The exclusion of the Fulbright Program from an initial list of over 10,000 federal programs slated for cuts by Donald Trump’s Department for Government Efficiency (Doge) was a short-lived ray of hope. Fulbright’s subsequent addition dashed any hopes that some measure of rationality might be guiding the administration’s review of federal spending.

Senator J. William Fulbright was a Rhodes scholar and sought to emulate that program by providing the US with its own soft power instrument. In that sense, the program he founded in 1946 (with funding raised from the sale of surplus war equipment) has often been touted as a “beacon of hope” in US foreign policy, allowing American students and scholars to serve as citizen diplomats abroad.

Support for the program has been consistent and bipartisan since its inception because it has always been flexible and aligned with US national interests first and foremost. Following the decolonisation and independence of many African nations in the late 1960s, for instance, exchanges were established with nations of geopolitical relevance, such as Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Liberia and Zambia.

Previous targeted freezes of Fulbright funding have coincided with conflicts and other geopolitical concerns. During the first Trump administration, for instance, the program in China was indefinitely suspended. This caused outrage in the international education community, but at least it could be explained as a policy instrument designed to seek concessions or to punish adversarial regimes.

̽����Ƶ

The funding freeze is a new frontier and entirely self-destructive. Although suspending international exchange programs is consistent with the isolationist thrust of recent executive orders, it is not conducive to Trump’s “America first” position as defunding Fulbright completely relinquishes the geopolitical leverage that academic exchange can provide.

Nor is it in line with Trump’s anti-DEI drive. Unlike its counterpart (also suspended), Fulbright is not specifically aimed at broadening participation. Rather, it has consistently aimed to facilitate exchanges between the “best and brightest” of the US and partner nations. It is competitive and highly selective, and its alumni include 42 heads of state, 62 Nobel laureates, 96 Pulitzer Prize winners and 82 MacArthur geniuses.

̽����Ƶ

If one accepts the Trump administration’s purported conceptual opposition between DEI and merit, then Fulbright is as opposed as it can be to DEI selection. Moreover, the US institutions that receive the largest number of Fulbright scholar and student awards tend to be private, predominantly White institutions.

Although the majority of the frozen payments have , the future of Fulbright remains unclear and, at the very least, applications in the coming years are likely to be way down.

The in disbursing funding already allocated to Fulbright by the US Congress is a violation of the new administration’s mandate and of the to “protect and promote US security, prosperity, and democratic values”. Moreover, removing the ability of US citizens to house and feed themselves abroad constitutes a dereliction of a government’s duties to its people that not even MAGA ideology can justify.

Stranding foreign students and scholars is equally reprehensible and perhaps even more damaging to the US. As former Fulbright awardees ourselves, and as researchers in the field of higher education, we believe that all current Fulbright students and scholars have a moral right to dignity and protection. That includes the freedom to complete the academic pursuits proposed in their applications, which have undergone peer-review and approval by the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board. Failing to pay foreign students’ and scholars’ promised stipends in full is akin to the US defaulting on its debt. Who can trust a country, whether friend or foe, that doesn’t pay its bills?

̽����Ƶ

While the purpose of any foreign policy instrument can change over time, the disruption and possible destruction of Fulbright contradicts reason. During his time as senator, secretary of state Marco Rubio used to write to constituents who received Fulbright awards congratulating 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”.

We call upon him to heed his own words and remove the dark cloud of uncertainty hovering over Fulbright and all the outstanding professionals running it – employees both of the State Department and of long-term partnered organisations like the Institute of International Education. He should do so even if this means standing up to Doge. Otherwise, the US risks tossing away all the soft power that it took the Fulbright Program 80 years to accrue.

is a postdoctoral research fellow in higher education at George Mason University. is an associate professor and the academic director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College.