled in Congress.
Even if the GOP gains unified control of Washington in the coming years, it remains uncertain whether there will be enough support to completely dismantle the Department of Education.
The Road Ahead
So, what would an America without the Department of Education look like? In reality, it’s likely that some form of federal oversight and funding would continue, but the shape of it could change significantly. If Congress and the president were to act, the most likely outcome would be a shift in how federal funds are distributed—potentially with fewer strings attached—and a reorganization of some of the department’s key functions.
While Trump’s rhetoric may have made abolition sound simple, shutting down a federal agency is no small feat. It would require an act of Congress
Ultimately, the debate about whether to abolish the Department of Education touches on much larger issues: how to balance federal power with state autonomy, how to fund public schools fairly, and how to ensure that all students, regardless of background, have access to a high-quality education.
As the conversation continues, one thing is clear: any significant change to the Department of Education would have profound implications for the future of education in America, particularly for its most vulnerable students. Whether that future is shaped by a more decentralised approach or by a reformed federal agency remains to be seen. But one thing is for sure—the stakes are high.
Society
When Pollinators Vanish, Children Go Hungry—Here’s the Proof
A landmark study has, for the first time, traced a direct line from the collapse of wild insect pollinators to the malnutrition and poverty of farming families — reframing biodiversity loss as a global public health emergency.
Two billion. That is how many people on this planet eat what smallholder farmers grow. Not what agri-industrial combines harvest, not what commodity markets trade — what families with small plots of land pull from the soil, season after season, with the tools and seeds and knowledge they have. Two billion people. And a significant share of what keeps those harvests coming, what puts vitamins into the food and income into the household, has no name on any payroll, files no tax return, and has never once been thanked.
It is insects. Wild insects — bees, hoverflies, moths, beetles — moving flower to flower across millions of smallholder fields, doing work that no machine replicates and no subsidy replaces. Pollinator decline is dismantling that system quietly, field by field, season by season. A study published today in Nature, led by researchers at the University of Bristol, has for the first time traced exactly what that loss costs — not in abstracted ecosystem valuations, but in the vitamin A missing from a child’s diet, in the folate a pregnant woman never gets, in the farm income that does not arrive at the end of a harvest. The number at the end of that calculation is not a projection or a model. It is a measurement. And it is arresting.
Insect pollinators, the study found, are responsible for 44% of the farming income of the households tracked, and contribute more than 20% of dietary intake of vitamin A, folate and vitamin E — three nutrients whose deficiency is already linked to stunted child growth, weakened immunity and higher rates of disease. When pollinators vanish, the families don’t just grow less food. They grow less nutritious food, earn less money and become more vulnerable to illness. The cycle reinforces itself, downward.

Ten Villages, One Year, and a Chain of Evidence
The study centred on ten smallholder farming villages and their surrounding landscapes in Nepal. Over the course of a year, the research team — drawn from universities and non-governmental organisations across Nepal, the United Kingdom, the United States and Finland — tracked three things simultaneously: which insects were visiting which crops, what those crops yielded and how nutritious they were, and what the farming families were actually eating and earning.

It is, in structural terms, the kind of study that is very hard to pull off. Most research on pollinators stops at the field boundary — counting bee visits, measuring fruit set, estimating yield differentials. This one kept going, all the way to the dinner table and the household ledger. That continuity of evidence is what makes it significant.

The picture that emerged was not abstract or statistical. It was human. Over half the children in the study villages were too short for their age — a condition that goes by the clinical name of stunting and signals not just poor growth but compromised brain development, reduced immunity and diminished life prospects. The underlying cause, as the researchers documented it, was diet. And that diet depended, in ways the families could not easily see or control, on the insects working their fields.

Pollinator Decline: The Hidden Hunger Nobody Is Counting
There is a term in public health circles for the condition that the Nepal families illustrate: hidden hunger. It describes not the obvious, acute starvation that makes headlines, but the chronic, silent insufficiency of vitamins and minerals that undermines health even when enough calories are being consumed. A quarter of the global population currently suffers from it. It is, by most measures, one of the largest sources of preventable illness on the planet, and it is almost entirely invisible in the way society keeps score of environmental damage.
When a species goes extinct, when a forest is cleared, when an insect population crashes — the accounting of loss is typically measured in biodiversity metrics, in ecosystem service valuations, or in the emotional register of what is no longer there to see. It is almost never measured in folate deficiency, in children’s height-for-age charts, in the likelihood of a farming family falling into debt after a bad harvest.
That is what this study changes. It is not the first to establish that pollinator decline matters for nutrition in the abstract. But it is the first to demonstrate, with tracked data from real communities over a real year, the size and mechanism of the effect — and to show that the effect flows not just through calories but through the specific micronutrients that are hardest to replace.

Biodiversity as Medicine
Planetary Health — the field Dr Myers directs at Johns Hopkins — proceeds from a deceptively simple premise: human health and ecological health are not separate subjects. They are the same subject, studied from different ends. The degradation of natural systems is not a background condition to human development; it is one of the primary mechanisms by which human health is undermined.
That claim has long had intuitive force. What the Bristol study on pollinator decline provides is something more demanding: empirical evidence at the household level. It is one thing to argue that biodiversity loss will eventually compromise food security in a generalised way. It is another to show, village by village, season by season, that the decline in the bee community visiting a particular set of crops reduces particular vitamins in particular families’ diets by a measurable amount.

The phrasing matters. Biodiversity is not a luxury. In policy conversations, the language of luxury — or alternatively, of long-term concern — has frequently served to push ecological questions down the agenda. If the relationship between pollinator health and child health is as direct as this study finds, that framing becomes harder to sustain.
What Goes When the Bees Go
It is worth being specific about the nutritional stakes. Vitamin A deficiency impairs vision, particularly in low light, and compromises the immune system’s ability to fight infections that would otherwise be routine. Folate deficiency during pregnancy causes neural tube defects in developing foetuses, among other effects. Vitamin E is a key antioxidant, and its deficiency is associated with neurological damage and weakened immune function. These are not marginal health concerns. They sit near the top of the global burden of preventable disease.
The crops most dependent on animal pollination — fruits, many vegetables, pulses — are also, not coincidentally, among the most concentrated sources of these particular nutrients. A diet from which pollinator-dependent produce has been reduced or removed can look adequate in calorie terms while being profoundly inadequate in micronutrient terms. The families studied in Nepal were, in effect, already living that deficit, in a context where pollinator diversity is declining.
Globally, insect populations have been under sustained pressure for decades. Pesticide use, habitat loss, monoculture farming, climate change and artificial light at night have all been implicated in declines that researchers have called, in some cases, ecological collapse. The mechanisms are various; the direction of travel is consistent.
The Good News: Reversible by Design
The research is, in its implications, genuinely alarming. But the researchers are also at pains to emphasise something that is easy to miss in the headline findings: the relationship between pollinators and nutrition runs in both directions. If pollinator decline causes nutritional harm, pollinator recovery can produce nutritional gains. And the actions required are not exotic.
Planting wildflowers at field margins. Reducing pesticide inputs. Keeping native bee colonies. These are the kinds of changes that do not require new technology or large capital investment. They require farmers to understand what is happening in their fields at a level of detail most have not previously been given reason to consider. The researchers are already working on that — translating their findings into practical guidance and working with local organisations, government partners and farmers in Nepal to implement changes on the ground.
The approach is now informing Nepal’s emerging National Pollinator Strategy, an effort to make pollinator-friendly practices a standard part of everyday agriculture rather than a specialist conservation concern. The researchers report that farmers who have adopted even modest changes are already seeing improvements in crop yields, income and nutrition — a feedback loop that runs in the direction of health rather than away from it.

A Framework That Travels
Nepal is not an isolated case. Two billion people around the world depend on smallholder farming. Many of them face the same combination of circumstances: high dependence on pollinator-sensitive crops, limited dietary alternatives, micronutrient deficiencies that are already entrenched and ecosystems under stress. The findings from ten Nepali villages do not translate automatically to every agricultural context, but the framework — the method of tracing connections from insects to income to nutrition — does.
Diets even in industrialised countries still depend on pollinators and the ecosystems that sustain global agriculture. The buffer of wealth — the ability to import, substitute, supplement — is larger in wealthy countries, but it is not unlimited, and it does not protect the most economically vulnerable people even within those countries.
The lesson from this research on pollinator decline is less a specific warning about Nepal and more a methodological call to arms: to start measuring the connections that have, until now, been assumed or asserted but rarely demonstrated. When those connections are demonstrated, the case for protecting what remains of insect diversity becomes something different — not a moral preference or an aesthetic value, but a documented precondition for human health.

The Stakes
A quarter of the world’s people are living with hidden hunger. Over half the children in ten Nepali villages are stunted. Forty-four percent of the farming income in those communities flows, invisibly, through the wings of insects that nobody counted or protected until researchers started looking. The insects are in decline.
The study’s authors are careful, as scientists should be, to describe what they found and what it implies rather than what must be done. But the shape of the implication is not obscure. The fabric of life — the phrase Dr Myers uses — is not an abstraction. It is the thing that puts vitamins in a child’s diet and money in a family’s pocket. Tear large enough holes in it, and the consequences are not primarily ecological. They are medical. They are economic. They are, in the most direct sense, human. That’s why the new findings on pollinator decline matter.
The bees were always doing the work. We just weren’t watching closely enough to see it — or to understand what we stood to lose.
Society
Lost in Your Twenties? You’re Not Behind—You’re Becoming
Feeling lost in your twenties? You’re not behind—you’re becoming. Here’s why confusion, doubt and delay are part of growth.

The quarter-life crisis is one of the most widely felt yet least talked-about experiences of early adulthood. Two psychologists explain why the pressure to have everything figured out is making an already difficult decade harder – and how self-compassion could be the most important skill a young person develops.
In recent years, conversations about mental health have become more visible, yet one experience faced by many young adults often remains unspoken: the quarter-life crisis. Across universities, workplaces, and homes, many individuals in their twenties quietly struggle with feelings of uncertainty about their future. They may have completed their education, secured a job, or be actively searching for one, yet a persistent question lingers: Is this the life I really want?
What many describe as a quarter-life crisis is often this exact feeling—uncertainty, comparison, and the quiet fear of falling behind. It’s a phase increasingly common among young adults, where expectations collide with reality, leaving many questioning their choices, direction, and sense of purpose.
The twenties have long been viewed as a time of opportunity, exploration, and independence. However, for many young adults today, this stage is also marked by intense pressure. Decisions about career paths, financial stability, relationships, and personal identity often converge during this period. At the same time, social comparisons — particularly through social media — can create the impression that everyone else seems to have their lives perfectly planned.
What Is a Quarter-Life Crisis, Really?
A quarter-life crisis isn’t just “being dramatic.” It is a period of uncertainty and emotional stress marked by feeling stuck or directionless, comparing yourself constantly to others, doubting your choices, anxiety about the future, and the pressure to have it all figured out. In a world where everyone seems to be thriving online, it is easy to feel like you are the only one struggling. But behind those curated posts, many are just as confused.

Psychologists describe this as a phase of emotional and psychological uncertainty that typically occurs in early adulthood. Unlike the widely discussed mid-life crisis, the quarter-life crisis often emerges when individuals are expected to transition into stable adult roles. The pressure to make the “right” decisions about career, relationships, and life direction can make this period particularly stressful. While these challenges can feel overwhelming, psychological research suggests that certain factors can help young adults navigate this phase more effectively.
Why Are We So Hard on Ourselves?
When things don’t go as planned, most of us turn inward with criticism.
“I should be doing better.” “I’m already behind.” “Everyone else has their life together.”
This inner voice can be harsh, unforgiving, and exhausting. And instead of helping, it makes the crisis feel heavier. That is where self-compassion comes in.
Self-Compassion: The Skill No One Taught Us
Self-compassion is not about being lazy or making excuses. It is about treating yourself with the same kindness you would offer a friend. Think about it: if your friend said they felt lost, would you tell them they were a failure? Probably not.
Psychologist Kristin Neff identifies three elements at the heart of self-compassion: self-kindness — being gentle with yourself instead of critical; common humanity — recognising that struggle is part of being human; and mindfulness — acknowledging your feelings without overreacting. It is not about ignoring your problems; it is about facing them without tearing yourself down.

How Self-Compassion Helps During a Crisis
When you practise self-compassion, something shifts. Instead of panicking, you pause. Instead of judging, you understand. Instead of spiralling, you ground yourself.
Research shows that people who are more self-compassionate experience lower anxiety and stress, better emotional resilience, greater clarity in decision-making, and improved overall wellbeing. Self-compassion does not solve a crisis overnight — but it changes how you go through it.
Small Ways to Be Kinder to Yourself
You do not need a complete life overhaul. Start small. Change your inner dialogue: replace “I’m failing” with “I’m figuring things out.” Take breaks without guilt — rest is productive too. Limit comparison; social media shows highlights, not reality. Celebrate small wins, because progress is not always loud. And ask for help. You do not have to do this alone.
A quarter-life crisis can feel like everything is falling apart. But sometimes, it is actually everything falling into place — just not in the way you expected. In the end, a quarter-life crisis is not a sign that you are failing. It is a sign that you are evolving, and with self-compassion, you can navigate this uncertainty with greater strength, clarity, and trust in your own journey.
Reference
>> Neff, K. (2003). Self-Compassion: An Alternative Conceptualization of a Healthy Attitude Toward Oneself. Self and Identity, 2(2), 85–101.
>> Robinson, O. C. (2019). A Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Case Study of Quarter-Life Crisis During the Post-university Transition: Locked-Out and Locked-In Forms in Combination. Emerging Adulthood, 7(3), 167–179. Scopus.
Glenda Fernandes is a researcher at Christ (Deemed to be University), Bangalore, with a focus on the psychological experiences of young adults, including quarter-life crisis, meaning in life, and self-compassion. Dr. Aiswarya V R is Assistant Professor at Christ (Deemed to be University), Bangalore, specialising in health and developmental psychology. She holds an MSc in Applied Psychology from the University of Calicut and a doctorate in Child Psychology from the University of Kerala.
Sustainable Energy
IEA flags methane cuts as key to energy security amid global crisis
Methane emissions from the global energy sector remain stubbornly high, with no clear signs of decline, even as countries ramp up climate commitments. A new report by the International Energy Agency warns that closing this gap could not only curb warming but also significantly ease global gas shortages.
Released as part of the Global Methane Tracker 2026, the analysis shows that tried-and-tested measures could unlock up to 200 billion cubic metres (bcm) of natural gas annually—a volume that could reshape supply dynamics during a time of geopolitical strain.
Methane emissions plateau despite rising commitments
Despite pledges now covering over half of global oil and gas production, methane emissions from fossil fuels remained near record highs in 2025. The report highlights a widening “implementation gap” between ambition and actual reductions.
Around 70% of emissions are concentrated in just 10 countries, underscoring how targeted action could deliver outsized results. At the same time, performance varies drastically, with the most efficient producers emitting over 100 times less methane than the worst performers.
Energy crisis sharpens urgency
The urgency is heightened by ongoing disruptions in global energy markets, particularly the near-closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which has cut close to 20% of global LNG supply.
The IEA estimates that 15 bcm of gas could be made available quickly through existing methane abatement measures in key exporting and importing countries. Over time, broader action could deliver nearly 100 bcm annually, with another 100 bcm unlocked by eliminating non-emergency gas flaring.
“This is not only a climate issue,” said Tim Gould. “There are also major energy security benefits that can come from tackling methane and flaring, especially at a time when the world is urgently looking for additional supply amid the current crisis.”
Low-cost solutions within reach
The report emphasises that around 70% of methane emissions—roughly 85 million tonnes—can be reduced using existing technologies. Notably, over 35 million tonnes could be avoided at no net cost, making methane abatement one of the most cost-effective climate actions available.
A major share of emissions—about 80% in oil and gas—comes from upstream operations, making this a critical focus area for policymakers.
Coal sector under scrutiny
Experts say the coal sector remains a blind spot in global methane mitigation efforts.
“Coal, one of the biggest methane culprits, is still being ignored,” said Sabina Assan of Ember. “There are cost-effective technologies available today, so this is a low-hanging fruit for tackling methane. We can’t let coal mines off the hook any longer.”
India and other major emitters need sharper focus
For countries like India, the report and accompanying expert commentary point to an urgent need to prioritise methane from coal mining—an area often overlooked in climate strategies.
“Methane emissions from coal mining have not received enough attention,” said Rajasekhar Modadugu. “Major coal mining countries, including India, should focus on existing technologies and the feasibility of capturing or eliminating these emissions.”
Satellites and policy frameworks gaining traction
The report also highlights the growing role of satellite monitoring in identifying large methane leaks, alongside new frameworks developed with international bodies to help governments respond more effectively.
With improved data transparency and emerging markets for low-methane fuels, the IEA suggests the groundwork is already in place. The challenge now lies in execution.
As Gould put it, “Setting targets is only a first step—real progress depends on policies, implementation plans and concrete action
-
Society4 months agoThe Ten-Rupee Doctor Who Sparked a Health Revolution in Kerala’s Tribal Highlands
-
Society5 months agoFrom Qubits to Folk Puppetry: India’s Biggest Quantum Science Communication Conclave Wraps Up in Ahmedabad
-
Earth6 months agoData Becomes the New Oil: IEA Says AI Boom Driving Global Power Demand
-
COP306 months agoCorporate Capture: Fossil Fuel Lobbyists at COP30 Hit Record High, Outnumbering Delegates from Climate-Vulnerable Nations
-
Space & Physics5 months agoIndian Physicists Win 2025 ICTP Prize for Breakthroughs in Quantum Many-Body Physics
-
Sustainable Energy5 months agoThe $76/MWh Breakthrough: Battery-Backed Solar Becomes the Cheapest Firm Power
-
Society4 months agoWhy the ‘Stanford Top 2% Scientists’ Label Is Widely Misrepresented
-
Sustainable Energy6 months agoHow Better Storage and Smarter Grids Could Break India’s Heat–Power Loop


