Editor’s Note: Today’s post is by Alexandra F. Levy, Brendan Gillis, and Sarah Weicksel. Alexandra is Director of Communications and Public Affairs at the American Historical Association. Brendan is Director of Teaching and Learning and TPS Program Director at the American Historical Association. Sarah is Executive Director of the American Historical Association.
Just weeks ago, scholars across disciplines united in opposition to the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed changes to federal grantmaking. The Federal Register received nearly 500,000 comments — a record response grounded in widespread concern for the continuing independence of federally supported research.
But another proposed rule with grave implications for researchers across disciplines has flown under the radar. The Department of Education has proposed a complete rescission of the regulations that govern the Title VI and Fulbright-Hays international education programs, including the Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) Fellowship and other competitive funding opportunities. These regulations currently require the Department to evaluate applications using published scholarly criteria and with the advice of panels of academic experts. Eliminating them would remove some of the most important, legally binding safeguards ensuring that awards are based on academic merit rather than administrative discretion.
For decades, Title VI and Fulbright-Hays have enabled students, scholars, and educators in history and other disciplines to develop the language proficiency, regional expertise, and international partnerships that underpin teaching, research, and American ingenuity. The Title VI Language Resource Center Program, for example, has played a critical role in the creation of a network of resources at US universities located in every region of the country. Through these programs, historians and other scholars achieve expertise and competence in language teaching, learning, and research.
The Department’s proposal represents far more than an effort to streamline outdated rules or reduce administrative burden. In many cases, the regulations targeted for elimination are not procedural red tape; they are the only legally binding requirements that ensure applications are evaluated on their scholarly merits and informed by expert academic review. Removing those protections would make future funding opportunities subject to change at the discretion of each presidential administration, weakening the transparency, consistency, and credibility that have long characterized these nationally significant programs.
This proposal is not an isolated development. Rather, it follows a pattern of upheaval and financial instability imposed on the Department’s international education programs over the past 18 months. According to the Coalition for International Education, in FY 25 the Department repurposed $85 million in funding allocated by Congress for Title VI and Fulbright-Hays. To repurpose these funds, the Department canceled about 350 Title VI grants, including over 1,500 Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) fellowships, and 185 pending Fulbright-Hays awards. In 2025, the Department abruptly terminated funding for the seven Title VI Language Resource Centers by denying their expected noncompeting continuation awards, disrupting the fourth year of their grant cycle and bringing 35 years of the Language Resource Center program to an abrupt halt. For both FY 26 and 27, the administration has proposed zeroing out the Department’s funding for Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs.
Reducing or entirely eliminating these programs would be an enormous blow to scholars across all disciplines, from the humanities to STEM. Foreign language training is crucial for those who work in national security, business, technology, and other careers that require precise knowledge of foreign languages and culture. For historians like us, these international education programs offer fundamental language training many need for our fields and areas of study. The proposed changes could have profound longterm consequences for generations of historians.
The impact of losing these international education programs would echo far beyond the scholarly research community. According to the National Humanities Alliance, Title VI and Fulbright-Hays support training in 200 foreign languages, and Title VI has supported the development of more than half the textbooks on less commonly taught languages.
The success of these programs depends not only on federal funding, but also on predictable, merit-based rules that allow students, faculty, and universities to invest years in developing expertise. Consider an aspiring national security expert hoping to deepen American understanding of the Russia-Ukraine war who needs to study the Russian and Ukrainian languages. Or the budding engineer or scientist seeking to collaborate on semiconductor technology in South Korea who must learn Korean. The possibilities are endless — which is precisely why these programs exist, to support foundational language training and cultural exchanges for a huge range of professions and disciplines.
Rescinding the governing regulations would make many of the rules that applicants have long relied upon — including selection criteria, program priorities, and review procedures — subject to change through annual updates or administrative guidance rather than durable regulations. A proposal carefully designed to meet one year’s published expectations could become ineligible the next because priorities or criteria have changed with little advance notice. Institutions and individuals who receive Title VI and Fulbright-Hays funds need transparency and predictable structure for applications and reporting purposes.
We are deeply concerned that this proposed rule is another step on the road to ending Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs. Budgets can be changed from administration to administration and from Congress to Congress. But if the Department of Education succeeds in eliminating all regulations governing these programs, rebuilding the regulatory framework could be a long and lengthy process to reverse. And without the Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs, US scholars, national security experts, and business and technology leaders will lack the language skills to communicate with their international counterparts, conduct crucial research, or encourage progress and growth—whether in scholarly research and innovations, business, technology, or other professions—at home and abroad.
The American Historical Association has submitted a comment urging the Department to withdraw the proposed rule. The deadline is July 31, and as of two days before the deadline, a mere 52 comments had been submitted. We encourage you to make your voice heard. The Department of Education’s proposal threatens the future of international collaboration.
