Proposed Recission of the International Education Programs Regulations

The commenter opposes the proposed rescission of the International Education Programs Regulations, arguing that it creates uncertainty and risks undermining the Fulbright-Hays program. They advocate for preserving robust funding and institutional support for the program to maintain U.S. competitiveness and language expertise.

A professor of Russian history opposes the rescission of the International Education Programs Regulations, arguing that the regulations ensure transparency and reliability for programs like Fulbright-Hays. The commenter emphasizes that these programs are vital for training scholars, supporting national interests, and providing necessary financial stability for students in international studies.

A professor and former Fulbright recipient opposes the rescission of the Fulbright-Hayes program. They argue that these programs are vital for American soft power, national security, and the promotion of democratic institutions globally.

The commenter, a university department chair, opposes the rescission of the Fulbright Hays program. They argue that the program is essential for student and faculty success, research, and the broader advancement of higher education.

The commenter opposes the proposed rescission of funding for Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs, arguing that these programs are essential for national security, foreign policy, and economic interests. They emphasize that these programs provide unique foreign language and area skills that serve as a major soft-power success for the United States.

The commenter opposes the rescission of federal regulations for international education programs, arguing that federal administration ensures a level playing field for students in lower-income states. They contend that removing these regulations would undermine national security, erode linguistic expertise, and destabilize the infrastructure needed for long-term investment in area studies.

A professor of geography opposes the proposed rescission of the International Education Programs Regulations. They argue that the funding supported by these regulations is essential for developing global expertise and training students to understand the world.

John Aerni-Flessner opposes the proposed rescission, arguing that the funding structure for the Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs is essential for maintaining U.S. academic leadership and fostering global empathy. He expresses concern that moving these funds to a more politicized office would be detrimental to international scholarship.

An individual commenter supports the rescission of the International Education Programs Regulations, arguing that the Fulbright program is a waste of taxpayer money. They suggest that funds would be better spent on veterans and law enforcement.