Comment on FR Doc # 2026-13248
John SchwallerOpposeIndividual
Summary: The commenter, a historian and former Fulbright recipient, opposes the proposed rescission because they believe it replaces objective, merit-based selection with political patronage. They argue the rule would reduce transparency, create uncertainty for applicants, and weaken the administration of programs established by Congress.
I have benefitted from receiving two different Fulbright grants during my career, based on the merits of my work, not on the judgement of a political appointees. In addition my two sons are both academics and they, too, have received similar grants, based on the objective quality of their work as evaluated by other scholars, not government officials. As a historian I am particularly irked that this rule seeks to take research back to the gilded age in which government was controlled by patronage not objective quality. As George Santayana pointed out, "Those who do not learn the lessons of the past will be forced to repeat them.
The proposed rule would reduce transparency, create uncertainty for applicants, and weaken the consistent administration of programs that Congress established to advance the nation's long-term international education, language instruction, and research capacity.