One Big, Beautiful Bill: How Pell Grant expansions will support millions in workforce training programs starting 2026
The US government is set to expand Pell Grants to include new workforce training programs as part of the landmark legislation signed by President Donald Trump. The law, known as the "One Big, Beautiful Bill Act," aims to provide financial aid to students enrolled in short-term post-high school training programs lasting between eight and 15 weeks.
This expansion is scheduled to begin in July 2026, marking a significant shift in how federal aid supports non-traditional education paths.
Under this law, the US Department of Education will be responsible for vetting and authorizing schools to receive Pell Grant funding for these new programs. The move is designed to assist millions of Americans seeking quick, targeted training in fields such as cosmetology and welding, thereby expanding access to career-focused education beyond traditional college degrees.
Pell Grant expansion to short-term workforce training programs
The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act establishes a new type of Pell Grant specifically for students enrolled in workforce training programs that are shorter than traditional college semesters. The expansion covers programs lasting from eight to 15 weeks, addressing the growing demand for flexible educational opportunities aligned with labor market needs.
This initiative will allow students in approved programs to qualify for federal financial aid, providing critical support for individuals pursuing skills-based training. The Education Department is tasked with beginning the review and approval of eligible programs by July 2026, ensuring that schools meet federal standards to access Pell funds.
Federal student loan repayment plan overhaul
The legislation also replaces all existing federal student loan repayment programs for new borrowers after July 1, 2026, with two streamlined options: a standard repayment plan and an income-based plan.
This change affects new borrowers, while the over 40 million Americans who currently hold federal student loans will retain access to some legacy repayment plans.
However, around 8 million borrowers enrolled in President Joe Biden's signature repayment program will be required to transition to one of the new plans by 2028. The Federal Student Aid office, a division of the Education Department, will oversee this transition and manage repayment operations.
New accountability rules for colleges
In addition to financial aid changes, the bill mandates the Education Department to enforce new accountability standards on colleges and universities. The so-called "do no harm" test aims to prevent federal loans from being available to programs that fail to deliver a positive return on investment for students.
To implement these rules, the Education Department will need to analyze extensive data from multiple sources, including colleges, the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and state agencies.
This data-driven process will assess program outcomes across thousands of schools and tens of thousands of programs over several years.
Department of Education staffing and implementation challenges
The Education Department faces considerable challenges in executing the new law amid significant workforce reductions. Since the beginning of the year, the department's staff has been cut by half, and recent Supreme Court rulings have allowed layoffs of more than 1,000 employees to proceed while legal disputes continue.
Beth Akers, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, expressed concerns about the department's capacity to implement the legislation effectively. She told
USA Today
during a recent webinar, "I do have significant concerns that the speed of the cuts will have left us with a department that is unable to effectively implement this legislation."
Similarly, Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations at the American Council on Education, warned of upcoming difficulties, as reported by
USA Today
: "You can definitely anticipate a lot of problems."
Previous challenges with federal student aid programs
The department's recent history includes difficulties implementing large-scale changes. For example, the rollout of FAFSA simplification legislation in 2020 experienced significant problems that jeopardized financial aid for millions of students. Staffing shortages and reliance on contractors were among the factors cited for the flawed execution.
Despite this, Education Department officials maintain that the agency is prepared to carry out the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act's mandates.
Jeffrey Andrade, a senior official, released guidance for implementation on July 18, with promises of more detailed information in the following weeks and months.
Deputy press secretary Ellen Keast told
USA Today
, "We will continue to deliver meaningful and on-time results while implementing the President's OBBB ('One Big Beautiful Bill') to better serve students, families, and administrators."
Outlook for students and schools
Financial aid administrators have already raised alarms about the potential for disruption as the department reallocates responsibilities to meet new demands. Melanie Storey, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, stressed to
USA Today
the need for clear plans: "With significantly more work on the horizon to implement the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, we reiterate our concerns that the Trump administration has not shared the details of a plan to redistribute the Department's work in a way that does not cause significant disruption for America's college students."
As the US prepares for these major changes in student aid and workforce training support, both students and educational institutions will be closely watching the department's progress in meeting the ambitious goals set by the new law.
TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us
here
.
Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
44 minutes ago
- First Post
Three years after Roe reversal, most Americans still support legal abortion, poll finds
Three years after Roe v. Wade was overturned, about two-thirds of US adults still support legal abortion in most or all cases, a new AP-NORC poll finds, reflecting steady opinions despite growing state-level restrictions and political divides read more Abortion-rights activists demonstrate against the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade that established a constitutional right to abortion, on Capitol Hill in Washington, June 30, 2022. File image/AP Three years after the Supreme Court opened the door to state abortion bans, most US adults say abortion should be legal — views that look similar to before the landmark ruling. The new findings from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll show that about two-thirds of US adults think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. About half believe abortion should be available in their state if someone does not want to be pregnant for any reason. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD That level of support for abortion is down slightly from what an AP-NORC poll showed last year, when it seemed that support for legal abortion might be rising. Laws and opinions changed when Roe was overturned The June 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to state bans on abortion led to major policy changes. Most states have either moved to protect abortion access or restrict it. Twelve are now enforcing bans on abortion at every stage of pregnancy, and four more do so after about six weeks' gestation, which is often before women realize they're pregnant. In the aftermath of the ruling, AP-NORC polling suggested that support for legal abortion access might be increasing. Last year, an AP-NORC poll conducted in June found that 7 in 10 US adults said it should be available in all or most cases, up slightly from 65% in May 2022, just before the decision that overruled the constitutional right to abortion, and 57% in June 2021. The new poll is closer to Americans' views before the Supreme Court ruled. Now, 64% of adults support legal abortion in most or all cases. More than half the adults in states with the most stringent bans are in that group. Similarly, about half now say abortion should be available in their state when someone doesn't want to continue their pregnancy for any reason — about the same as in June 2021 but down from about 6 in 10 who said that in 2024. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Adults in the strictest states are just as likely as others to say abortion should be available in their state to women who want to end pregnancies for any reason. Democrats support abortion access far more than Republicans do. Support for legal abortion has dropped slightly among members of both parties since June 2024, but nearly 9 in 10 Democrats and roughly 4 in 10 Republicans say abortion should be legal in at least most instances. Fallout from state bans has influenced some people's positions — but not others Seeing what's happened in the aftermath of the ruling has strengthened the abortion rights position of Wilaysha White, a 25-year-old Ohio mom. She has some regrets about the abortion she had when she was homeless. 'I don't think you should be able to get an abortion anytime,' said White, who calls herself a 'semi-Republican.' But she said that hearing about situations — including when a Georgia woman was arrested after a miscarriage and initially charged with concealing a death — is a bigger concern. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Seeing women being sick and life or death, they're not being put first — that's just scary,' she said. 'I'd rather have it be legal across the board than have that.' Julie Reynolds' strong anti-abortion stance has been cemented for decades and hasn't shifted since Roe was overturned. 'It's a moral issue,' said the 66-year-old Arizona woman, who works part time as a bank teller. She said her view is shaped partly by having obtained an abortion herself when she was in her 20s. 'I would not want a woman to go through that,' she said. 'I live with that every day. I took a life.' Support remains high for legal abortion in certain situations The vast majority of US adults — at least 8 in 10 — continue to say their state should allow legal abortion if a fetal abnormality would prevent the child from surviving outside the womb, if the patient's health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy, or if the person became pregnant as a result of rape or incest. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Consistent with AP-NORC's June 2024 poll, about 7 in 10 US adults 'strongly' or 'somewhat' favor protecting access to abortions for patients who are experiencing miscarriages or other pregnancy-related emergencies. In states that have banned or restricted abortion, such medical exceptions have been sharply in focus. This is a major concern for Nicole Jones, a 32-year-old Florida resident. Jones and her husband would like to have children soon. But she said she's worried about access to abortion if there's a fetal abnormality or a condition that would threaten her life in pregnancy since they live in a state that bans most abortions after the first six weeks of gestation. 'What if we needed something?' she asked. 'We'd have to travel out of state or risk my life because of this ban.' Adults support protections for seeking abortions across state lines — but not as strongly There's less consensus on whether states that allow abortion should protect access for women who live in places with bans. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Just over half support protecting a patient's right to obtain an abortion in another state and shielding those who provide abortions from fines or prison time. In both cases, relatively few adults — about 2 in 10 — oppose the measures and about 1 in 4 are neutral. More Americans also favour than oppose legal protections for doctors who prescribe and mail abortion pills to patients in states with bans. About 4 in 10 'somewhat' or 'strongly' favour those protections, and roughly 3 in 10 oppose them. Such telehealth prescriptions are a key reason that the number of abortions nationally has risen even as travel for abortion has declined slightly.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
GAO finds Trump's Head Start funding freeze illegal, citing harm to low-income families
FILE - Children play during aftercare for the Head Start program at Easterseals South Florida, Jan. 29, 2025, in Miami. (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell, File) As President Donald Trump took the oath of office for a second term on January 20, 2025, a less visible but deeply consequential shift began to take place across the country. Funding for Head Start — the federal early education program that serves nearly 800,000 low-income children — was quietly delayed, triggering confusion, closures, and chaos. Now, the government's own watchdog says that delay was illegal. GAO: HHS violated federal law In a report released Wednesday, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This law prohibits the executive branch from withholding congressionally approved funds without formal justification and notification to Congress. "We conclude that HHS violated the ICA," the GAO stated, citing the agency's failure to distribute Head Start funds from January 20 until April 25. Though payments eventually resumed, the disruption had already caused damage to families, educators, and the infrastructure of early childhood care. HHS pushes back Despite the GAO's determination, HHS strongly disputed the findings. "HHS did not impound Head Start funds and disputes the conclusion of the GAO report," said Andrew Nixon, HHS Director of Communications. He added, "GAO should anticipate a forthcoming response from HHS to incorporate into an updated report." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like China Power: Washington's loss, Beijing's gain as Chinese students shun the US for SE Asia? CNA Read More Undo GAO officials noted that HHS failed to provide information they requested regarding the delays, further undermining the department's defense. Families left stranded The consequences were immediate and widespread. Parents dependent on Head Start programs were suddenly forced to find emergency childcare, often at personal cost. Some centers suspended services or warned of impending closures, while staff members faced layoffs and funding uncertainty. In May, Reuters reported that delays in grant approvals had left many of the nation's Head Start centers in limbo. The closure of five HHS regional offices — located in Boston, Chicago, New York, Seattle, and San Francisco — only deepened the operational paralysis. A broader strategy to shrink government The Head Start funding freeze did not happen in isolation. It was part of a sweeping effort by the Trump administration to slash federal spending and reduce the size of government. At the helm of this initiative was Elon Musk, who was appointed to lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. According to funding trackers maintained by congressional Democrats, nearly $943 million in Head Start funds were frozen at one point this year. Across all agencies, approximately $425 billion in federal funding was on hold as of June 3. Congressional outrage mounts Lawmakers reacted sharply to the GAO's findings. Representative Rosa DeLauro, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, issued a blunt assessment. "It does not matter how long these funds were frozen. The chaos and uncertainty of illegally withholding these funds is costly and hurts the hundreds of thousands of families that depend on Head Start," she said. Legal and political fallout looms The GAO's ruling adds weight to a series of legal and political battles now forming over the administration's sweeping budget interventions. While HHS has pledged to respond, critics argue the damage has already been done. Beyond the legal infraction lies a deeper question about executive authority. Can a president override Congress on federal spending? And at what cost to the nation's most vulnerable? For the children whose preschool programs went dark and the parents forced into emergency care arrangements, those questions are not theoretical. They are daily realities shaped by decisions made in Washington — and now deemed illegal by the nation's top government watchdog. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
South Park takes aim at Trump in Season 27 premiere after $1.5B Paramount deal
After a two-year hiatus, South Park returned with a vengeance on July 23, launching its 27th season with a blistering premiere that lampoons Donald Trump, mocks its own network Paramount. The debut episode, titled 'Sermon on the Mount,' opens with an audacious image—Donald Trump in bed with series regular Satan. But the satire doesn't stop there. Using a hyper-realistic deepfake animation and actual images of Trump's face on an animated body. From repeated jokes about the size of Trump's genitalia to a surreal desert sequence with a fully naked Trump, the creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone go all in. The show also references Trump's lawsuit against Paramount, his hostility toward NPR, and the cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, suggesting media censorship and political vendettas at play. In an unusually self-referential move, South Park also turns its fire on its new corporate parent. Just a day earlier, creators Parker and Stone inked a massive $1.5 billion deal with Paramount Global, securing 50 new episodes across five years and exclusive streaming rights to all prior seasons on Paramount+. The episode parodies Trump's real-life $10 billion lawsuit against Paramount over a 2024 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, portraying a fictional version in which Trump sues the town of South Park for $5 billion after they criticize his presidency. The town ultimately settles for $3.5 million—an apparent jab at Paramount's own $16 million settlement with Trump. Cartman, one of the show's main characters, is devastated to learn that NPR—his favorite liberal-bashing radio show—has been canceled by Trump. Meanwhile, Trump is seen hanging nude portraits of himself in the White House and launching crude tirades against Canada. In a particularly pointed exchange, Trump confuses Iraq and Iran during a tense exchange with the Canadian Prime Minister, quipping, 'Iran, Iraq, what the hell's the difference? Relax guy!'
