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