Why the Fulbright scholarship program is facing a crisis under Trump's oversight
The prestigious Fulbright scholarship program, a cornerstone of US diplomatic and academic exchange for nearly 80 years, is facing a deepening crisis under President Donald Trump's administration.
Designed to promote international understanding and academic excellence, the program is now caught in a storm of political interference and resignations that threaten its integrity and global reputation.
A wave of resignations has shaken the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, with nearly all members stepping down in protest. In a public statement, the board members accused the Trump administration of unlawfully meddling in the selection process by denying scholarships to recipients who had already been approved to study and teach in the US and abroad.
As reported by the Associated Press, the board declared that continuing to serve "would risk legitimizing actions we believe are unlawful and damage the integrity of this storied program and America's credibility abroad.
"
Board accuses administration of overreach
According to the Associated Press, board members stated that the administration overrode their authority by blocking a substantial number of already-selected candidates, and launching an unauthorized review of an additional 1,200 foreign awardees.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting
Luxeartisanship
Buy Now
Undo
These scholars, previously approved to travel to the US, are now subject to a secondary evaluation process that could lead to their rejection. The board emphasized that these actions contradict both the letter and spirit of the Fulbright-Hays Act, which established the program with protections from political influence.
The Fulbright program, which awards approximately 9,000 scholarships annually in over 160 countries, is known for supporting a wide range of academic fields.
The canceled scholarships affected students and scholars in disciplines such as biology, engineering, agriculture, music, medical sciences, and history. Selection has traditionally been managed by nonpartisan staff at the State Department and foreign embassies, with the board providing final approvals.
Administration calls board members 'political appointees'
The State Department, which oversees the program, dismissed the board's claims, describing the resignations as a political stunt.
As quoted by the Associated Press, the department stated, "It's ridiculous to believe that these members would continue to have final say over the application process, especially when it comes to determining academic suitability and alignment with President Trump's Executive Orders.
" The department added that the board members were partisan appointees of former President Joe Biden.
One remaining board member, Estrada-Schaye, told the Associated Press, "I was appointed by the president of the United States and I intend to fill out my term."
Broader scrutiny of international students intensifies
The controversy surrounding the Fulbright program is part of a broader pattern of increased scrutiny of international students under the Trump administration. According to the Associated Press, the government has expanded grounds for revoking foreign students' legal status, paused new visa interviews, increased social media vetting, and pressured institutions like Harvard University to implement reforms.
Former board members expressed hope that Congress, the courts, and future boards will defend the Fulbright program from what they called attempts to "degrade, dismantle, or even eliminate" a pillar of American diplomacy, as reported by the Associated Press.
Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
29 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order
By Nate Raymond Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order -U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Mint
29 minutes ago
- Mint
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trumps birthright citizenship order
Boston-based federal appeals court skeptical of Trump's order One appeals court has already ruled order is unconstitutional U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
News18
39 minutes ago
- News18
Medvedev's Nuclear Threat Sparks U.S. Military Alert Trump Responds With Sub Deployment
Tensions between the U.S. and Russia are on a knife's a chilling escalation, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issued a nuclear warning that triggered an immediate response from Donald Trump. Calling Medvedev's remarks 'provocative and reckless,' Trump has now ordered the deployment of U.S. nuclear submarines closer to Russian high-stakes move comes amid mounting pressure over ceasefire negotiations and rising fears of broader conflict in Eastern Europe. Trump's administration has signaled that it will not tolerate any form of nuclear blackmail—and is ready to flex military muscle to ensure deterrence. Mobile App -
