Job Corps centers, including one in Central Texas, pausing operations
The Brief
Job Corps centers will be pausing operations by the end of June
One has operated in Central Texas for decades
Dept. of Labor says the decision follows an internal review of the program
HAYS COUNTY, Texas - The U.S. Department of Labor has announced it is pausing operations at Job Corps centers nationwide, including one that's operated in Central Texas for decades.
What we know
On May 29, the US Department of Labor announced it would be starting a "phased pause" in operations at 99 contractor-operated Job Corps centers nationwide.
The department says that the decision followed an "internal review of the program's outcome and structure and will be carried out in accordance with available funding, the statutory framework established under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and congressional notification requirements."
The pause is expected to happen by June 30.
DOL says that it is collaborating with state and local workforce partners to help current students advance their training and connect them with education and employment opportunities.
Center operations are now implementing transition plans to get students home and funding will then be used to pause operations, including managing facilities and maintaining student records.
"The department's decision aligns with the President's FY 2026 budget proposal and reflects the Administration's commitment to ensure federal workforce investments deliver meaningful results for both students and taxpayers," says DOL.
By the numbers
DOL says that this program has faced "significant financial challenges" under its current operating structure and has been in a "financial crisis" for years.
In PY 2024, the program operated at a $140 million deficit, requiring the Biden administration to implement a pause in center operations to complete the program year. The deficit is projected to reach $213 million in PY 2025, says DOL.
The recent Job Corps Transparency Report, which is based on an analysis of internal data from PY 2023, says that the highest graduation rate among all the centers was 65.4% and the average cost per student per year is just over $80,000 and the average cost per graduate is about $155,000.
Dig deeper
Job Corps is the largest free residential education and job training program for young adults aged 16-24.
According to the DOL website, Job Corps has trained and educated over two million people since 1964.
The program helps eligible young adults complete their high school education and career training, as well as obtain employment. Graduates go on to the workforce, apprenticeships, higher education or the military.
Students can earn a high school diploma or equivalent, and college credits and get tuition-free housing, meals, basic healthcare, a living allowance, and career transition assistance.
Job Corps also offers training in 10 high-growth industry sectors:
Advanced Manufacturing
Automotive and Machine Repair
Construction
Finance and Business
Healthcare
Homeland Security
Hospitality
Information Technology
Renewable Resources and Energy
Transportation
There are 99 centers spread across six regions of the US, and four centers are based in Texas: David L. Carrasco (El Paso area), Laredo, Gary (Central Texas), and North Texas (Dallas area).
Local perspective
Gary, one of the four centers in Texas, has been in operation since 1965, says Hays County Judge Ruben Becerra.
The campus sits near the San Marcos Regional Airport on SH 21 and is "long known as the largest of its kind in the country," says Becerra.
The facility is operated by Equus Workforce Solutions, based out of Kentucky.
The Source
Information in this report comes from Hays County Judge Ruben Becerra and the US Department of Labor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Washington tells Trump after Iran strikes: No more ‘forever war'
The trauma of America's post-9/11 conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan was evident in Washington on Sunday as Americans reckoned with the implications of Donald Trump's decision to launch strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. Across the political spectrum, varying factions unified under the banner of opposition to the kind of nation-building ground assault that defined America's two wars launched by the Bush administration. It is the only area of agreement between a faction of progressives and pro-Trump paleoconservatives who opposed the U.S. becoming involved in what up until now had been an Israeli military campaign and their opponents, a waning neoconservative faction in Washington which has called for further escalation in the form of strikes against other facilities and targeted assassinations of Iranian political and military leadership. Sunday morning, the Trump administration publicly leaned towards the former group. Three top administration officials, Trump's vice president, Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, spoke to journalists and urged Iranian leaders to choose against responding to the U.S. strike. Pledging that the U.S. was not seeking to topple Iran's government, the trio left open an off-ramp as Vance claimed: 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' But both Democrats and Republican opponents of military force against Iran were smarting after Saturday night's attacks, and many cast doubt on the U.S.'s ability to avoid what Senator Jim Risch, one of the administration's defenders, said would be another 'forever war'. A number of Democrats urged more of their party to sign on to a resolution aimed at reining in the president's war powers. The resolution's lone Republican supporter, Rep. Thomas Massie, called on his party to do the same while condemning the influence of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby in Washington, in a pair of interviews. 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER,' wrote Trump on Truth Social, in a lengthy post against Massie. But for Democrats, the bombing of Iran represented an issue where common ground could be found. 'This is a defining moment for the Democratic party. We need to stand against war with Iran,' warned one of the resolution's co-sponsors, Rep. Ro Khanna. Rep. Adam Smith, one of the party's more centrist members who voted for the Iraq War in 2002, released a lengthy statement on Saturday for Trump's refusal to seek congressional authorization for the strikes. He also warned against the kind of Iraq-style intervention he once supported: 'The path that the President has chosen risks unleashing a wider war in the region that is both incredibly unpredictable and treacherous.' The effort to rein in Trump's military powers gained Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's support on Saturday as well. A strong supporter of Israel, Schumer nonetheless accused the administration of making 'erratic threats' and having 'no strategy'. 'The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now increased,' added the Senate Democratic leader. On the right, conservative supporters of the president who opposed Israel's sudden military strikes — which occurred during the first U.S-Iran talks in years — were furious and worried about the future of the White House's domestic agenda. Former congressman Matt Gaetz, speaking with . Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene on his OANN show, accused Israel of seeking 'regime change' in Iran. He also tore into the Netanyahu government, accusing the prime minister of trying to avoid his own electoral defeat by getting the U.S. involved in his war and attacked Israel over the alleged existence of its own nuclear weapons program. Steve Bannon, writing on Gettr, derided Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for claiming Sunday that the U.S. still sought peace with Iran. 'Guys, please run this by [Benjamin] Netanyahu,' he quipped. Curt Mills, executive director of the American Conservative, warned that it was now going to be extremely difficult for Trump to back the U.S. out of what it had started. 'Goal posts. Instantly moved,' Mills wrote as he reacted to calls for further strikes reportedly made on Israeli media. 'They're going to keep asking Trump to do much more, forever, until he or another American president Says No.' 'The goal posts will be moved until morale collapses,' he added: 'Every drop of juice is squeezed from Trump's political capital.' Even those who defended the administration's involvement in the Israeli military campaign were hesitant to endorse the kind of foreign military footprint that America sustained during the so-called War on Terror. Risch, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, praised the president's 'decisive action' in his own statement after previously writing in May that the administration should insist on 'full dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program', including civilian enrichment, during now-scuttled negotiations. 'This is Israel's war not our war,' the senator said. 'This is not the start of a forever war. There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran.'
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Iran could have chosen the road away from nuclear weapons. It declined.
Advertisement Iran's own words, and its actions around the world, demonstrated its lack of good faith. Under the Obama administration's 2015 deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran capped its enrichment. But that agreement didn't fully block its path to a nuclear weapon, or even stop Iran from building ballistic missiles, which it has done aggressively. Those missiles menace the region and are being used against Israel now. In the meantime, Iran went unpunished for beefing up its terroristic proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up When the Biden administration wanted to appease its way back into a deal after Trump pulled out of the JCPOA, it was willing to stop at nothing to get an agreement. It floated dropping the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp's designation as a foreign terrorist organization, lifting painful sanctions, and re-entering a deal that would allow Iran to Advertisement The effects of trying to appease a terroristic regime were predictable: Tehran turned up its nose at the West. It started sending drones to Russia and ramping up its uranium enrichment. Its proxies wreaked havoc on global trade in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz and executed the largest terrorist attack in Israel's history on Oct. 7, 2023. Though I grew up with negotiations, I also grew up experiencing Iran's malicious agenda firsthand. Lebanon, where my ancestors are from, continued to be dragged into conflicts and economic instability thanks to Hezbollah's terrorism and constant conflict with Israel. And it's not just Lebanon — my Iraqi friends, my Syrian friends, my Persian friends can attest to the fact that the region lives in a state of constant fear and chaos, funded reliably by the mullahs in Tehran. Now it isn't just Biden negotiators and Israel-hating progressives that are cutting Iran slack. Some prominent Republicans — including Tucker Carlson and have trumpeted isolationism, suggesting that holding Iran accountable for its nuclear ambitions is warmongering. But are they seeing what I have for two decades? Because if they did, they'd know that a country like Iran is not to be trusted with nuclear capabilities — or even a path to them. And certainly not when their favorite refrain is 'Death to America.' Advertisement Trump understands the threat. And for a president known to change his mind on everything from abortion to TikTok, he's remarkably consistent on Iran: It cannot have a nuclear weapon, and it cannot have a deal that will eventually allow it to pursue one. So Trump pulled out of the JCPOA during his first administration, slapping crippling sanctions on Iran with a With his return to the White House came the resurrection of maximum pressure. But also the possibility of a deal: Give up your enrichment for prosperity and inclusion with the international community. The deal even Despite a looming threat of an Israeli strike in the background, Iran did not take the deal. Israel struck them on day 61 of the 60 days Trump gave the Iranians to reach an agreement. Still, the Trump administration has repeatedly offered a diplomatic offramp — including So far, Tehran has declined to take it, and now it is paying the price that Trump repeatedly promised: US B-2 bombers on Saturday dropped huge bunker-busting bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities, including its deeply buried plant at Fordo. Advertisement 'President Trump gave Iran a choice, and the Ayatollah chose poorly,' Michael Baumgartner, a Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told me. The consequences of the attack will unfold for days to come and the actual damage to Iran's nuclear infrastructure is not yet clear. As those assessments trickle out, Trump's opponents, and even some of his allies, are going to call the strike warmongering. But holding your red lines against a regime that wishes your destruction isn't necessarily warmongering. It can be the opposite. Carine Hajjar is a Globe Opinion writer. She can be reached at
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Europe Frets About US Retreating From Region Ahead of NATO
(Bloomberg) -- NATO's European allies are focused on getting through this week's summit unscathed. But even if President Donald Trump is satisfied with fresh pledges to ramp up spending, anxiety is growing about the US military presence in the region. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Only after the June 24-25 summit meeting in The Hague – where North Atlantic Treaty Organization members will pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defense – will the US present its military review, which will spell out the scope of what are likely significant reductions in Europe. With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former President Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after US struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark on the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Up until early June, no official from the US had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the US turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries long reliant on American hard power will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the US, is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said. --With assistance from Courtney McBride and Milda Seputyte. (Adds a graph of context referencing developments in the Middle East in fourth paragraph.) Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error al recuperar los datos Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos
