JNCL-NCLIS Opposes Regulatory Rollback Threatening Title VI–Fulbright-Hays International Education Programs

The following comments were submitted by JNCL-NCLIS to the US Department of Education on July 28, 2026 . You can see all posted comments at this link.

JNCL-NCLIS Comments 

on Proposed Recission of Title VI-Fulbright-Hays Regulations

The Joint National Committee for Languages (JNCL) and the National Council for Languages and International Studies (NCLIS), writes in opposition to the Department of Education’s “Proposed Rescission of International Education Program Regulations.” We urge the Department to not move forward with implementing this proposed rescission, which would remove virtually all regulations that guide the application, review and selection process for Title VI/Fulbright-Hays international study abroad and language programs and replace them with no concrete policies and practices. We believe that this wholly unprecedented proposal would ill-serve all applicants for new and existing Title VI/Fulbright Hays program as well as America’s diplomatic and national security interests, and lead to grant awards that lack appropriate and rigorous review. Instead, we recommend that the Department work with stakeholders to formulate reasonable revisions to the existing regulations that will meet the Department’s needs and interests, provide transparency to the public, and ensure applicants understand what is expected of them.

Background

For decades, the United States government has invested in study abroad, international exchange and language study at both the Department of Education and the Department of State.  At the Department of Education, Title VI of the Higher Education Act (HEA) and the Fulbright-Hays program represent the central investments in international education and language study.  Title VI of HEA provides multi-year competitive domestic program grants to colleges and universities for the purpose of improving language education and supporting study abroad. Until this year, Title VI, the Department supported the following eight programs:

• American Overseas Research Centers

• Business and International Education

• Centers for International Business Education

• Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships

• International Research and Studies

• Language Resource Centers

• National Resource Centers

• Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Program

Fulbright-Hays supports study abroad programs to improve language skills in critical languages. 

These programs are critically important to the United States in improving the language and cultural competency skills that the vast majority of Americans lack. Indeed, research suggests that the limited number of U.S. citizens with language skills is compromising the effectiveness of the State Department’s embassy and diplomatic work. According to a 2017 GAO report: “23 percent of overseas language-designated positions (LDP) were filled by Foreign Service officers (FSO) who did not meet the positions' language proficiency requirements... According to FSOs we interviewed, language proficiency gaps have, in some cases, affected State's ability to properly adjudicate visa applications; effectively communicate with foreign audiences, address security concerns, and perform other critical diplomatic duties.”

The Department’s Proposal

The Department's June 30 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“notice”) seeks public comment on rescinding all regulations governing Title VI/Fulbright-Hays “to provide the Department of Education (ED) with greater flexibility in carrying out its statutory authority to implement these programs and to enable the Department to align such programs with current and evolving priorities and needs, such as workforce readiness, national competitiveness, and returning education to the States.” The notice goes on to justify the elimination of these regulations on the grounds that they are “prescriptive” and that the programs need a “nimbler approach.” It also states: “Given the ever-changing nature of international affairs, it is crucial to review existing regulations and reform the program to allow applicable entities to prepare their applications with more creativity, less prescription, and in a manner that is responsive to current events and administration priorities.” 

The regulations at issue were developed over a span of more than four decades (and multiple Presidential administrations), with the most recent updates coming less than two years ago. They provide applicants, policymakers and the public clear and specific detail about the operation of these programs. Among other things these regulations:

• Specify who is eligible to apply.

• Describe allowable uses of funds.

• Set out the contents required in each application.

• Establish project application selection criteria, including quality of key personnel for each applicant, a cost effective budget, a quality evaluation plan, and adequate resources.

• Provide the Secretary the opportunity to establish funding priorities, including particular geographic areas and languages.

• Create a review and selection process, including peer review of applications.

The proposed regulations would replace the wisdom of more than forty years of bipartisan rulemaking, governing the entire grantmaking process for eight programs funded by federal taxpayer dollars, with nothing. If these regulations are adopted by the Department, Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs – old and new – presumably would be implemented using some criteria but the proposed regulations offer no new regulations or even promise new regulations. This leaves applicants in the dark as to what can and will be expected of them and provides zero assurance to the public and policymakers that these federal dollars will be disseminated wisely.

Take peer review, for instance. Under the regulations established for the National Resources Center, the Secretary is to make grant awards using a peer review process. Peer review ensures that individuals with credentials and experience in the languages and international studies field carefully review each application to ensure the project’s feasibility, quality, resources, design and rationale, planning, and budget and evaluation. The notice – in its only real substantive evaluation of current regulations – states on this issue:

“The Department has found that using prescriptive program-specific selection criteria in grant competitions can be burdensome for both applicants and peer reviewers. Further it can provide unintended advantages to prior grantees in the application process. For these programs, we believe that it is more appropriate to align with the selection criteria found in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). This would eliminate the prescriptive nature of the criteria, reduce the burden on applicants and peer reviewers, and improve alignment with the statute that guides the program. The removal of the prescriptive language will also allow for more consistent messaging on priorities for international and foreign language education. This change will align the Title VI, HEA programs with other Departmental programs that provide discretion to the Secretary to select among the regulated selection criteria when deciding which criteria to emphasize in a competition year.” 

What this verbiage omits is that, if these current regulations are eliminated, there will be no requirement for peer review of applications and no criteria (other than the general terms found in the statute) under which these applications can be reviewed and scored. This opens the prospect that applications will be reviewed and scored by those without expertise in the field, using criteria of which the applicants and the public have no knowledge.

Conclusion

JNCL-NCLIS understands that each and every Presidential Administration and Secretary of Education puts its own stamp on federal education programs, establishing new priorities and, in some cases, new programs. However, to our knowledge no Administration or Secretary of Education has ever wholesale eliminated the regulations that aim to protect federal taxpayer dollars by establishing clear competition application and selection rules. As we enumerate above, doing so harms the applicants, harms the public and does nothing to resolve issues with America’s pervasive lack of language and cultural skills essential to our national security and our economic need to be globally competitive. For all these reasons, JNCL-NCLIS urges the Department to not adopt this proposed regulation rescission and, instead, work with the community to fashion reasonable reforms to the existing regulations.