Many Americans are aware that President Trump is making drastic cuts within the State Department in many areas. One such example is the Trump administration’s effort to significantly curtail the international educational and cultural exchange programs implemented by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA). President Trump’s budget proposal reduces the ECA’s budget by $691 million dollars, or 93%. This would effectively eliminate most, if not all, of the ECA’s programs, which include the Fulbright programs, Critical Language Scholarship, sports diplomacy initiatives, and many more. This is a costly mistake, and one that betrays a deep misunderstanding of what makes America strong.
I have been on both ends of the ECA’s programs. In the summer of 2016, I spent eight weeks in Vladimir, Russia, on a Critical Language Scholarship (CLS). The following summer, I worked as an intern in the sports diplomacy division of the ECA. Since then, I have participated in two virtual CLS alumni programs. Suffice it to say, the ECA’s programs have significantly shaped my development as a foreign policy professional.
The budget recommendation submitted to Congress explains the cuts to educational and cultural exchanges as follows:
“Inspector General reports have documented insufficient monitoring for fraud and inefficient, wasteful programming at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. Foreign students receiving technical and high-demand training leave…having deprived American students of places to acquire those skills. This program is no longer affordable.”
The objections, then, fall into two areas: concerns about wasting taxpayer funds, and a perception that these programs benefit foreign competitors to the detriment of US citizens.
While the claim of fraud in the ECA’s programs is questionable, I understand the concern about wasting taxpayer funds. I have seen excessive bureaucracy and “woke” ideology at work up close. When I was a State Department intern in 2017, the slow pace of bureaucracy was maddening, and attempts to export American gender ideology through international exchanges—attempts that many American taxpayers would find morally repugnant—were already routine. I would not be surprised to learn that these issues have continued or worsened over the past eight years. So, if the Trump administration’s goal were simply to make our exchange programs a more efficient and responsible use of taxpayer funds, I would be fully supportive.
The current budget proposal proves that is not the case. If Trump and his allies understood the value of these programs, they would put in the money and effort to improve them, rather than abolish them. The second rationale given in the budget proposal gets closer to the heart of their misunderstanding.
Claiming that exchange programs benefit foreigners to the detriment of American citizens is absurdly ill-informed. While the ECA’s exchange programs do benefit citizens of other countries, they also create opportunities for the 15,000 Americans per year who travel abroad on international exchanges, not to mention American businesses and other organizations involved with these programs. Opportunities for American citizens cannot be separated from opportunities for foreign citizens. There is no such thing as a one-way exchange; foreign countries and partner organizations only participate because they believe they will benefit from the arrangement.
This is so obvious, I believe the real issue is that Trump and the MAGA movement do not understand how exchange programs benefit the United States. Again, I understand the skepticism. Although the ECA does measure the impact of its programs, it isn’t easy to quantify the overall effect of exchange programs, or even soft power in general, on US foreign policy success. Furthermore, American soft power and cultural endeavors have long been dominated by the political left, earning the distrust of many conservatives. However understandable, Trump’s conclusion that the ECA’s programs do not benefit the United States is seriously flawed.
Take the example of language programs, such as the CLS. While we live in the age of Google Translate, there is no replacement for proficiency in foreign languages. This is particularly evident for diplomats and heads of state—for example, some attributed the disastrous Trump-Zelensky Oval Office meeting in part to Zelensky’s limited English—but foreign language proficiency can also be a vital asset for business leaders, journalists, and more. Immersion and interaction with native speakers is the most efficient way to learn a language, making the ECA’s language programs a vital tool for making Americans more effective and competitive across various sectors.
The impact of these language programs goes beyond simple language proficiency, though, for the same reason other cultural exchange initiatives, such as those based on sports or the arts, also benefit the United States. My participation in the CLS programs, and particularly my summer abroad, profoundly shaped my understanding of America’s role in the world and my academic and professional trajectory. By interacting with and befriending Russians on their own turf, in their own language, I gained insights into Russian history, culture, and politics that continue to inform my work today. Meanwhile, I helped the Russians I encountered gain a more nuanced and, I believe, more positive understanding of America. I am sure many exchange alumni, both inbound and outbound, could share similar experiences of transformation and growth. Language learning was an important part of my experience, but many of the benefits I experienced are common to other types of exchange programs.
In general, outbound exchanges allow Americans to gain an in-depth understanding of the language, culture, and/or politics of countries around the world while showing their hosts the best of America. Inbound exchanges allow Americans to encounter talented individuals from around the world in their own schools and communities. Through their impact on individual participants, exchange programs contribute to American power and security. American alumni enrich their professional fields, including diplomacy and policymaking, with their understanding of other nations and cultures. Foreign alumni return to their home countries with a better understanding of America, helping to dispel the stereotypes and propaganda harmful to America’s image abroad. Simply put, well-executed exchange programs make America look good. The importance of public image is something Trump, of all people, should understand, yet the MAGA movement remains blind to the role of soft power in making America strong.
In the case of the ECA’s programs, Trump’s “if it needs improvement, tear it down” approach will be disastrous for American soft power and for our ability to produce professionals equipped to advocate for American interests in a complex and dangerous world. Our adversaries, including Russia and China, understand the importance of cultural knowledge and soft power – just look at China’s Confucius Institutes or Russia’s sophisticated propaganda machine. If we abandon our exchange programs, others will gladly fill the void. The MAGA philosophy reshaping America’s foreign policy cannot really be said to put “America first” because it discounts the importance of soft power and, for all its emphasis on dealmaking, sees international relations as a win-lose proposition. Our exchange programs aren’t perfect, but they play an important role in projecting American soft power at little cost. Congress should reject the proposed cuts to the ECA’s programs, and the Trump administration should learn to recognize these programs for what they are: a powerful tool for building a “safer, stronger, and more prosperous” America.
