Fulbright program's possible demise would be calamitous
Using the flimsy excuse of eliminating fraud and waste, the administration and its congressional sycophants are seeking to severely cripple or even terminate the impactful Fulbright Program and its international exchange cousins. 

The demise of Fulbright and other international exchange programs would undermine U.S. interests around the world, making the country less secure, less respected, and less prosperous.

Fulbright is the nation’s flagship educational and cultural exchange program, conducted in partnership with 160 countries. As a three-time Fulbright Scholar (Moldova 2001 and 2023-24; Azerbaijan 2007), I can attest to the program’s tremendously positive impact at home and abroad. 

The first shot has been fired. Last month, the administration cancelled Fulbright-Hayes grants for fiscal year 2025. More than 400 applicants for group and dissertation projects and faculty research had already been submitted for the program this year. (Inside Higher Ed).  Besides Fulbright-Hayes, the Fulbright program includes initiatives that send U.S. university faculty overseas to teach (Scholar Program), students overseas to learn (Student Program) and teach (English Teaching Assistant Program), and international students to come to the U.S. (Foreign Student program). About 8,000 Fulbrighters participate in the program each year.

The program has operated independently and with bipartisan support since its inception in 1946, until now.

In the current FY26 budget, the Trump administration and its congressional minions are  proposing to essentially eliminate State Department funding for education and exchange programs, cutting the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) from $741 million to $50 million—a 94% reduction. (ECA funds Fulbright, other international exchange programs like the International Visitor Leadership Program, and entities like the East-West Center, where I’m proud to work.)

The rationale for these budget cuts is that ECA programs like Fulbright are supposedly inefficient and poorly monitored. This is transparently nonsensical. The last Inspector General report on ECA was done in 2021 did not report any fraud. As to the poor monitoring charge, “Exchange programs are some of the most monitored and evaluated programs in the government. U.S. organizations that implement State Department exchange programs are strong and scrupulous partners who exhibit consistent quality and accountability,” according to the Alliance for International Education.

Further, Fulbright is being undermined by administration meddling in the selection process, leading nearly all the members of the Fulbright board to resign earlier this month. In a statement, the board said, “This proud legacy has depended on one thing above all: the integrity of the program’s selection process based on merit, not ideology, and its insulation from political interference. That integrity is now undermined.” 

What’s the real reason behind these myopic, ill-informed attacks on international exchanges and education? I believe they represent the same guttural reflex the administration has displayed as it’s attacked higher education more broadly. Education and international exchanges open minds and hearts, and more generally make the public less malleable and susceptible to the disinformation that is the life blood of MAGA. Vice president J.D. Vance said the quiet part aloud in 2021 when he commented during an address that higher ed “gives credibility to some of the most ridiculous ideas that exist in this country.” His address was titled, “The Universities are the Enemy.” (The Guardian). Further, programs like Fulbright are in the crosshairs because they clash with MAGA's narrow-minded “America First” ideology since Fulbright is a dynamic demonstration of the value of multiculturalism and global interdependence. It’s hard to imagine any Fulbrighter supporting a travel ban, for example.

If Fulbright is guillotined, the impact will be calamitous. As the Fulbright board stated, “The erosion of the Fulbright program weakens America and our national security interests. Institutions and the rule of law matter and have distinguished our country for almost 250 years."

If international exchanges are terminated, lost will be opportunities for 15,000 American participants who travel abroad on Fulbright and other State Department exchanges every year. These ambassadors gain “critical skills and experiences that set them up for success in the global marketplace.” Also lost will be private and international government contributions to American public diplomacy.  According to the Alliance for International Education, “The Global Ties U.S. network of 90+ community-based nonprofits in all 50 states that implement the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) sees an 11:1 return on federal investment – for every federal dollar spent on their programs conducted in the United States, these organizations generate $11 more.”  

When he was a senator, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, like many of his congressional colleagues, used to write his constituents who received Fulbright grants. His letter congratulated them on the “exceptional opportunity” they were being given to participate in an “impactful program” that is highly effective at “building a relationship between our great nation and another country.” (Alliance for International Education).

Rubio's right. Fulbright and other international exchanges deserve his support, the support of his boss, and the support of our nation.

Considering the consequences of our reporting in South Asia
I’m often asked about the peace journalism characteristic that asks journalists to consider the consequences of their reporting. Specifically, what does this mean? My response, to avoid disseminating content that pours extra gasoline onto the fire or that deepens divisions among groups and nations, is usually met with polite nods. However, I seldom see the light bulbs illuminate above my trainees heads.

Now, I have a good example of exactly what “consider the consequences” means.

I ran across an article* last month during the India-Pakistan violence that was well researched and well written. It critically analyzed a problem on the other side (an Indian analyzing Pakistan, or vice-versa), and reached logical conclusions that were supported by the evidence and quotes presented.

Sounds fine, right?

A quick perusal of the comments posted at the bottom of the article, however, showed that the story primarily succeeded in stirring up additional hated against “them.” The commenters wrote that the story confirmed the negative information that the writers already knew about “them” and “their” citizens. In fact, anyone who read the article on “our” side couldn’t help but come away with a more negative opinion of “them.”

Now, the story was correct as far as it went. What the article failed to mention was that the exact same problem that was spotlighted occurs just as much on “our” side as it does on theirs. The article had no context, only the misleading insinuation that this problem exclusively belongs to “them.”

A better, peace journalism article would’ve noted that the problem occurs equally on both sides. It would state that both Indian and Pakistani societies are damaged by this problem, and that both societies need to work to find solutions that address the issue.

Using this approach, bridges of commonality are being built instead of walls of derision and hatred. It’s a shame that the author didn’t consider the consequences of their reporting. The consequence of this article is that a few more people in the subcontinent have had their worst impressions about their so-called enemies reinforced.

*I’m not naming the article or journalist, since my goal here is not to shame anyone. I can say that the author was not one of the East-West Center’s cross border journalists who set an admirable example during the recent violence. See my blog for details: https://stevenyoungblood.blogspot.com/2025/05/amid-violence-pakistani-indian.html

Discussing natural resources in the New Mexico governor's office

Young leaders learn peace media; explore resource protection
The concept of peace media is resonating with a  team of young Southeast Asian leaders who are wrapping up a fellowship in the United States.

The young leaders from across Southeast Asia, aged 18-25, were in Honolulu for 25 days,  and Santa Fe, NM for five days. They’re in Washington, DC now to wrap up the fellowship. During this program, they're learning about natural resources and their management while they develop community projects to enhance natural resource protection in their home countries.

My part in this project has been to work with the young leaders on understanding and mitigating disinformation, using peace media approaches, and developing a communications plan to promote their natural resource protection projects. In informal discussions after my sessions, the concept of peace media seems to especially intrigued the young leaders. Peace media is when content creators, and those who share content online, disseminate information with peace in mind. This means rejecting hateful and divisive language and images, and instead using their platforms to build bridges and encourage a sense of community.

The plans they created to promote their natural resource protection projects were nuanced and sophisticated, taking into account their audiences and the best platforms for disseminating information. I was impressed with their work.

Mock trial, Honolulu--Land rights

Our communication discussions were only part of the larger project, cleverly designed by the East West Center’s Lance Boyd. The fellows were constantly challenged and engaged by fascinating activities like a mock trial centering on indigenous land rights; a visit to ancient cliff dwellings in New Mexico; and a boat trip to look at resource protection along the Anacostia River in Washington. One of the highlights was a meeting in the New Mexico’s governor’s office, where the fellows discussed natural resources (indigenous lands, water resources, and food insecurity) with the governor’s staff, who were impressed with the research and thoughtful analysis done by the fellows. 

As the project concludes, the fellows will return to their home countries (Thailand, Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.) and launch their resource protection projects. Given the fellows’ professional competence and boundless energy, I have no doubt that each of these projects will be an overwhelming success.

ON A PERSONAL NOTE, I had to leave the program a few days early to deal with a family emergency. Upon hearing the news, the fellows showered me with kindness and warm wishes that I will never forget. Thank you, young leaders.

Stargazing, and staying warm, in Santa Fe, NM

Amid violence, Pakistani-Indian journalists spread goodwill
In the wake of the recent Pakistan-India violence, online disinformation and hate speech is flourishing.

In both countries, Facebook and X have been “awash” with misrepresented claims that have been amplified by media outlets the have published “false or unverifiable claims of military victories that experts say have exacerbated tensions and contributed to a flood of hate speech.” (France24) This mis and disinformation includes “doctored clips, misleading war footage, and AI-generated content. Footage from unrelated conflicts—like those in Gaza and Ukraine—(have been) passed off as fresh evidence from the India-Pakistan front.” (The420)  

However, there is a group of Indian and Pakistani journalists who are paddling against this malevolent, hateful current.  Not coincidentally, these journalists were part of a cross-border reporting project spearheaded by the East-West Center.

Since 2015, about 150 Indian and Pakistani journalists have participated in EWC cross border reporting projects. I was one of the trainers for two of these initiatives in 2022 and 2024. In both years, we met the journalists online first, then in person in Nepal, for trainings that included peace journalism, multimedia reporting skills, as well as content-specific strategies on reporting the environment, business, agriculture, and health. After the trainings, the journalists teamed up (one Indian, one Pakistani) to report on issues of mutual importance. (Click here to access some of their reports and to see a short video where the journalists discuss their experiences as cross border reporters).

As part of each workshop, the journalists connected on WhatsApp. They have continued to interact on this platform even years after the cross border reporting project officially ended. Usually, they use WhatsApp to share stories they’ve written, seek feedback, and make requests of one another (e.g. “Does anyone know a gynecologist who can comment on the connection of heat and its effects on women’s health?”).

Knowing that many of the journalists are still active on WhatsApp, it was with some trepidation that I finally signed on myself to see what they’ve been saying about the recent violence South Asia that nearly sparked an all-out war.

I had no reason for concern. In fact, I couldn’t have been more thrilled with what I read.

“OK guys, just putting it out there,” was the first message I saw after the violence erupted. “Please stay safe wherever you are and on whichever side of the border. Take care. Love and peace to you.”

Other messages stuck a similar tone. “Stay safe everyone, love and hugs,” read one. Others said, “This time shall pass,” “Hopeful,” "Following this, we have a lot of work to stitch up the holes,” and perhaps my favorite, “May peace come soon. May love be stronger than hate for all people on both sides.”

Since the recent violence, there has not been one negative comment in their WhatsApp group.

This WhatsApp lovefest in the midst of violence is a reflection on the character of the cross-border journalists. Imagine how difficult it must be for Indians and Pakistanis to speak out about the humanity of their supposed “enemies” while a violent conflict rages?  To fall into line and spout reflexive patriotism and assign blame to the “enemy” is easy, but to paddle against the current with messages of compassion, tolerance, and peace takes genuine bravery.

The journalists’ determined commitment to one another and to “the better angels of our nature” is validation for the concept of cross border collaboration which was pioneered at the East-West Center by Susan Kreifels and her colleagues. If these journalists hadn’t met, hadn’t learned and worked together, would such a show of humanity be possible? Kreifels and cross border project trainers Randy Smith, Laura Ungar, Steve Rice, and Sara Shipley-Hiles have been the perfect role models and trainers for these journalists, adeptly dispensing their unique, invaluable brand of compassionate professionalism.

The last note on the subject on the WhatsApp thread was written by one of the strongest, smartest female journalists I know. She summed it up nicely, writing, “Guys, we did it. We proved we can be professional for the greater good despite patriotism. It was tough but we made it. You should be proud of yourselves for rising to the occasion. (Heart emoji). I am proud to know you.”

So am I.

Young leaders in Santa Fe
I just landed in Santa Fe, NM with 25 young leaders from Southeast Asia. We're continuing a program that's been underway in Hawaii the last three weeks (see previous blogs). Stay tuned for updates.

 

 

Press Freedom Day event promotes peace journalism in S. Asia
I’ve been privileged to have two consecutive meaningful experiences on World Press Freedom Day.

Last year, I spent the day with my colleagues from the Independent Journalism Center and the Independent Press Association protesting Russian disinformation and mistreatment of journalists in front of the Russian embassy in Chisinau, Moldova.

Last Saturday, World Press Freedom Day 2025, I was honored to be invited to speak via Zoom at an event sponsored by Aaghaz-e-Dosti, an Indian-based organization dedicated to building better relations between Indians and Pakistanis. (Aaghaz-e-Dosti literally means, the beginning of friendship). The presentation came at an especially fraught time given the recent deadly attack that killed 26 people in Kashmir, and today’s news of a missile test and military drills in the region. (Reuters) 

I gave an overview of peace journalism, and then answered a barrage of really good questions from the audience, including an insightful query about the role of media in peacebuilding. I pointed to an East-West Center cross-border reporting project that teamed up Indian and Pakistani journalists to report stories as an example of such collaborations can help to set the table for peace. But I was clear that journalists and journalism alone can’t bring peace—that the work we do as peace journalists is only one ingredient in a complicated recipe for peace.

One of the 25 attendees was Ms. Ela Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi’s granddaughter. She commented that there is a great deal in common between what Mahatma Gandhi said about journalism, and the concept of peace journalism. I agree. The principles he embraced included rejecting “us vs. them reporting,” media as a tool for de-escalation, and media as a tool to foster reconciliation. (See The Peace Journalist magazine, October 2019). 

I admire the work that Aaghaz-e-Dosti does, in their words, “to eradicate mutual hatred and suspicion and desires to create unwavering bonds of peace and friendship. This is because we believe that miscommunication and lack of communication has helped sustain the conflict.  To meet our objective, Aaghaz-e-Dosti has taken several initiatives ranging from interactive sessions in schools to public demonstrations, from art-based initiatives to writing articles and issuing statements. We are moving towards our aim through peace education and advocacy among common people, young minds on both sides of border through widespread network and dedicated volunteers.” 

I share Aaghaz-e-Dosti's commitment to fostering peace and friendship in South Asia.