International education is and needs to be bipartisan in nature. While most practitioners in the field, as well as higher education administration, faculty and students, tend to be on the “liberal” side, it is important that we try to find some common ground to expand the field to allow more students from all income and social groups to participate in international education programs.
Democrats and Republicans have significantly different policy stances across education in numerous areas, including international engagement. Perhaps, right now, both stances are more divergent than ever before.
Republican position
Republicans are planning changes if they prevail in November.
Although former President Trump has disavowed Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation document calls for the education department to be dismantled and urges an evaluation of national security-vulnerable visa programs. The programs include F-1 student and J-Visa programs.
Immigration is, of course, a major issue for both parties. In Trump’s first term, his executive order threatened to end cultural exchange programs with a work component (J-Visa), but this was defeated by the courts. No changes are proposed for outbound study abroad under Republicans, but don’t expect an increase in program funding.
There have been strains within the Republican party specific to how engaged the United States should be on the international stage. That said, the current Republican presidential ticket reflects an isolationist stance.
For example, Trump has proposed a new 10% universal tariff on all imports and a 60% tariff on all imports from China. It is likely that a more restrictive visa policy will be implemented, adversely impacting the number of international students allowed into the US.
A Trump administration would most likely once again eliminate the granting of visas to the Muslim population. Enabling Chinese students to obtain visas is another question mark.
However, Republicans do understand the economic imperative that international students contribute USD$40.1 billion to the US. International students will continue to view America as “the land of opportunity” and will want to study here on undergraduate and graduate programs.
The Republican’s America First platform will likely be more inward looking, focused on domestic issues and less interested in international ones. This platform will be evident in federal appropriations levels for international programs. More broadly, efforts by Republicans to tackle the deficit could quite possibly result in an across-the-board cut to all non-defence accounts, which would impact exchange programs.
Democratic position
If the Democrats continue to occupy the White House following the 2024 election, we will see much of the status quo. If Kamala Harris prevails, she will aim to maintain or increase the current budget of USD$741m for the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), however with the US debt increasing, this will be difficult.
Democrats have not always been friendly to increases in cultural exchange as Senators and Congressman on the left have often been opposed. Plus, litigators on the left see big paydays ahead, by challenging the labor-related regulations in the courts.
The most significant impact will likely be to the au pair program, where a State Department pending regulation could have a very negative impact. The regulation could fundamentally change the au pair cultural exchange program into a labour program. All cultural exchange programs with a work component could be at risk.
Talking points vs reality: a mixed bag
A disturbing talking point to note is that Republicans often claim that higher education is somehow “elite” even though most of their leaders graduated from Yale, Harvard, and other high-profile institutions.
Another talking point (for Republicans and many Democrats alike) is that a college degree is only important to get job training. While it’s true that a degree leads to higher paying job, what is more critical is the intrinsic value of learning that attending college brings.
This loss is evident by the diminishment of language learning and the liberal arts in general in institutions of higher learning. Higher education has a worth beyond a future paycheck, it is the foundation for critical thinking.
However, there is a difference between talking points to get elected and what is done after inauguration. We shall see.
In the end, we must conclude that government itself won’t exclusively expand international exchanges. For example, less than 3,000 students receive Gilman grants from the US government to study abroad each year – that’s only 1% of the students who study abroad.
I don’t see that number increasing in the near future. The Simon Bill, created to increase study abroad, has been languishing in Congress for over a decade.
Response from our field
In summary, those interested in supporting international education will need to listen to and carefully respond to Republican and Democratic proposals and advocate for those they agree with to find our champions for international education.
Presidents will change and the power in Congress will shift, but we must continue to adapt to the changing landscape.
Because when all is said and done – the cause for peace between nations through cultural exchange and international education is the true goal. It is the only constant as the pendulum continues to swing.
