House appropriations subcommittee bill funds ECA at $647 million for FY27

In a rejection of the Administration’s recent budget request, the House National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs (NSRP, formerly SFOPS) Subcommittee proposed funding the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) at $647 million. In addition to the topline funding number, the bill: 

• Specifically mentions funding the Fulbright Program at no less than $287.8 million; 

• Retains language ensuring that the Secretary of State consults with Congress no later than 30 days after the bill is enacted on the allocation of program funds;  

• Retains language ensuring that any major program changes planned by the Department of State must be run by Congress and; 

• Retains a provision that any regulatory changes made by the executive branch to BridgeUSA exchange programs must be done pursuant to the congressional requirements of formal rulemaking specified in the Administrative Procedure Act.   

While nearly three times the $215 million proposed in the President’s Budget Request, this funding still falls well short of the $667 million enacted for FY26, and the $700.95 million the Alliance has requested for FY27. There are also notable protections included in the FY26 enacted bill that are absent in this one, including: 

• No specific mention of funding levels for flagship ECA programs including the Gilman Program, International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP), and Young Leaders Programs; and 

• No language requiring funds be sent to ECA by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) no later than 60 days after the bill is enacted. 

We appreciate the committee’s continued bipartisan support for exchanges in a challenging fiscal environment but must keep pushing throughout the appropriations cycle to secure the robust funding  and oversight these programs require. We look forward to supporting collaboration between the House and Senate to ensure exchanges are fully funded and protected in FY27.  

The full bill text can be viewed here. Language on ECA funding and provisions can be found on pages 4, 5, and 125. 

President’s FY27 budget proposes 68% cut to Department of State exchange programs

Not surprising, but disappointing. The White House’s FY27 Presidential Budget Request (PBR) proposes defunding and decimating Department of State international exchange programs. 

Released last week, the PBR proposes funding the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) at $215 million for FY27, a 68% topline cut from the FY26 enacted level. The complementary Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) provides further detail on how these cuts would be enacted, proposing the elimination of 15+ programs and slashing funding for countless more. 

If enacted, the cuts proposed would inhibit American excellence at home and on the world stage. 

• Eliminating the Gilman Program denies American undergraduates with high financial need the ability to study or intern abroad, both of which are attractive experiences to employers. 

• Eliminating the Stevens Initiative prevents the creation of leadership opportunities for rising American generations. 

• Eliminating American Overseas Research Centers prevents American scholars from conducting research on critical issues of U.S. national importance in 29 countries around the world. 

• Cutting funding for the Fulbright Program by almost 80% limits the number of accomplished American students, scholars, teachers, artists, and professionals that receive scholarships to study, teach, conduct research, and contribute to finding solutions to complex global challenges. 

• Slashing and eliminating funding for Young Leaders programs in Africa, South-East Asia, and the Americas denies the U.S. opportunities to engage with the next generation of leaders in countries and regions critical to U.S. national security. 

• Cutting funding for the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) by more than 50% decreases the U.S.’ capacity to build long-term relationships between Americans and international leaders in government, business, academia, and other fields. 

These programs provide countless benefits to the U.S. and Americans at an incredible return on investment. 90% of the Department of State international exchange program budget is spent on Americans traveling abroad or by international participants while in America. 

Continued threats to exchange funding jeopardize short- and long-term program success. But the exchange community has the tools and proven track record to push back against threats like the FY27 PBR. Last year, we sent 20,000+ letters to Congress urging them to reject the FY26 PBR, which proposed a 93% cut to Department of State international exchange programs, and to fund exchanges at no less than $741 million. Thanks to our efforts and strong bipartisan support on the Hill, Congress soundly rejected the proposed cut and, in a significant signal of Congress’ continued support for ECA exchange programs amid a broader environment of sweeping funding cuts, funded exchanges at $667 million. 

While the President’s Budget Request shows a concerning lack of commitment to one of the U.S.’ most effective public diplomacy tools, the Alliance is prepared and ready to once again take action and show Congress and the Administration just how important exchanges are to Americans across the country. 

Nominee for ECA Assistant Secretary takes the stage during Senate confirmation hearing

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) held a confirmation hearing today for Catherine Dillon, the nominee for Assistant Secretary of State at the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) at the Department of State. If confirmed, Ms. Dillon will lead the U.S.’ global efforts to engage individuals through academic, cultural, professional, sports, film, music, and youth exchanges. 

Introduced by Representative Virginia Foxx (R, NC-5) as a professional who will always meet the moment to ensure U.S. success on the global stage, Ms. Dillon pledged to lead “this vital component of the U.S.’ foreign policy.” She said she would do so by focusing on four core priorities: 

1. Strategic alignment: Ensuring all exchange programs and initiatives clearly advance America First priorities.

2. Fiscal stewardship: Applying fiscal scrutiny to all programs to ensure adequate return on investment. 

3. Championing American excellence: Capitalizing on the upcoming FIFA World Cup and LA 2028 Olympics to showcase American innovation, education, and opportunity. 

4. Prioritizing safety and security of exchange participants: Ensuring the health and safety of American participants and ensuring vetting of international participants. 

Following her opening statement, several Senators took the opportunity to ask Ms. Dillon about her commitment to following the laws that govern educational and cultural exchange programming and funding. Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) asked Ms. Dillon if she would commit to following the letter of the law and ensure programs remain nonpolitical and funded as authorized by Congress, to which she agreed. There was specific mention of the Fulbright Program and American Spaces in questions from Senators Bill Hagerty (R-TN) and Tim Kaine (D-VA), to which Ms. Dillon responded by confirming the importance of both programs to U.S. foreign policy, especially in combatting Chinese influence. 

Ms. Dillon’s nomination will now be further reviewed by the SFRC, who will then vote on whether to send her nomination to the full Senate for final approval. 

The Alliance thanks Ms. Dillon for her willingness to serve in this role and the members of Congress who underscored the vital work of ECA and its continued importance to U.S. foreign policy. 

The full hearing recording can be viewed here. 

Making J-1s a Priority: The Importance of J-1 Visa Appointment Availability to the U.S. in Summer 2026

We’re less than three months out from the start of the summer season for U.S. businesses and communities, and one thing is becoming increasingly clear: the U.S. has a J-1 visa appointment availability problem. 

Over the past month, U.S. Embassies in Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Thailand, and Turkey, all key BridgeUSA exchange program sending countries, announced they will reduce J-1 visa interview capacity by anywhere from 50-90%, with more countries potentially following suit.  

If this trend continues, summer 2026 could see a sharp decline in Summer Work Travel and Camp Counselor participants, triggering consequences that extend far beyond the programs themselves. Seasonal businesses and tourist destinations across the U.S. could face serious staffing shortages, making it harder to operate and serve customers without the support these participants provide alongside American workers. Local economies stand to lose more than $45 million in annual spending generated by Summer Work Travel participants. And these impacts may only be the beginning, with broader and less predictable consequences already on the horizon. 

As the U.S. prepares for the FIFA World Cup and America’s 250th birthday celebration this year, ensuring participants secure the J-1 visa interview appointments they need to support U.S. communities and economies this summer is vital, and many in Congress agree.  

Last week, fifteen members of Congress joined Representatives Jeff Van Drew (R, NJ-2) and Bill Keating (D, MA-9) in sending a bipartisan letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging him to ensure that sufficient consular resources are in place worldwide for the timely visa processing of J-1 exchange visitors in 2026.  

We at the Alliance join Congress in calling on the U.S. Department of State to ensure J-1 visas are prioritized this year and respectfully recommend the following activities: 

• We ask that Consular Affairs instruct Embassies to place priority emphasis on J-1 visa interviews. A Department of State cable was issued to Embassies in late 2025 instructing them to fully prioritize B1/B2 tourist visas for the World Cup, while deemphasizing the issuance of J-1 visas. We support the issuance of World Cup visas to all eligible tourists and ask that Consular Affairs reprioritize J-1 visas for eligible participants for this summer and beyond given how critical they are to U.S. seasonal communities, camps, schools, families, and economies.  

• We ask that Consular Affairs provide more staff support for J-1 visa issuance, specifically for back-end online presence screening of J-1 visa applicants. We ask that the Department of State provide additional staff time and resources to assist Embassies with the back-end vetting of J-1 applicants’ online presence. This could be additional staff sent to Embassies and/or a central staffing mechanism that enables additional staff not at post to perform online vetting research while Consular officers are concurrently performing interviews at post. 

It is important to note that many Embassies around the world have been responsive to the needs of the program by extending the number of months for J-1 visa interviews. While appreciated and necessary, this alone is not sufficient to provide the needed number of visa interviews to give U.S. businesses the necessary seasonal boost they expect. We’re grateful to our members, partners, and champions on the Hill for continuing to advocate for a multiprong approach to address this issue and ensure need is met. 

If you or your organization has information you’d like to share regarding J-1 visa appointment trends you’re seeing, please contact info@alliance-exchange.org.

Exchange programs take center stage in Under Secretary Rogers’ first appearance before Congress since confirmation

Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on March 5, 2026, where lawmakers on both sides of the aisle brought U.S. Department of State international exchange programs to the forefront of their questioning and remarks.  

In her opening statement, Under Secretary Rogers spoke about the importance of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) and praised ECA’s programs as powerful public diplomacy tools. She called ECA “a cornerstone of American public diplomacy” that amplifies U.S. influence and credibility through long-term relationship building. The Under Secretary highlighted exchanges as key to fulfilling this Administration’s goals of spreading U.S. global interests and bolstering national security: 

“These efforts not only expand the reach of U.S. diplomacy but also generate measurable impact — strengthening alliances, opening markets, and supporting American security and prosperity.” 

During her remarks and in responses to questioning, Under Secretary Rogers affirmed that ECA’s international exchange programs benefit American students and scholars and help Americans connect with international leaders. She cited programs like Fulbright, Gilman, and IVLP as programs that achieve U.S. foreign policy goals. 

Numerous Members of Congress highlighted the importance of exchanges in their remarks and asked pointed questions about the status of ECA’s FY25 and FY26 grants and funding and the need to ensure ample J-1 visa appointment availability.  

Reps. Ami Bera (D, CA-6), Johnny Olszewski (D, MD-2), Madeleine Dean (D, PA-4), Gabe Amo (D, RI-1), and Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D, CA-37) all highlighted the funding and grants challenges that ECA has endured over the past year. Several of them raised the issue of OMB holding the FY25 awards for many of ECA’s exchange programs last year, demonstrating the visibility this issue has gained on the Hill.  

Under Secretary Rogers repeatedly noted that those held programs are “on track,” with specific discussions taking place around the Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI) and the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI). While it’s true that OMB has released its hold on that funding and ECA approved most of the programs for continuation, the programs have yet to see any movement on funding or a resumption of activities. 

Under Secretary Rogers characterized OMB’s involvement in ECA grants as an “interagency process” that she couldn’t comment extensively on. Rep. Dean requested a full report from ECA on the held awards, what their funding amounts will be, and confirmation that the awards will be processed for FY26. 

Several members also raised questions about the FY26 grants process, asking the Under Secretary about her intentions to ensure that ECA’s appropriated funds are distributed in a timely manner and used consistent with Congressional intent. The Under Secretary acknowledged multiple times that she and ECA will “follow the law” as laid out in the FY26 appropriations bill.  

Rep. Bill Keating (D, MA-9) raised the issue of visa appointment availability for BridgeUSA program applicants this year. Rep. Keating noted the importance of BridgeUSA programs on local and seasonal economies, like in his district that encompasses Cape Cod, and expressed his concern about growing reports of limited visa appointment availability. While Under Secretary Rogers did not directly address the question, she signaled strong support for BridgeUSA programs, noting that her office is working with Congress on legislative initiatives designed to strengthen the programs.  

The Alliance extends its thanks to Under Secretary Rogers and all the Members who spoke on the importance of international exchange programs and continue to ask the questions necessary to ensure the future success of these vital programs. 

The full hearing recording can be viewed here. 

National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Bill funds exchanges at $667 million for FY26

On Sunday, January 11, the House Appropriations Committee introduced the Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026. This bill is the product of negotiations between House and Senate appropriators, and key to advancing full-year funding for FY26. The legislation provides $667 million for educational and cultural exchanges, a significant signal of Congress’ continued support for ECA exchange programs amid a broader environment of sweeping funding cuts. 

The Alliance for International Exchange appreciates the substantial work and bipartisan compromise reflected in this package. While the $667 million allocation falls below the FY24 enacted level of $741 million and the $700.95 million included in last summer’s House bill, it nonetheless represents a strong commitment to sustaining exchange programs. The bill’s inclusion of specific topline funding levels for programs such as Fulbright, Gilman, IVLP, and the Young Leaders Initiatives is an especially encouraging sign. 

The Alliance also applauds the inclusion of strengthened oversight language (see below and page 194 of the bill text) to ensure close cooperation between Congress and the State Department on program funding and implementation. 

• Secretary consultation: “That not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Committees on Appropriations on the allocation of funds made available under this heading by program, project, and activity.” 

• Substantive modification: “That any substantive modifications from the prior fiscal year to programs funded under this heading in this Act, including program consolidation and closures, changes to eligibility criteria and geographic scope, and implementing partners, shall be subject to prior consultation with, and the regular notification procedures of, the Committees on Appropriations 

• Apportionment: “That funds appropriated under this heading shall be apportioned to the Department of State not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.” 

The bill was marked up in a House Rules Committee hearing, which is the first step in Congress’ committee consideration of a bill after the two chambers have agreed on text. The hearing was held on Tuesday, January 13 at 2:00 PM ET. The Alliance is continuing to monitor the bill’s progress and its impact on exchange programs. If the bill passes, it will ensure funding for the Department of State and ECA programs through September 30, 2026. 

Read the full bill text, along will statements and supplementary documents, below: 

• Bill text is available here (ECA section on page 194).  

• An explanatory statement for the bill is available here (pages 8-9 outline exchange program funding and additional considerations). 

• A summary of the bill is available here. 

• House Appropriations Committee press release 

October 2025: Potential Impact of a U.S. Government Shutdown on International Exchange Programs

As of 12:01 this morning (Wednesday, October 1), the U.S government fully shut down for the first time since 2019.  

A shutdown happens when Congress fails to pass legislation to fund the government, whether in the form of final appropriations bills or a temporary CR. In this case, neither of these options were enacted by 11:59 PM last night, resulting in a full government shutdown affecting all federal activities covered by discretionary funding. A shutdown is temporary, but how long it would continue and its specific impact on federally funded programming is uncertain.   

Below is a primer on how international exchange programs might be impacted during that time.   

U.S. government offices will be closed or at limited capacity 
There are notable differences between the Department of State shutdown guidance issued yesterday and those from previous shutdowns. Unlike in the past, this guidance specifically does not allow staff to continue working if their programs operate on available balances (i.e., unspent prior year funds, which is common for Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) programs). The guidance specifically says that all appropriated accounts, including those with no-year, rollover funds, must cease operations when the shutdown begins. This guidance seems designed to create as many furloughs as possible across the Department. 

Even so, there should be exceptions. While “non-excepted” staff will likely be furloughed, staff deemed “excepted” will continue to work on certain activities. ECA was tasked with determining who will be excepted and who will need to be furloughed, as well as what operations and activities can continue and what must be paused.   

Here is a detailed article about potential government-wide furloughs under this Administration’s plan. 

OMB is seeking permanent layoffs but it’s unclear if and how this will unfold 
Complicating matters even further, last week the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent a memo instructing federal agencies to prepare reduction-in-force (RIF) plans for mass permanent layoffs during a government shutdown, rather than the norm of furloughing staff. We know that ECA made the argument to OMB that their work is essential due to ongoing activities and having participants on program, but we don’t know if or how OMB will go about mass permanent layoffs.   

Participants will feel the impact in different ways  
Exchange participants currently in the U.S.:   

• Their visa and status in the U.S. should be unaffected.   

U.S. citizens currently outside the U.S.:   

• Americans who are abroad on an exchange program should be advised that, during a shutdown, U.S. embassies may only be open to provide services to Americans in distress.   

Exchange participants with approved visas, awaiting travel dates:   

• The Department of Homeland Security will likely continue operations, so these individuals can plan to arrive in the U.S. according to their current schedules – but participants are advised to check in with their exchange organization and/or airline before traveling.  

• SEVIS (Student & Exchange Visitor Information System) will also likely continue operations, so arriving participants can register as instructed.   

• The Social Security Administration will likely suspend processing original or replacement cards, so arriving exchange participants will likely need to wait until the government reopens to apply for a Social Security number.   

Exchange program applicants awaiting visa approval or interviews:    

• Applicants awaiting visa approval should anticipate delays in visa processing.   

• Applicants awaiting a visa interview or scheduling a visa interview should anticipate that there may be delays in the process.   

• It’s advisable to check https://www.usembassy.gov/ for updates about the status of the shutdown and to contact the local U.S. embassy or consular office for more details, especially once the shutdown is over. 

Where Things Stand: An Update on OMB Holds on ECA Funding

Last week, the Alliance for International Exchange learned that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plans to cut $100 million in FY25 funding for at least 22 Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) international exchange programs. 

It’s been a week of devastation, but also of incredible mobilization from our members. Our advocacy campaign has generated 13,000+ messages to 503 Senators and Representatives in all 50 states.  

The response we’ve gotten from the Hill has been rapid and robust. The news has jumped started activity to push back on the cuts and the precedent they set. There’s motivation on the Hill to take creative action to protect our programs and we’re doing everything we can to harness that.  

It’s also important not to lose track of good news: even though 22 programs are facing devastating cuts, 28 programs that had previously been held are moving forward.  

Read on for more background and our most current lists of the programs moving forward, as well as those having funding eliminated. 

Background 

Earlier this summer, we learned that approximately 50 ECA programs set to be recompeted or renewed this summer, and funded with FY25 funds, were being held by OMB. OMB was preventing their Congressional Notifications (CNs) from being sent to the Hill, which effectively blocked the programs from being recompeted/renewed and the funds from being issued. This was being done despite the fact that Congress lawfully appropriated funds to the Department of State for these programs.

Program Status 

Last week, we uncovered that at least 22 programs were not moving forward and would instead have their FY25 funding “removed” by OMB. The Alliance is doing everything we can to reverse this decision, but it’s an uphill battle. Here is the list of 22 programs set to have their funding cut. 

• Community College Administrator Program (CCAP) 

• Community College Initiative Program (CCI) 

• Community Engagement Exchange (CEE, Leahy Initiative on Civil Society) 

• Community Solutions Program (CSP) 

• Council of American Overseas Research Centers 

• English Access Scholarship Program 

• English Language Fellow Program 

• Global Undergraduate Exchange Program 

• IDEAS Program 

• Kennedy-Lugar Youth Exchange and Study (YES) and YES Abroad Program 

• Leaders Lead On-Demand 

• Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders (YALI) 

• Mike Mansfield Fellowship Program 

• National Clearinghouse for Disability and Exchange (NCDE) 

• Professional Fellows Program 

• Survey of International Educational Exchange Activity (IEEA) in the United States 

• TechWomen 

• The J. Christopher Stevens Virtual Exchange Initiative 

• U.S. Congress-Korea National Assembly Exchange Program 

• U.S.-South Pacific Scholarship Program (USSP) 

• Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) Academic Fellowship 

• Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) Professional Fellowship Program (PFP) 

Please note: this list may not be comprehensive due to the rapidly changing and sensitive nature of the situation. 

While this fight continues, there is good news: at least 28 programs (listed below) that were also being held by OMB have been released and their CNs have been sent to Congress. This is a crucial final step in these programs receiving their long awaited FY25 funding. Congress now has 15 calendar days to review and ask ECA questions about the programs. At the end of that 15-day period (late August or early September), the programs are considered approved, and ECA will be able to finalize the grants and distribute the funds necessary to implement them.  

• America 250 U.S. Speakers Program 

• American Film Showcase 

• American Music Mentorship Program 

• Art and Music Envoys Program 

• Artic Indigenous Exchange Program 

• Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship Program 

• Critical Language Scholarship Program 

• EducationUSA Advising 

• Fulbright Scholar Program 

• Fulbright Specialist 

• Fulbright Student 

• Fulbright Student MENA 

• Fulbright Teacher Exchanges 

• Fulbright University Vietnam 

• Global Media Makers 

• Global Sports Mentorship Program (GSMP) 

• Humphrey 

• International Sports Programming Initiative 

• IVLP Collaborative Services 

• IVLP Global Ties US 

• IVLP IAAD 

• IVLP NPA 

• National Security Language Initiative for Youth 

• Online Professional English Network (OPEN) Program 

• Sports Visitor Sports Envoy 

• SUSI Scholars 

• Traditional Public Private Partnerships 

• U.S. Exchange Alumni Network and Capacity Building Program 

Please note: this list may not be comprehensive due to the rapidly changing and sensitive nature of the situation. 

Looking Forward 

It's important to note two things as we think about the future:  

First, this situation doesn’t impact all ECA exchange programs. It’s limited to the approximately 50 programs listed above. 

Second, if this situation tells us anything, it’s that OMB is setting a dangerous precedent by superseding Congressional authority and withholding funds. Our continued advocacy through the end of the fiscal year is essential to avoid and prevent as much damage to exchange programs as possible. 

OMB Moves to Cut FY25 Funding for at Least 22 ECA Programs

Yesterday, the Alliance for International Exchange learned that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plans to cut FY25 awards for at least 22 Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) international exchange programs, which amounts to approximately $100 million in funding. 13 of these programs are implemented by members of the Alliance, totaling more than $85 million in funding.  

If we allow OMB to cut these Congressionally appropriated FY25 awards, it will give them license to do it again and again, effectively eliminating international exchange programs. 

Without these funds, ECA faces an existential crisis, threatening all current and future exchange programs. This action risks establishing a precedent that undermines Congressional authority, paving the way for OMB to effectively eliminate international exchange programs. 

Revoking the FY25 funding for these programs will greatly damage 75+ years of exchange activity and the legacy of Senator Fulbright. It would destroy many of our programs and our work. Below is a list of the programs OMB is proposing to cut: 

• Community College Administrator Program (CCAP) 

• Community College Initiative Program (CCI) 

• Community Engagement Exchange (CEE, Leahy Initiative on Civil Society) 

• Council of American Overseas Research Centers 

• English Access Scholarship Program 

• English Language Fellow Program 

• Global Undergraduate Exchange Program 

• IDEAS Program 

• International Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue (Hollings Center) 

• Kennedy-Lugar Youth Exchange and Study (YES) and YES Abroad Program 

• Leaders Lead On-Demand 

• Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders 

• Mike Mansfield Fellowship Program 

• National Clearinghouse for Disability and Exchange (NCDE) 

• Professional Fellows Program 

• Survey of International Educational Exchange Activity (IEEA) in the United States 

• TechWomen 

• The J. Christopher Stevens Virtual Exchange Initiative 

• U.S. Congress-Korea National Assembly Exchange Program 

• U.S.-South Pacific Scholarship Program (USSP) 

• Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) Academic Fellowship 

• Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) Professional Fellowship Program (PFP) 

If OMB cuts these programs and this funding now, it could set a precedent for acting without accountability, and there is a risk of: 

• Destroying 75+ years of international exchange programming, as well as Senator Fulbright’s legacy and vision for spreading American influence and values around the world. 

• Eliminating the majority of international exchange programs that enable more than 55,000 students, scholars, and professionals to participate each year, including 15,000 Americans traveling abroad.  

• Stranding 7,500+ American high school and college students and professionals who are currently abroad on ECA programs. Eliminating ECA funding for FY25 immediately puts them at risk of not receiving the critical support they require. 

• Endangering the livelihoods of 8,000+ Americans who work for U.S.-based ECA-partner organizations.  

• Significantly diminishing the prosperity of American host businesses, organizations, and schools that benefit from the presence of exchange participants. 

• Forfeiting billions of dollars to the American economy every year that are generated by international exchange programs. 

ECA international exchange programs make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous, a fact long recognized through strong bipartisan support for exchange program funding in the House and Senate. Just last month, the House FY26 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs bill proposed funding ECA at $700 million. 

The Alliance is working closely with our members and partners to communicate just how detrimental this is to the United States. It is imperative that Members of Congress contact OMB Director Vought and urge him to release the Congressionally authorized and appropriated funds for these essential and time-honored exchange programs. 

Join us by: 

• Emailing and Calling your Members of Congress 

• Sharing this call to action with your communities and networks 

Thank you for standing up for exchanges. 

Potential FY26 Government Funding Scenarios

Over the last few weeks, Congress has gotten over two major hurdles that have an influence on FY26 appropriations negotiations and possible legislation: the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill, the work on which was sucking the air out of everything else on Capitol Hill, and the $9 billion rescissions package for foreign assistance programs and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. With these two markers in the rearview mirror, it’s a good time to game out some FY26 funding predictions. 

From the top, it’s important to make clear that there’s a high likelihood a short-term Continuing Resolution (CR) will be passed at the end of September. Neither party will have their full appropriations bills passed, or even written, and if nothing else, the chambers will need more time to find agreement.  

There are two major political dynamics that will play a major role in if and how the government is funded come October:  

• Whether Democrats make good on their threat to walk away from FY26 negotiations in response to rescissions (and the timing of that).   

• How long Republicans are willing to continue funding the government at “Biden-era levels” via a CR, or if this fall will be the moment they cut a deal. More on these dynamics later. 

Where things stand
This week, the House National Security, Department of State, and Other Programs (formerly SFOPS) released its FY26 appropriations bill, which was marked up on July 15 with little fanfare. The bill represents a 22% overall cut to the Department, and Democrats voted unanimously against it. 

Despite this concerning top-line number, the Alliance was pleased to see the Educational and Cultural Exchanges (ECE) line for ECA, which came in at $700.946 million; a far cry from the President’s requested $50 million for FY26.  

In addition to this robust ECA funding proposal, there is also language in the bill requiring OMB to apportion funds to ECA within a set period of 60 days after the bill’s passage. This signals that there is bipartisan awareness of the current hold OMB has on FY25 awards across the government, and they want to use the appropriations process to put in statute some guardrails. The Senate Appropriations Committee is still working on their bill, but the word is that they are pursuing similar funding levels and language to the House. 

Whether either of these bills make it out of committee and to the House or Senate floor remains a big question mark. But the House’s mark signals that there is still strong bipartisan support for ECA and its programs, which we can work with. 

The politics of it all
As mentioned above, there are two important political dynamics playing out that will have an outsized impact on if and how the government is funded in FY26. 

First, both Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Appropriations Vice Chair Patty Murray have said publicly that if the rescissions package passes, Democrats might walk away from FY26 negotiations. Now that rescissions have passed, it remains unclear if they are going to double down on that threat, or if they are going to wait and see what the Administration’s next move is.  

This is a big decision for Schumer, given the fiasco that was the CR fight in March that resulted in major backlash from the Democratic base. Does it make sense for Democrats to stop the appropriations process now, two months before the deadline, over this relatively small package, or should they hold their cards and wait for the Administration’s next play? 

Next week, Senator Thune is going to send up a test balloon by teeing up a vote on the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs (MilCon-VA) appropriations bill on the floor, which was voted out of committee with a large bipartisan margin. Between now and that vote, Minority Leader Schumer has to decide whether his caucus is going to hold strong on their threat to shut down the FY26 process. All of this comes as OMB Director Russ Vought said yesterday that appropriations should become less bipartisan, a sentiment that is strongly opposed in the Senate. If I were Senator Schumer, I’d allow my vulnerable members who need to vote against appropriations bills to vote against MilCon-VA next week, but I would make sure there are 7 votes to get it through the chamber. It doesn’t make sense for the Democrats to start their fight now; there are two months left until the funding deadline, and still a strong possibility that more rescissions packages are sent to the Hill. 

Second, there is frustration among Republicans in Congress that the government remains funded by a CR representing the previous Administration’s spending priorities and levels. The conundrum that they are faced with is that any attempt to break away from those levels require bipartisan agreement and 60 votes in the Senate. This would require negotiating with Democrats, which would buck the President’s desires for massive, across-the-board spending cuts. 

It seems very likely that any future rescissions package will be much larger than $9 billion, and very likely include FY25 funds from ECA. 

Consequences of a shutdown
Generally, shutdowns are bad for the government, its employees, and its critical day-to-day functions. The current climate on Capitol Hill makes it feel like – right now at least – there might be a real possibility of a shutdown in the fall. That chance only increases if the Administration sends the Hill more and larger rescissions requests, and it only increases further the later in the calendar those requests are made.  

Rescissions packages have a 45-day clock for passage once they go to the Hill, and if they don’t clear both chambers, the Administration is required to spend the funds as appropriated. The tactic OMB could take is sending huge rescissions packages to the Hill in mid-August – while Members of Congress are on recess – with a deadline pushing up against the end of the Fiscal Year (and expiration date of those funds). This would be a “pocket rescission,” and certainly add fuel to the fire of the Democrats’ threat to shut down FY26 talks. 

In this climate, however, a shutdown would be even more risky than in a typical year, a factor Democrats are surely considering. This Administration’s goal is to gut the federal workforce and agency programs, and a shutdown could give them carte blanche to do exactly that. In a government shutdown, the executive has broad authority to declare what is deemed “essential” and “non-essential” in government. A shutdown could provide this Administration with the opening it needs to run the parts of the government it wants to run without consideration for Congress or the courts. 

So what will happen?
With midterm elections approaching, it would be in Congress’ interest to work together on government funding for FY26 and reach an agreement between the chambers and bridge the cavernous differences between the parties.  

Longer term, the politics of a shutdown are bad, and the potential reality of a shutdown could be much worse. Many see the politics of ongoing government funding via CR as bad, but it would be less bad for ECA and its programs than a shutdown. While extremely unlikely, at least immediately at the start of the fiscal year, an omnibus or set of minibuses outlining new FY26 spending would send a strong message from the Hill to the Administration about Congress’ power of the purse, especially if whatever they agree upon looks like the House mark for ECA. Even with the Big Beautiful Bill and the first rescissions package behind us, there is still a lot that needs to happen before we can make better predictions about how the government will get funded in FY26. 

House National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee bill funds ECA at $700.95 million

The House National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs (formerly SFOPS) Subcommittee released its FY26 appropriations bill, and the proposed topline funding amount for the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) is $700,946,000. 

This amount is significantly higher than the 93% cut proposed in the President’s Budget Request and far more than what was anticipated from the House. This shows that in a political climate focused on sweeping cuts, support for ECA’s international exchange programs remains strong in Congress. 

The bill proposes a 22% cut to the Department of State budget as a whole, so it’s still damaging to U.S. diplomacy, and there are Members of Congress who will understandably be dissatisfied with it. You can read the bill, the respective statements and supplementary documents here: 

• A summary of the bill is available here. 

• Bill text is available here (ECA section on page 4). 

• HAC majority press release is attached here. 

• Democrats posted fact sheet here.  

• HAC Democrats press release is attached here. 

For ECA, though, here’s what this means: the conversation about FY26 is completely new. The President’s Budget Request can be thrown out the window. There is still much more to learn about this bill, including toplines for each program. The subcommittee markup for this bill is tomorrow, Tuesday, July 15 at 11:00am.  

Unnecessary visa interview pause threatens U.S. prosperity and security

The Trump administration’s decision to temporarily pause scheduling F, M, and J visa appointments jeopardizes the success of international exchange programs essential to the U.S.’ economic prosperity and national security.  On Tuesday, May 27, Politico reported that a cable sent to all embassies and consular posts by Secretary of State Marco Rubio called for consular sections to "not add any additional student or exchange visitor (F, M and J) visa appointment capacity until further guidance is issued.” This request stems from the Department’s plan to “evaluate operations and processes in preparation for expanded social media vetting of all student and exchange visitor visa applicants.”  The cable also states that “appointments already scheduled can proceed under current guidelines,” though the Alliance received reports that a small number of previously scheduled interviews were canceled after the cable was sent. It is important to note the scope of this pause: this impacts international youth, students, and professionals participating in BridgeUSA exchange programs, international leaders participating in professional exchanges, international students and scholars planning to contribute to U.S. universities and colleges, and so many more.  This pause negatively impacts the American businesses, families, schools, and communities that benefit from engaging with international exchange participants, leaders, and international students and scholars in their everyday life.  

Without... 

• ... international students, the U.S. would forfeit the $43.8 billion they contribute to the U.S. economy and the nearly 400,000 American jobs they support per year. 

• ... the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP), which provides short-term professional exchanges for international leaders, the U.S. would miss out on the $81.7 million the IVLP community puts back into American communities. 

• ... Summer Work Travel BridgeUSA participants working with local seasonal businesses across the country, the U.S. would lose the $353 million participants spend in the U.S. every year. 

• ... Intern and Trainee BridgeUSA participants working with American companies, the U.S. would lose the $264.2 million participants spend in the U.S. every year. 

• ... BridgeUSA Au Pairs supporting American families, the U.S. would lose the $143.8 million Au Pairs spend in the U.S. every year, and many American families will see their childcare costs increase significantly. 

• ... Camp Counselor BridgeUSA participants creating life-changing summer experiences for American youth, the U.S. would lose the $50.1 million Camp Counselors spend in the U.S. every year. 

And this just scratches the surface of all the ways international exchange participants and students make America more prosperous and enhance communities across the U.S. 

The Alliance strongly encourages the Department of State to immediately resume all nonimmigrant visa appointments for international exchange and education programs. 

Action Alert: Tell Congress to reject President’s budget proposal and support funding for international exchange programs

The Alliance for International Exchange, on behalf of its more than 90 U.S.-based members who implement international exchange programs is launching a campaign to urge Members of Congress to reject the President’s FY26 budget proposal and support funding for international exchange programs. 

On Friday, May 2, the Trump Administration released its FY26 “skinny” budget, which is a high-level overview of the president’s priorities for the upcoming fiscal year's budget process. The budget proposes to cut State Department international exchange programs by 93%. If Congress enacts this budget proposal, it would essentially eliminate the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) and leave exchange programs, the U.S. organizations that implement them, and the jobs of more than 8,000 exchange professionals around the country at risk. 

Exchange programs are a proven investment in America – an investment in the economy, in American communities, and in the U.S.’ foreign policy influence and interests. They are vital to making America safer, stronger, and more prosperous and should continue to be funded as such. 

We encourage all exchange champions to take action today and urge Congress to support thousands of Americans and communities by ensuring funding for international exchange programs.   

President’s FY26 budget proposes to essentially eliminate State Department exchange programs

We expected it, but it’s still deeply disappointing to see. The President’s FY26 budget proposal would essentially eliminate State Department international exchange programs.

Released earlier today, this FY26 “skinny” budget proposes to cut State Department international exchange programs by $691 million, or by 93%. This would decimate and essentially eliminate the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA). Given the current budget is $741 million, this would leave only $50 million for all ECA programs and operations.

The proposal demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of exchange programs and would do the exact opposite of making America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.

International exchange programs are a proven investment in America – an investment in our economy, in our people, and in our foreign policy influence and interests. In order to expand America's global influence, it’s important to invest more in international exchanges, not less.

We should pause for a minute at this stage and remember that this President’s budget request (PBR) is a proposal – a “wish list” so to speak – and is not binding. Congress can take it, take portions of it, or take none of it. More often than not, Congress goes against the PBR during their appropriations process. The previous Trump Administration proposed to cut ECA for four consecutive years, anywhere from 55-75%. These proposals were all rejected by Congress. Check out my colleague Adrienne’s Jacobs’ excellent blog post on this topic for more.

But even so, we should be and are very concerned about this proposal, and we will push back. We’ll be working, as we always do, to make clear that exchange programs are a direct investment in our economy, our communities, and our people. Exchange programs may be international in nature, but they’re distinctly American in impact.

The budget request’s rationale for this proposed cut – that exchanges are inefficient and can’t be afforded, that opportunities are being taken away from Americans, and that there is “fraud” in their implementation – couldn’t be further from the truth.

Exchange programs are one of the best returns on investment in the federal government. According to the State Department’s own talking points, 90%, or ~$660 million, of the Department of State exchange program budget is spent on Americans traveling abroad or by international participants while in America. This is one of the best returns on investment across the entire federal government.

Additionally, the exchanges appropriation leverages millions of additional dollars in private and international government contributions. For example:

• 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.  

• The Fulbright Program is one of the most highly leveraged federal programs, as over 100 partner governments currently contribute over $100 million annually, with 30 foreign governments matching or exceeding the U.S. government’s annual contribution.

Exchange programs create opportunities for Americans and American communities. International exchanges equip American leaders for success on the world stage and strengthen American communities across the country.  

• 15,000 American participants travel abroad on State Department exchanges every year, gaining critical skills and experiences that set them up for success in the global marketplace. 

• Nearly 60% of the young Americans that receive a Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship to study abroad are from small towns or rural communities in the U.S. 

• 97% of U.S. Scholars who participated in the Fulbright Program found the experience professionally transformative. 

• The National Security and Language Initiative for Youth (NSLI-Y) and the Critical Language Scholarship (CLS) provide young Americans the opportunity to study languages critical to U.S. interest directly in the regions where these languages are spoken. 

• Four out of five Americans who participate in the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) feel international exchange programs enhance the image of their community as a good place to live.  

• 31 million job openings require skills in communication, leadership, and problem-solving – all skills gained through exchange programs. 

• All 50 states host and benefit from exchange participants contributions to American businesses, communities, schools, and more.

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.  

• Implementing partners of the Department of State must submit line-item budgets for every award, including notes that justify each expense. These budgets are critiqued by ECA’s grants officers who often follow up with questions to ensure the allowability of expenses and cost reasonableness. Funds cannot be distributed until grants officers sign off. 

• Financial reports are submitted by implementing partners to ECA on a regular basis (monthly or quarterly depending on the terms of their contract with the Department of State). This is done so ECA can monitor program spending in real time. 

• Every implementing partner who receives funds from ECA must be audited by an external firm annually to ensure there is no waste, fraud, or abuse. Each audit report is shared with the Department of State. 

• The last Inspector General report on ECA was done in 2021 and, contrary to the budget proposal’s allegation, no fraud of any kind was reported.  

Lessons Learned: The First 100 Days of the Second Trump Administration

International exchange programs make America “safer, stronger, and more prosperous.” This has been an Alliance refrain since Secretary of State Marco Rubio first coined the phrase during his Senate confirmation hearing on January 15. It has fueled our advocacy over the past 100 days as we’ve worked to thaw a funding freeze, navigated Executive Orders and leaked memos impacting exchanges, prepared for expected proposed cuts to ECA funding, and so much more. 

Below are four lessons from the past 100 days that we at the Alliance are reflecting on to inform our advocacy efforts going forward. 

• Lesson 1: Patience, Patience, Patience. With so many threats facing exchanges during the first 100 days, we’ve prioritized gathering the information and support we need to ensure we’re most effective when we act. A perfect example of this was our advocacy efforts on the ECA funding freeze. You can read more about this effort here. 

• Lesson 2: [Information] Sharing is Caring. Information, the receiving and sharing of it, has been fundamental to our advocacy work over the past 100 days. The more people are aware of the threats facing international exchange programs, the more they can make their voices heard and make positive change. Over 25,000 letters were sent to Congress through our ECA funding freeze campaign, ultimately leading to the flow of funding to exchange implementing partners. 

• Lesson 3: The Power of Coalitions. Our ability to partner with fellow coalitions throughout these 100 days has amplified our impact on the issues we engage in daily. We are especially grateful to our colleagues at The Forum on Education Abroad, NAFSA, and the U.S. for Success Coalition for their collaboration in advocating against the ECA funding freeze and on behalf of international students and scholars. 

• Lesson 4: The Process Still Exists. Despite so much uncertainty, the Alliance is continuing to engage in the appropriations process to ensure strong support for international exchange programs within Congress. We’ve submitted 132 exchange funding appropriations requests and are meeting key House and Senate leadership to make the case for exchanges. 

We are deeply grateful for all those who have collaborated with us over the past 100 days to promote and protect international exchange programs. Special thanks go to our members, supporters, fellow associations, and all those exchange champions that made their voices heard on behalf of exchanges.  

Policy Update: ECA Remains Intact Amidst Major State Department Reorganization

This morning, Secretary of State Rubio shared his vision for a reorganization of the Department of State, including a new org chart, attached here. The two most important takeaways for international exchanges are: 

• ECA and PD remain intact 

• This reorganization is not a Reduction in Force (RIF)  

In a Substack post, the Secretary includes more details for the rationale behind the reorganization.

In a follow-up email to staff, Deputy Secretary of State (D) Chris Landau outlined an ongoing reorganization process led by an internal working group led by the yet-to-be-confirmed Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources. Until then, the group will be led by Acting Under Secretary Jose Cunningham. The email details the intent to carry out the reorganization process bureau by bureau by July 1. Some other key points from D’s email are: 

• The process will be a “streamlining” of the Department’s reporting lines and workforce, but ongoing programming will not be impacted for the time being. 

• Programming will proceed “consistent with relevant authorities, which indicates they are aware of the statutory authority of many Department activities, including ECA. 

• Today’s reorganization focuses solely on domestic offices, not overseas embassies, posts, or operations. Under Secretaries are being asked to submit proposals for 15% domestic staffing cuts. 

While this is good news for ECA today, the fact remains that we expect the President’s budget to include significant cuts to the ECE line. How does this reorganization plan that seemingly leaves ECA untouched for the moment square with the fact that the Department of State is recommending drastic cuts to ECE to go in the President’s budget request? 

It's important to continue to keep an eye on this ball. Today, minimal damage was inflicted on ECA, but there are still forces at play that would see the Bureau abolished.  

USCIS Alien Registration Explained: What it Means for Exchange Students

Since the beginning of the second Trump administration, there has been growing confusion within the exchange community surrounding recent developments related to the Alien Registration Requirement and their potential implications for exchange participants. While these requirements do not apply to the majority of international students or exchange visitors, and no additional registration is necessary for individuals in these categories, it remains important to understand what they entail. Below is more information on what the Alien Registration Requirement is and to whom it applies. 

Background

On Inauguration Day, one of President Trump's first Executive Orders (EOs) instructed the Department of Homeland Security to enforce Section 262 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), also known as The Alien Registration Act of 1940. This longstanding provision requires all foreign nationals aged 14 and older who reside in the U.S. for more than 30 days to register and be fingerprinted—unless they have already completed this step during their visa application process. 

Following this EO, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a page on their website outlining the details of the Alien Registration Requirement, sharing which individuals must register or re-register with the Federal government and how they can do so. USCIS also published an Interim Final Rule effective April 11, 2025 that requires nonimmigrants who turn 14 while in the U.S. to re-register within 30 days of their birthday, even if they were previously registered and issued an I-94 Form when entering the country. 

Impact

These updates have sparked questions about what this means for international students and exchange visitors. The good news? Most won’t be affected—but here’s what you need to know about the Alien Registration Requirement and the new USCIS rule: 

Are there any new changes to the Alien Registration Requirement?

Yes, there are two key updates to the Alien Registration Requirement:  

• The new requirement for young foreign nationals to re-register once they turn 14 (codified in the Interim Final Rule); and, 

• Individuals who have not been registered in the past must now also register with the Federal government, including visa-exempt Canadian nationals who enter at land borders without an I-94 and stay 30+ days and foreign nationals who entered without inspection (EWI) and are in the U.S. 30+ days (i.e. those who crossed the border illegally) 

Do international students and exchange visitors need to register under this policy?

No, most nonimmigrants (including F-1s and J-1s) are already registered when they enter the United States. When an individual receives a visa, is inspected at a U.S. port of entry, and receives an I-94 Form, this automatically counts as their registration and will not require them to re-register under this DHS program. Generally, re-registration will not be required if the participant entered the U.S. at age 14 or older and they received an I-91 Form on entry. See “Who is already registered” section on the USCIS Alien Registration Requirement web page. 

Will the USCIS Interim Final Rule impact international students and exchange visitors?

This may affect J-2 dependents and any young F-1 and J-1 students who entered the U.S. prior to age 14 (e.g. boarding school students), but in most cases, no.  

The Department of State Memo That Leaked: Let’s Talk About the Budget Process

This week in Washington began abuzz, first with rumors and speculation about a damaging memo possibly coming from the Department of State, and then real alarm when The Washington Post published a piece about a memo that was leaked to them proposing to slash the agency’s funding by nearly half, including the elimination of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA). The coverage of this memo has been breathless and dire. We at the Alliance saw the full memo, and it is very concerning. 

What the press only mentions as a footnote, though, is this: the leaked memo is a step in the beginning of the very long process that exists to write, authorize, and appropriate the federal funding legislation. The memo in and of itself has no immediate or tangible impact on the Department of State, ECA, or Alliance members’ programs. Below is an overview of the long, arcane, and complex process that explains why this memo is nothing more than a memo right now.

“Regular Order”, a.k.a. the way things should be done and aren’t

The Congressional budget process was established under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and that process takes place after the President’s Budget Request (PBR) is submitted to Congress. Below is a chart that outlines what the “regular order” of the federal budget process should look like each year. 

On or before: Action to be completed:

October-December Federal agencies create budget requests and submit them to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) OMB refers to the agencies’ requests as it develops the budget proposal for the president.

First Monday in February The president submits the budget request (PBR) to Congress.

February 15 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) submits report to House and Senate Budget Committees.

Within 6 weeks after the PBR is submitted Authorizing committees submit views and estimates to Budget Committees for each federal agency. House and Senate Budget Committees hold hearings on the PBR.

April 1 Senate Budget Committee reports concurrent resolution on the budget, which outlines targets for congressional committees to propose legislation directly appropriating funds or changing spending and tax laws. The budget resolution is not law and does not get signed by the President.

April 15 Congress completes action on the budget resolution, meaning the House and Senate agree on exact text language.

May – June House and Senate complete action on 12 appropriations bills guided by the targets outlined in the budget resolution. These bills do become law by going to the president for signature. Appropriations bills are the vehicle through which federal agencies receive funding.

October 1 Fiscal Year begins

Source: House Budget Committee: https://budget.house.gov/about/budget-framework/time-table-budget-process/; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/introduction-to-the-federal-budget-process  

Since the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was passed, Congress was able to complete this process for the first 23 years, however since 1999, they have failed to complete it the majority of the time. As Congress become more polarized, agreement on any legislation, but especially appropriations, has become more difficult. In 42 of the last 45 years, Congress has failed to agree on and pass appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal years. [1] In these instances, Congress is forced to pass short-term stopgap funding in the form of a Continuing Resolution (CR), or they put all 12 appropriations bills into one giant omnibus legislation to fund the full government or risk a government shutdown (which has happened several times). As might be clear at this point: neither of these processes for funding the government that have become the norm are considered “regular order” per the Congressional Budget Act. 

What does the President’s Budget Request really mean?

What does all of this have to do with the leaked memo? The memo represents what seems like a draft for the first step in the above chart where federal agencies create budget requests to submit to OMB. However, there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding this memo, including whether it is in fact the Department of State’s actual budget request for FY26. Subsequent reporting has noted that the memo is not expected to “pass muster with either the department’s leadership or Congress”. [2]

The president’s budget request in any given year is simply an overview of an Administration’s priorities and values. Congress can take it, take portions of it, or take none of it as they work through their own process to appropriate and authorize the federal agencies and programs. More often than not, Congress goes against the PBR during their appropriations process. It’s important to remember that the previous Trump Administration’s proposed budgets for ECA were cuts of anywhere from 55-75%. These were all rejected by Congress and funding for exchanges ended up growing by 17% over those four years. While a funding increase for ECA is not expected, it’s important to take heart that Congress has the final say on funding the federal government. 

Because the appropriations process is so broken (often ending in an omnibus or Continuing Resolution), and the legislative filibuster still exists, bipartisan agreement, at least in the Senate, is required to pass any kind of legislation to fund the government. Additionally, the House ultimately has to agree with whatever the Senate passes for it to go to the president to become law. 

All of that is to say, bipartisan support continues to exist for the Department of State, for ECA, and for international exchange programs writ large. Terminating ECA and eliminating all exchange programs is very unlikely to get the bipartisan support required to become law.

 ______________________________________________________

[1] Center for Budget Policy and Priorities, https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/introduction-to-the-federal-budget-process

[2] PBS news, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-state-department-briefing-may-address-proposed-budget-cuts-el-salvador-deportations

Exchanges Aren’t Going Anywhere: Leaked State Department Memo and What It Means for Exchanges

On Monday, April 14, The Washington Post broke the news that a leaked internal Administration memo proposed cutting the State Department by 48% and eliminating the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) and its exchange programs. 

While the memo is concerning and must be taken seriously, context is key: the memo is a proposal of a potential proposal and doesn’t mean the imminent elimination of ECA and exchange programs. 

This memo is a part of an annual process for creating the President’s Budget Request, or PBR. The memo is the State Department’s response to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) request for input on funding levels as it creates the PBR for FY26. And ultimately, it’s Congress that determines final funding numbers. If you’re interested in learning more about this process, I highly encourage you to read Alliance Assistant Director and Head of Advocacy and Government Relations Adrienne Jacobs' excellent analysis here.  

Exchange programs aren’t going anywhere, not if we have anything to say about it. We at the Alliance, along with our members, supporters, and partners, are working tirelessly to promote and protect international exchange programs. For those interested in staying up to date on the latest policy news and advocacy opportunities, visit our 47th Presidential Administration webpage. 

Action Alert: Tell Congress International Students are Essential to America’s Safety, Economy, and Global Strength

The U.S. for Success Coalition, of which the Alliance is a founding member, is calling on Congress to press the administration to avoid immigration actions and travel restrictions that jeopardize America’s global strength in attracting the world’s best and brightest to U.S. colleges and universities. Advocates can take up this call to action by reaching out to their members of Congress with the message that the administration should make it a national priority to welcome international students and scholars to study and succeed in the U.S.