In a statement on June 12, board members said the administration had “usurped” its authority and denied Fulbright awards to a “substantial number of individuals” chosen by the board under its congressionally mandated powers.
It said members had “overwhelmingly” voted to quit the board, with their resignation effective immediately.
The members accused the administration of “subjecting an additional 1,200 foreign Fulbright recipients to an unauthorized review process” that could lead to more applicants being rejected.
“Through generations of war and peace, the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Program has been a bipartisan pillar of American diplomacy,” said members, highlighting the “exhaustive” year-long process of granting scholarships, which they say has been overridden by State Department officials.
For its part, the state department has called the 12 board members “partisan political appointees of the Biden administration,” claiming their resignation is a “political stunt” attempting to undermine the Trump administration.
“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,” a senior state department official told The PIE News.
Study abroad colleagues and former Fulbright scholars have taken to social media, expressing support for the board members and highlighting the huge soft power benefits of “one of the most respected international exchange programs in the world”.
As of Wednesday afternoon, the Fulbright membership page on the state department website listed only one name: Carmen Estrada-Schaye, who was appointed to the board in 2022.
“I was appointed by the president of the United States and I intend to fill out my term,” Estrada-Schaye told The Associated Press.
To continue to serve … would risk legitimising actions we believe are unlawful and damage America’s credibility abroad
Fulbright Scholarship board members
“We are frankly stunned that the distinguished Fulbright board was backed into a corner by the Trump Administration and saw no alternative but to resign,” AIFS chairman Bill Gertz told The PIE News.
“Fulbright enjoys bipartisan support in Congress,” said Gertz, adding that he expected this, and all cultural exchanges, to be fully funded in 2026 and beyond.
The news comes as the sector is bracing for the president’s FY 2026 “skinny” budget, with Trump currently proposing cutting international exchanges by 93%, though these plans are yet to be approved by Congress.
Founded in 1946, each year the Fulbright Program provides approximately 8,000 merit-based grants to students, scholars and professionals pursuing graduate studies, conducting research, or teaching English abroad.
Grants are awarded to US students and international students from 160 countries, with the scholarship considered a key pillar of American public diplomacy and soft power.
“Our resignation is not a decision we take lightly,” wrote members: “But to continue to serve after the Administration has consistently ignored the board’s request that they follow the law would risk legitimising actions we believe are unlawful and damage the integrity of this storied program and America’s credibility abroad.”
As highlighted by the board members, Fulbright alumni have gone on to become leaders of government, industry, academia, arts and culture “in every part of the world”.
Sixty-two Fulbright alumni have been awarded the Nobel Prize, while 44 Fulbright recipients have served as heads of state or government, according to the State Department.
While the program is sponsored by the State Department, over 35 foreign governments match or exceed the US government’s annual contributions.
Board member Ambassador James Costos said he voted to resign the board “not in protest, but in defence of principle”.
In a statement on June 11, Costos highlighted Fulbright’s “extraordinary role in advancing international education and cultural diplomacy,” forming bonds that “serve as the strongest defence against global conflict”.
“That is the essence of soft power. That is the Fulbright legacy,” wrote Costos, maintaining that he believed in that legacy too deeply to stand by “as it is compromised”.
