Secretary Rubio directed officials to intervene in the final stages of the Fulbright selection process.
John McDonnell/Getty Images
All 12 members of the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Committee resigned from what they said was a political intervention in the selection process of prestigious international grants, according to people familiar with the matter.
After preliminary application reviews by the International Institute of Education and the host country Fulbright Commissions, the FFSB usually has a final say in the selection process. This year is different. Internal Advanced ED The story was broken last month, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio directing State Department officials to intervene in the final stages of the selection process, adding a new step in their opinion not to comply with President Trump’s anti-DEI execution order.
The former board members wrote in their letter that the ministry’s “unprecedented” intervention in the selection process was illegal, immoral and compromised national diplomatic and research interests.
“Under the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican governments, the board of directors complies with the law and acts under its statutory mandate,” they wrote. “The current government has usurped the board’s power and denied Fulbright’s award to award a large number of selected individuals.”
Familiar with the source of the program, who talks with it Internal Advanced ED In the context, to avoid retaliation, State Department officials led by Darren Beattie, secretary of diplomatic and public affairs, rejected more than 20% of the finalists selected by the FFSB in the last-minute intervention. For example, of the approximately 900 approved applicants for the U.S. Visiting Scholar Program, Beattie rejected about 200.
Many of the cut recommendations focused on the impact of climate change or gender differences; according to sources in the selection process Internal Advanced ED in May.
One person familiar with the plan said board members were overwhelmed by senior State Department officials throughout the process. When they learned that many selected finalists did not receive their offer of admission by late May (more than a month later than expected), they wrote multiple letters to department officials asking for explanation. Not coming; in fact, those familiar with the plan say members only learn about new steps in the selection process from the rumored communication between the Fulbright Commission and external media reports.
Ultimately, people familiar with the FFSB said board members thought they had no choice but to resign.
Sources also said that 1,200 applications from foreign teachers and researchers to Fulbright Foreign Scholars Program, which were reviewed and accepted by the FFSB, are still “sitting on Beattie’s desk” and that he appears to be ready to feed them by using the same content filters applied by Americans.
A senior State Department official confirms board member resignation in an email Internal Advanced EDcalling the move “a little more than a political stunt.” The spokesman also said the regulations in the Fulbright Hayes Act were regulated [sic]As the members said, “Do not give FFSB “exclusiveness and final statement” during the selection process.
“The 12 members of the Fulbright Commission are partisan political appointments in the Biden administration,” the official wrote. “It is ridiculous to believe that these members will continue to have a final say in the application process, especially in determining academic suitability and consistency with President Trump’s execution of the order.”
The FFSB is a politically appointed board; the newly resigned members are indeed appointed by President Biden. They include some well-known figures in Democratic politics, such as former White House vice president and Harris-Walz running chairman Jen O’Malley Dillon; former deputy assistant Mala Adiga; and former White House legislative affairs director Louisa Terrell. Others are business leaders and philanthropists.
Their resignation now opens all 12 seats to those appointed by Trump, usually those with term limits. One person familiar with Fulbright’s plan said board members placed it in their decision to resign. However, being turned away at the end of the selection process, board members thought they had to leave.
“Continue to serve after the government has always ignored the requirements of the board of directors to comply with the law, we believe that illegal actions are legalized and undermine the integrity of the legendary program and the American credibility abroad,” the member wrote in his letter.
President Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget almost eliminates Fulbright’s funding and will rule the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs for the scholarship. People familiar with the plan say they think the Trump administration is narrowing the channels for Fulbright recipients and elevating the selection process to undermine the plan without completely eliminating it, which only Congress can do.
They said if the government continues to abandon the plan, they fear that the recently selected cohort will be trapped without funds or resources once the new budget takes effect.
