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 governmentAccording 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.

Advocacy Update: Exchange Funding Begins to Flow After Pause

As of Friday, March 28, Alliance members have received over 85% of outstanding State Department payments that had been withheld due to the ongoing funding freeze. This is a major victory in an advocacy effort that began when on Thursday, February 13 when the State Department informed grantees that a temporary 15-day pause on federal funding for all current and future State Department FY25 grant disbursements had gone into effect as of Wednesday, February 12.

In response, the Alliance, along with NAFSA and The Forum on Education Abroad, launched an advocacy campaign urging Congress to restore funding to ECA program implementers. Exchange champions sent 25,000+ letters to more than 500 Congressional offices. 

Just days after the campaign launch, 160 Alliance members went to Capitol Hill to meet with over 140 Congressional offices on Advocacy Day, delivering the same urgent message.

These meetings led to a House sign on letter co-sponsored by Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME, 1) and Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA, 4) with 47 signatures urging Secretary of State Rubio to immediately stop the freeze.

We also generated strong media attention in major outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press.  

Action Alert: Urge Congress to Restore Vital International Exchange Funding

The Alliance for International Exchange, on behalf of its more than 90 U.S.-based members who implement international exchange programs, and in conjunction with NAFSA and the Forum on Education Abroad, is launching a campaign to urge Members of Congress to demand that the U.S. Department of State lift the freeze on international exchange funding. 

The Department of State still has not lifted what was described as a 15-day temporary pause of all international exchange program funding that went into effect on Wednesday, February 12. This pause has paralyzed an array of time-honored exchange programs that enhance American safety, security, and prosperity.  

This action risks the health, safety, and future of the more than 12,500 American youth, students, and professionals who are currently abroad or who have plans to be abroad in the next six months. It also shuts off funding for U.S. programs now hosting more than 7,400 youth, students, and professionals in American communities from around the world. 

We encourage all exchange champions take action today and urge Congress to support thousands of American students and communities by contacting the U.S. Department of State to demand that funding be turned back on for international exchange programs. 

Alliance congratulates Marco Rubio on his confirmation as Secretary of State

The Alliance for International Exchange congratulates Secretary of State Marco Rubio on his confirmation, and on being sworn in, as the 72nd Secretary of State this week. During his remarks to Department of State staff, Secretary Rubio emphasized the need for a pragmatic U.S. foreign policy that makes America safer, stronger, and more prosperous. We are optimistic that this mission for the Department will translate into the Secretary’s strong support of international exchange programs, which meet those important criteria.  

Exchanges make America safer by advancing U.S. interests and values around the world. Exchanges make America stronger by creating future American leaders and telling America’s story to the world. And exchanges make America more prosperous by bringing billions of dollars to the U.S. economy and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans. 

The Alliance looks forward to working with Secretary Rubio in his new role and to promoting and expanding Department of State international exchange programs. 

Alliance congratulates Senator Rubio on Secretary of State nomination

The Alliance extends its congratulations to Senator Marco Rubio on his Secretary of State nomination. Since his election to the Senate in 2011, Senator Rubio has been a supporter of international exchange programs, particularly through his membership on the Senate State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee. 

On November 21, the Alliance sent a letter to Senator Rubio’s office, congratulating him directly and highlighting the positive economic, political, and social impact of international exchanges on Americans and American communities: 

• An investment in international exchange programs is an investment in the U.S. economy. International university students contributed $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy and created 378,175 jobs in 2023-24. Approximately 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 in the entire federal government. 

• International exchanges create political and business networks around the world – networks that cement diplomatic relationships and strengthen national security. Exchange programs have immeasurable national defense and security benefits, provide unique value for our nation, and advance American interests around the world. International exchanges are one of our oldest forms of diplomacy and are a key instrument of U.S. foreign policy, essential to strengthening U.S. global leadership and keeping us safe. Exchanges help us promote American values worldwide and build international partnerships based on shared interests that ultimately save lives and build nations.  

• International exchanges create future American leaders, providing them the skills to be successful on the world stage. More than 31 million job openings require skills in communication, leadership, and problem-solving – all skill sets shaped through international exchange experiences. Studying and traveling abroad helps to build careers – 9 out of 10 youth surveyed say they believe travel experiences increase employability. 

• International exchanges help tell America’s story, showing the world what America is really like, building familiarity, kinship, and trust. Four out of five Americans feel international exchange programs enhance the image of their community as a good place to live. 94 percent of exchange students from Muslim-majority countries reported that they have a deeper, more favorable view of American culture after their year in the United States. 79 percent of Fellows who participated in the Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders agreed that the Fellowship helped build lasting and productive relationships, both personal and institutional, between the United States and African countries. 

The Alliance looks forward to engaging Senator Rubio in his new role to sustain, protect, and grow international exchange programs. 

A Proven Investment in America: Exchange Policy Priorities for the Incoming Trump Administration

The Alliance for International Exchange has released its international educational and cultural exchange policy priorities for the incoming Trump Administration. The Alliance recommends that the new Administration make international exchange programs a part of its policy priorities because of the transformative power of exchanges in advancing America’s economic and national security interests.   

The Alliance’s policy priorities paper outlines its recommendations for the incoming Administration, focusing on five key areas of growth and collaboration: 

• Policy Priority #1: Support a robust appropriation for Department of State international exchange programs
   The Alliance recommends that the Trump Administration prioritize robust funding for Department of State international exchange programs, one of the best returns on investment in the federal budget. At $741 million in FY24, funding for exchanges is only 0.0006% of the federal budget. And 90% of this funding, or ~$660 million, is spent domestically – either on Americans to travel abroad or by international participants while in the U.S. Funding for ECA exchange programs grew by 17% during the first Trump Administration, and the Alliance looks forward to coordinating with the Administration to continue this trend and ensure funding for these critical public diplomacy programs continues

• Policy Priority #2: Support and expand Department of State BridgeUSA private sector exchange programs
   The Alliance recommends that the Trump Administration prioritize the well-being and growth of the State Department’s BridgeUSA private sector exchange programs, also known as “J-1 visa programs.” BridgeUSA programs, all limited-term and non-immigrant, contribute to the success of many aspects of American business, education, and family life. Program participants not only play vital roles in American life, but they also pay their own way and come at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer. In addition, BridgeUSA exchange participants traveling to the U.S. contributed at least $584.6 million to the U.S. economy in 2023 before returning home. The Alliance will release its BridgeUSA Regulatory Policy Agenda at the start of 2025 and looks forward to coordinating with the Administration to move this agenda forward on specific programmatic interests.  

• Policy Priority #3: Increase the number of international students studying in the U.S. 
  The Alliance recommends that the Trump Administration prioritize the growth of international college and university students studying in the U.S. International students contribute to the U.S. economy and create American jobs and having a cadre of U.S.-educated political and business leaders around the world forwards U.S. interests. The Alliance is a founding member of the U.S. for Success Coalition, a group of organizations that seek to achieve this policy goal, which looks forward to working with the Trump Administration to bring more international students to our country for our economic and diplomatic benefit.   

• Policy Priority #4: Create more access for American students and young professionals to study and work abroad 
  The Alliance recommends that the Trump Administration prioritize creating more opportunities for American students and young professionals to study and work abroad to keep pace and achieve reciprocity with many other countries around the world. Only 280,000 American students studied abroad in 2022-23, while more than 1 million international students came to the U.S. Studying, interning, and working abroad should not be viewed as a luxury for young Americans, but rather a necessity. International experience is a crucial component of a 21st century education and vital to building leadership skills; allows Americans to succeed in the modern marketplace; and plays an important role in developing the global mindset needed to balance local and international challenges

• Policy Priority #5: Ensure effective and secure processing of exchange visitor and international student visas by the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs 
  The Alliance recommends that the Trump Administration provide sufficient resources to the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs. By doing so, the Administration will ensure U.S. consular officers can continue to provide visas to the qualified and fully vetted applicants who bring so much value to our country. A well-resourced Consular Affairs Bureau is able to encourage the continued mobility of non-immigrant exchange participants and international students to the U.S., ensuring we continue to benefit from the economic and diplomatic impact of these programs. 

The full policies priority paper is available here, along with a summary one-pager. 

The Alliance team would like to thank all those who contributed to these priorities and recommendations. The international educational and cultural exchange community is at its strongest when it comes together as a unified voice to advocate for the continued success and growth of these life-changing programs. 

Please contact Mark Overmann at movermann@alliance-exchange.org with any inquiries.