The CSPC Dispatch - Mar. 14 2025
The week in Washington was characterized by budgetary debates in Congress. In this edition of the CSPC Dispatch, James Kitfield looks at the impact of budgetary uncertainty on military readiness and highlights some of the proposals included in a new CSPC report, “The Gathering Storm: A Moonshot for National Defense Readiness,” to mitigate the damaging impact on US defense readiness. In their contributions, Caleb Mann and Bridget Peach similarly focus on specific aspects of budgetary uncertainty. Furthermore, CSPC Senior Fellow Jeanne reflects on historic lessons from India’s independence movement, and in his article Senior Fellow Hidetoshi Azuma argues for a rethinking of pacifist dogmas in Japan.
Finally, we are excited to highlight another major CSPC Report, “Securing Space in a Time of Transition”, which analyzes the state of play of US national security space strategy and offers recommendations and concepts for the Presidency and Congress to strengthen and secure America’s leadership on and from space.
As always, we hope that you will find the newsletter useful and would be delighted to receive your feedback or thoughts on how we can improve going forward.
Shielding the Pentagon from Budgetary Brinkmanship
By James kitfield
An aerial view of the Pentagon on May 11, 2021 (DOD photo by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Brittany A. Chase).
Geopolitical storm clouds are gathering at the far reaches of Pax Americana and yet there is remarkably little sign that the U.S. Congress has awoken to the mounting dangers. Despite the growing threat posed by China and Russia and their rogue nation allies, this week the House barely passed a stopgap Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund the federal government for the rest of the fiscal year on a party-line vote, and a recalcitrant Senate is openly flirting with yet another government shutdown at the end of this week (possibly the fourth in the last decade). Both CRs and shutdowns have been well-documented to play havoc with U.S. defense readiness.
Congress’ inability to pass budgets on time, and the deleterious impact on the Pentagon, are hardly news. In roughly the past half century, Congress has passed its required appropriations bills on time only four times. During this week’s debate on a budget designed to clear the way for major tax cuts later this year, little mention has been made of the fact that for the first time in history, the United States is now paying more in interest to service its ballooning debt than it spends annually for defense.
And yet there are concrete steps that Congress can take to mitigate the damage inflicted on U.S. defense readiness by this chronic budgetary brinkmanship, and they don’t require adding to the national debt. In our recently released report, “The Gathering Storm: A Moonshot for National Defense Readiness,” the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress (CSPC) examined a number of these proposals.
Another in-depth primer on reforms Congress could embrace to put defense budgeting and acquisition on a more predictable and sustainable path is “Restoring Freedom’s Forge: American Innovation Unleashed,” by Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Both “Restoring Freedom’s Forge” and “Gathering Storm” call on Congress to mitigate the harm caused by Continuing Resolutions, for instance, by giving the Pentagon greater flexibility to reprogram funds already allocated, and to launch badly needed new defense program starts even under these placeholder CR budgets.
“Funding for weapon systems requires three-year lead times,” Wicker writes in “Freedom’s Forge.” “The president lacks the flexibility to move money to better uses even as technologies and threats change. There are thousands of [Congressionally-mandated] budget lines creating financial prisons that box out new innovations, take leverage away from contract negotiators, and generate year-end spending sprees.”
Congress clearly has the power to cut through much of that bureaucratic red tape that has grown like weeds from prior year defense authorizations.
“Decades of layered statute and regulation has created a labyrinth of rules that prevent the [DoD] workforce from thinking innovatively or moving with urgency,” Wicker notes. “Congress should repeal statutory provisions that add reporting requirements, create unnecessary pilot programs, or micromanage the executive process. Approvals, thresholds, and limitations should be struck or raised... If Congress can streamline the administrative state across the executive and legislative branches, greater efficiencies and mission impact will follow.”
To unleash the unmatched innovation of the U.S. private sector, Wicker also calls for Congressional reforms that push the Pentagon to adopt commercial contracting norms, rather than relying on byzantine systems requirements and reporting demands that limit participation to a handful of defense prime contractors.
“The United States is the most innovative country in the world. For the first time in generations, commercial companies and entrepreneurs are turning their talents to defense. If DoD fails to capitalize on the moment, it will lose access to this talent for years to come,” writes Wicker, an Air Force veteran. “Congress can help correct this failure, and it has a suite of solutions to pursue…Most companies can be exempt from DoD’s bespoke, non-commercial business systems. Innovative, non-traditional defense contractors should be on speed dial, not struggling for access. The sum of these actions will make the government an attractive customer for leading companies.”
At the beginning of “Restoring Freedom’s Forge,” Wicker quotes Admiral Hyman Rickover, the legendary “Father of the Nuclear Navy,” who was awarded two Congressional Gold Medals. Rickover’s message about the power and unique constitutional responsibility of Congress to raise and sustain the nation’s military is one that will hopefully inspire current lawmakers.
“The [defense] bureaucracy won’t change itself; that is like asking a whale to fly,” said Rickover. “Only the Congress can reduce the system’s size and bring some order out of chaos.”
James Kitfield is a Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress.
Paths to Freedom: Lessons from Hyat-Khan and the South-Asian Fight for Independence
By Jeanne Zaino
Sikander Hyat-Khan, with Winston Churchill (left) and Archibald Wavell (right), 1942, courtesy of Saquib Hyat-Khan
Next year, the United States will observe its semiquincentennial, 250 years since the colonies declared independence from Great Britain and began the march toward self-determination. Commemorating this significant milestone invites us to reflect on America's narrative of freedom, it also encourages us to revisit parallel histories of independence movements and leaders around the world. One that stands out is India; like the U.S., India engaged in its own fight to free itself from the British Empire. Unlike the U.S., however, India did not realize independence until much later, after a long, protracted struggle.
In the mid-18th century, as America's founding fathers were setting the colonies on a path towards independence, the British Empire was still expanding. At its zenith, almost 150 years later, the empire would be the largest ever known to man; in the early 1920s it encompassed nearly a quarter of the Earth's landmass and governed over 450 million people. Among its vast territories, India occupied a unique and pivotal position. Known as the crown jewel of British imperialism, India's strategic location, wealth, and resources made it indispensable to British power. Yet, beneath the empire’s seemingly unshakeable authority brewed a growing desire among Indians similar to one that had gripped the colonists’ decades earlier, a yearning for autonomy and self-rule.
While much is known of that period and many of its leaders, one of the most remarkable yet underappreciated is Premier of the Punjab, Sikander Hyat-Khan.
By the 1930s, as the Indian independence movement gained momentum, Hyat-Khan emerged as a leading Muslim political figure whose voice resonated widely, especially in Punjab—one of the empire's most strategically significant provinces. Elected Premier in 1937, his approach to independence stood in marked contrast to that of his contemporaries, including Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Muhammad Ali Jinnah. While Gandhi and Nehru urged rapid disengagement from colonial rule, and Jinnah eventually pressed for a separate Muslim homeland, Hyat-Khan argued for a gradual, structured, and well-managed transition from British colonial governance to full independence.
Central to Hyat-Khan’s vision was the belief that immediate withdrawal without sufficient preparation would harm India's unity, democratic potential, economy, security, and long-term stability. This view was shaped by Hyat-Khan’s experience governing one of the subcontinent’s most religiously and ethnically diverse provinces. Home to large populations of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and numerous smaller religious and ethnic communities, Punjab exemplified both the promise and peril of a united India. Hyat-Khan's experience convinced him that coexistence among religious groups was not only possible but vital to the sub-continents’ long term economic prosperity and security. He recognized early on the dangers inherent in divisive communal politics, consistently advocating a federation model that would preserve India’s territorial integrity and social harmony.
When World War II broke out, India's political landscape was dramatically reshaped. Britain sought the cooperation of its colonies, including India, to support the Allied war effort. Yet the British government initially hesitated to commit to Indian independence, leading to fierce debates among Indian political leaders. Gandhi and Nehru, frustrated by Britain's ambivalence, resisted full cooperation, demanding immediate guarantees of self-rule. Jinnah leveraged wartime uncertainties to push for partition and the eventual creation of Pakistan.
In stark contrast, Hyat-Khan pursued a nuanced strategy. Recognizing an opportunity amid global conflict, he advocated conditional cooperation with Britain—not as an act of submission but as pragmatic statecraft. Hyat-Khan viewed India’s participation in World War II as a chance to gain leverage for future independence negotiations and to strengthen internal governance capabilities. Under his leadership, Punjab played a critical role in the Allied war effort, becoming a vital logistical and industrial hub. Hyat-Khan managed the province’s economy, significantly expanding industrial production, improving agricultural output, and bolstering infrastructure. These advancements not only aided the war effort but laid essential groundwork for Punjab—and potentially all of India—to transition into an independent nation capable of managing its own affairs.
Hyat-Khan’s commitment to a structured approach culminated in his proposal, "Outlines of a Scheme of Indian Federation," a document detailing a path toward gradual autonomy through temporary dominion status. In it, he argued that independence could not simply be declared, it had to be carefully constructed. His plan emphasized developing robust democratic institutions, a stable economy, and an effective military capable of self-defense—cornerstones of any sustainable independent state.
This detailed proposal attracted considerable attention. Despite fundamental political differences, Gandhi reviewed the federation scheme put forward by his old friend and candidly acknowledged its substantive value. While he wrote appreciatively of the plan, he also pointed out the difficulty Congressmen would have accepting temporary dominion status.
Equally significant—and tragically prophetic—was Hyat-Khan’s firm opposition to partition. In contemporary recollections, it is often wrongly assumed that all Muslims supported partition while Hindus uniformly opposed it. This simplistic narrative overlooks figures like Hyat-Khan, one of the leading Muslim leaders of the time, who strongly opposed a two-state solution. His opposition stemmed from firsthand experience governing Punjab, where he saw daily evidence of interfaith cooperation and mutual respect. Moreover, he warned that partition would ignite catastrophic communal violence and mass displacement—a warning that was tragically vindicated in 1947.
The brutal aftermath of India’s division into India and Pakistan became one of the most violent episodes of the 20th century, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and displacing millions more. Hyat-Khan’s early warnings demonstrate not only remarkable foresight but a clear-eyed realism that was missing from most independence debates.
Tragically, Hyat-Khan did not live to see either India’s independence or the devastating consequences of partition. His sudden death in December 1942, at just fifty years old and in his seventh year in office, removed from Indian politics a voice of moderation, reason, and foresight at precisely the moment it was needed most. His premature passing impacted India's political trajectory, contributing to an increasingly polarized landscape dominated by more hardened and divisive voices on both sides.
The consequences of Hyat-Khan’s absence were sharply felt when the last Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, suddenly announced partition in 1947. Britain’s rapid withdrawal, inadequately planned and poorly executed, resulted in an unprecedented humanitarian disaster. Today, the legacy of that decision endures in ongoing hostility and periodic military conflict between India and Pakistan—both nuclear-armed neighbors whose tensions continue to threaten regional stability.
As we commemorate our semiquincentennial next year, we should also reflect on independence movements and leaders around the world. Their stories and experiences often underscore essential historical truths that are worth remembering. In the case of Hyat-Khan and the subcontinent, it is a reminder that independence is rarely a singular, unambiguous moment of liberation. Rather, it is the product of an ongoing struggle, carried out over a long period of time, the result of multiple complex forces and individuals; not all of whom are remembered for their contributions, but on reflection, should be.
Jeanne Sheehan Zaino is Professor of Political Science, Iona University, Bloomberg Political Contributor, Senior Democracy Fellow at CSPC and the author of “Sikander Hyat-Khan: Collected Papers of the Premier of United Punjab, 1928-1942” (Primus Press)
Japan’s Pacifism: A Relic of Self-serving Dogma in a Divided World
By Hidetoshi Azuma
The Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba strolls with the US President Donald Trump at the White House on February 7, 2025 (Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons-CC-BY-4.0).
The US President Donald Trump, never one to mince words, has finally thrown a spotlight on the elephant in the room of the US-Japan alliance: Japan’s so-called post-WWII pacifism. Last week, the President called out the lopsided security treaty between the two nations, griping that the United States is duty-bound to defend Japan with blood and treasure, while Japan—fat and happy with its economic spoils—can essentially sit back and watch American soldiers die on proverbial Sony screens if the US is attacked. “Who makes these deals?” Trump thundered, and for once, his bluster hits a nerve worth probing. The answer, ironically, is the United States itself, which shackled Japan with a pacifist straitjacket after World War II. But let us not kid ourselves—Japan’s clinging to this outdated doctrine is not noble restraint; it is Tokyo’s calculated dodge, a relic of self-serving dogma that leaves America holding the bag in an increasingly divided world.
Japan’s pacifism, enshrined in Article 9 of its US-drafted 1947 Constitution, was a victor’s imposition. Fair enough—back then, a militarized Japan was a fresh nightmare, its imperial ambitions still smoking in the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But that was 80 years ago. The world has moved on—China flexes its muscles from the South China Sea to outer space, North Korea continues to hurl missiles, and Russia eyes another prey after Ukraine—yet Japan remains content to play the demure wallflower, hiding behind its pacifist facade while the US shoulders the burden of keeping the Indo-Pacific from boiling over. Trump is right to call it unfair, not because the deal itself is unresolved historical injustice, but because Japan has weaponized a temporary setback as a permanent excuse for its security minimalism.
Let us dispense with the sanctimonious fluff: Japan’s pacifism is scarcely a moral high ground; it is a strategic cop-out. The nation boasts the world’s third-largest economy, a technological juggernaut that churns out everything from Toyotas to cutting-edge robotics. It is not some helpless damsel—it is a powerhouse that could, if it desired, field a world-class military to match its global economic might. Instead, it leans on the US, hosting approximately 54,000 American troops and footing a fraction of the bill, all while piously citing Article 9 as if it is a sacred vow rather than a dusty artifact. Trump’s grousing about Japan “making a fortune off us economically” while the US plays a global cop is hardly just populist red meat—it is a blatant truth. Japan gets the best of both worlds: a thriving export economy and a free security blanket, courtesy of Uncle Sam.
Let us also not be fooled by Tokyo’s apologists with their handwringing about history. Yes, Japan’s militarism left scars across Asia—deep ones, undoubtedly. But clinging to pacifism as atonement does not erase the past; it just weakens the present. China could care less about Japan’s contrition—it is busy building islands in the South China Sea and eyeing the Senkaku Islands and Taiwan with vehement jingoism. North Korea does not pause its missile tests to honor Japan’s peace-loving temperament. The threats are real, and Japan’s half-measures—tweaking its laws in 2015 to allow limited overseas action, boosting defense spending to a measly 2% of GDP—are simply not enough. Trump’s impatience is not ignorance; it is a wake-up call. If Japan wants to be America’s respected ally under Trump, it is time to ditch its pacifist charade and step up to the plate on its security commitments.
The irony? Japan’s pacifism is not even pure. Its Self-Defense Forces are a military in all but name which are fully capable of projecting its power onto the East and South China Seas backed by de facto carrier groups led by “helicopter carriers” equipped with F35 fighters. They are hardly toothless; they just remain tethered. Trump’s beef is not with the treaty’s origins but with Tokyo’s lingering refusal to evolve beyond it. The US wrote the rules, sure, but Japan has had decades to renegotiate its role. Instead, it has coasted, letting America bear the brunt while it reaps the benefits of stability without the full cost. That is not the way a real alliance should be—it is freeriding dressed up as a constitutional mandate.
President Trump is finally zeroing in on the uncomfortable truth about the US-Japan alliance. The deal is utterly unfair—not because it was forced on Japan, but because the country continues to use it as a crutch for perpetuating pacifism. Pacifism may have been a necessary evil to quash Japan’s militarism after WWII, but it is nothing more than an aging relic of shameful past perennially constraining the country’s strategic options. Japan needs to shed it, not for America’s sake, but for its own. The US should not have to twist arms—Japan must see the writing on the wall and act like the global player it pretends to be. Anything less is a betrayal of American benevolence toward Japan. That leaves Japan to an uncomfortable new reality in which it now must pay for its alliance with the US. Freedom, after all, is not free, and the post-WWII peace dividend is no longer available to Japan for free as Trump inexorably puts America First.
Hidetoshi Azuma is a Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress.
Continuing Resolutions: Punting Governmental Fiscal Responsibility
By Caleb Mann
President Trump signs post-inaugural documents on January 20, 2025 (Photo Credit: Office of Speaker Mike Johnson)
On Tuesday night, the House of Representatives voted to pass a six-month continuing resolution (CR) that would extend government funding until the end of the fiscal year in September. Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) chamber narrowly passed the measure, 217-213, mostly along party lines, with Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Jared Golden (D-ME) being the only lawmakers to break with their respective parties. However, the House’s passage of the six-month funding bill does not eliminate the possibility of a government shutdown, as the measure now heads to the Senate for yet another contentious vote.
Unlike the reconciliation process, the Senate will need a 60-vote majority to invoke cloture and advance the measure to the President’s desk. Thus, leaving the fate of the stopgap bill, as well as a potential shutdown in uncertainty, as the GOP-led Senate will require the help of no less than eight Democrats - since at least one Republican, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), has been adamant that he will vote 'no'. However, this appears unlikely as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has signaled that Democrats will not support the House’s full-year CR. The increasing reliance on continuing resolutions, governing through short-term fixes rather than passing a long-term budget, reflects the broader failure of Congress to fulfill its fiscal responsibility, making it difficult for federal agencies to plan long-term projects or implement new initiatives effectively.
Each year, Congress must pass 12 concurrent appropriations bills, providing the necessary funding for several government programs and agencies. Ideally, Congress would complete this process before the fiscal year begins on October 1. However, this has not been the case in the last half-century, as Congress has only completed legislation on all required appropriations bills on time just four times. After the new fiscal year begins, the funding set forth by the previous appropriations bills expires. Should Congress fail to complete legislation on new spending bills, a lapse in appropriations occurs. Without new appropriations, money cannot be allocated or spent by government agencies, which leads to severe disruptions and, in the event a CR is not passed, a shutdown.
To prevent such disruptions, Congress has frequently opted to use a continuing resolution. Put simply, a continuing resolution is a temporary funding measure that allows the government to continue operating, typically with the previous fiscal year’s funding levels. While CRs are intended to be short-term, preventing shutdown while lawmakers finalize appropriations bills, full-year CRs can extend the measure until the end of the fiscal year. An increasingly common tactic, Congress has enacted 59 continuing resolutions between FY 2010 and FY 2024.
There are six main components to a continuing resolution: 1) Coverage, which details which agencies and programs will be affected by the CR. 2) Duration, providing budget authority for a specific amount of time, which can range from just one day to the remainder of the fiscal year - such as the case with the CR the House recently voted to advance. 3) Funding rate, rather than allocating specific amounts to individual programs and agencies, Congress has favored setting funding based on proportionate rates from the prior year’s appropriations, adjusted to match the CR's duration. 4) New Activities, CRs do not authorize funding for new programs not included in the previous budget unless specifically directed to do so. 5) Anomalies, the duration, amount, and purpose of any funding provided by a CR may be adjusted through 'anomalies'. 6) Legislative Provisions, may create, extend, or amend other laws.
While continuing resolutions are a valuable tool in providing temporary measures to avoid government shutdowns, their frequent usage has created significant challenges. The foremost concern of many is the budgetary uncertainty it creates, forcing agencies to operate with short-term extensions and temporary allocations. Thus, causing disruptions and delays that make effective planning next to impossible. Because CRs typically maintain funding levels from the year prior, they do not consider the changes in the nation’s priorities. This means that outdated programs would continue to receive funding while new and crucial initiatives struggle with insufficient resources.
Furthermore, the consequences of an overreliance on temporary fixes are not just limited to fiscal matters. The routine use of CRs allows Congress to avoid difficult or contentious budgetary legislation. This cycle of ‘punting’ their responsibility instead of passing timely appropriations bills has greatly weakened the budget process, making it increasingly more difficult to pass any sort of full-year budget.
Back to the current day: The six-month CR just passed by the House appears to be in jeopardy as Senate Democrats seem unlikely to back it. This means a shutdown may be imminent, halting dozens of agencies and placing hundreds of thousands of employees to be furloughed. Should the measure receive enough Democratic support to pass through the upper chamber, agencies will still be left in a spending limbo, unsure as to whether Congress will pass the necessary appropriations bills, or if another CR sits on the horizon. As of March 13, 2025, Congress has failed to pass any of the appropriations bills for FY 2025. This means the cycle of continuing resolutions is likely to continue as Congress should already be drafting the appropriations for the upcoming 2026 fiscal year.
The latest in a long line of CRs highlights Congress’s willingness to default to temporary fixes instead of addressing fundamental budgetary challenges. Congress must prioritize passing appropriations bills on time, reducing their reliance on stopgap measures that cause disruptions and breed financial uncertainty. While it is clear the increasing political rivalry makes this task more difficult, failure to do so, or worse yet, an unwillingness to do so, will lead to the further erosion of Congress’ fiscal responsibility.
Caleb Mann is an intern at CSPC and junior at Virginia Tech majoring in History with a minor in Political Science.
A Temporary Funding Freeze with Long-Term Implications
By Bridget peach
On April 27, 2018, alumni of the Gilman Scholarship and Critical Language Scholarship Programs gathered at the U.S. Diplomacy Center for an introduction to the life of a diplomat. Alumni enjoyed remarks by ECA Assistant Secretary Marie Royce, overviews of scholarships and information on Department of State employment opportunities, and a simulated international diplomatic scenario.
The U.S. Department of State’s funding pause on current and future grant disbursements launched a period of uncertainty that has lasted well past the initially stated 15 days—especially among those abroad on federal exchange programs. The pause was enacted on February 12, 2025, with the expectation that status updates on scholarships and study-abroad grants would be announced on February 27. Fast-forward to today, double the timeline has passed with limited, if any, information on what the future of programs like the Fulbright, Gilman, and Critical Language Scholarships (CLS) will be.
On January 28, 2025, the White House Office of Management and Budget announced a list of 2,600 programs to be reviewed to determine their missions. Among these 2,600, the Fulbright, Gilman, and Critical Language Scholarship Programs stood out to many. Implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), these programs have produced hundreds of thousands of alumni possessing critical language skills, along with study abroad and research experience.
The Fulbright Scholarship Program, established in 1946, boasts 400,000 alumni, with 30,000 active alumni network users. According to ECA’s website, Fulbright alumni have gone on to be Nobel Prize and Pulitzer Prize winners as well as heads of state and government. The Gilman Scholarship Program, also realized through the ECA, provides low-income students with funding to pursue academic and pre-professional opportunities abroad, also with an emphasis on studying critical languages. The Gilman network is made up of 44,000 alumni since its establishment in 2000. Founded in 1974 and also focused on learning language skills abroad, CLS offers fully-funded abroad summer programs to students learning one of 12 languages deemed critical for “national security, economic prosperity, and engagement with the world.” The program’s network of over 10,000 notably includes a number of Rhodes, Marshall, and Schwarzman Scholars and Rangel Fellows.
What would a world without these programs look like? The 12,500 current scholarship recipients have already felt the immediate effects of the February 12 funding halt. Those abroad have received emails in lieu of stipends, while many planning to embark on their programs in the coming months debate making alternative plans. Foreign scholars completing Fulbrights within the United States have found themselves at a standstill, working with their home countries to figure out options as hope for continued U.S. government support wanes.
What about in the long-term?
Fulbright, Gilman, and CLS all share similar goals in promoting citizen diplomacy, increasing cultural understanding, and building critical professional skill. At the forefront of these programs—either entirely based around the acquisition of critical languages or with a strong emphasis on the subject—is the growth of U.S. national security and economic prosperity. A CLS survey collecting data on alumni from 2006 to 2021 found concrete evidence pointing to the educational and professional impacts of the program. The vast majority of CLS alumni stated that the experience gave them cultural knowledge that they use in their careers, intercultural communication skills that made them competitive job candidates, and advanced language skills that they continue to study. Finally, the cross-cultural connections, and mutual understanding that comes with them, cannot be understated: 99% of surveyed CLS alumni reported that they remain in contact with those they met on the program, from the United States and the host country alike. Without CLS, the majority of scholars said they would not have been able to afford such an opportunity.
The effects of the funding freeze, however, trickle down much further than the scholarship recipients themselves. Fulbrighters are not isolated abroad, with participants deeply integrated into their host communities. For example, the Fulbright Teaching Excellence and Achievement Program (TEA) hosts 180 foreign teachers for a six-week period, offering them culturally-infused learning opportunities to co-teach in U.S. classrooms. According to a 2023 study, teachers participating in the program—both American and foreign—remarked a notable broadening of their cross-cultural competence and changed the way they teach because of it. U.S. teachers have created pen-pal programs for their students, adjusted the way they use technology in the classroom, and optimized their approach to working with non-native English-speaking students.
Annually, over 300 Fulbright Language Teaching Assistants (FLTAs) from abroad embed themselves in U.S. universities to create or enrich critical language programs teaching their native languages. At many universities FLTAs are the only source of critical-language education, meaning that the dismantling of Fulbright would leave undergraduate and graduate students without the option to pursue these languages in the classroom.
Many Fulbright students study independently or perform research abroad, which not only diversifies the sources of students’ data, but also gives Americans access to regional knowledge in areas of U.S. critical interest. Fulbrighters can undertake research in fields ranging from business and journalism to STEM and public health and then use their findings to impact their communities abroad and in the United States. For example, two-time CLS alumna and current Fulbright Research Awardee Anna Kozan is conducting healthcare research in Bengaluru, India. Through interviews with local patients, Kozan will determine how language barriers impact the care they receive and explore possible community-based approaches to rectifying the key issues. While her data collection and research might be limited to the city of Bengaluru, the resolutions and improvements to care will not.
The impact of the funding freeze on Fulbright, Gilman, CLS, and programs like it will continue to be felt as time goes on past the original 15-day pause. However, with thousands of alumni currently using the language and cultural skills they gained abroad, the freeze’s impact on citizen diplomacy and mutual understanding is bound to be a powerful one.
Bridget Peach is an intern at CSPC and junior at the University of Georgia majoring in International Affairs and Russian.
CSPC In the news
How Trump's diplomacy impacts your portfolio
Podcast feature of dan mahaffee, dr. scholl foundation president & CEO and CSPC Eisenhower fellow
Originally released in Yahoo Finance on March 5, 2025:
In the latest '“Trader Talk” episode, broadcasting from the New York Stock Exchange, host Kenny Polcari and Dr. Scholl Foundation President and CEO Dan Mahaffee explore the geopolitical myths and realities shaping today’s markets.
Mahaffee brings a global perspective, delving into how geopolitical tensions—such as the European challenges and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine—intertwine with trade negotiations. He discusses critical mineral deals necessary for modern industries like semiconductors and drones, highlighting the delicate balance between national security and economic interests. Mahaffee also warns against relying on quick fixes, emphasizing that tariffs and reciprocal measures are tools for negotiation, not guaranteed solutions.
“No better friend? The United state and germany since 1945”
Podcast feature of Peter Sparding, CSPC SVP & director of policy
Originally released in the Daily Monocle on March 5, 2025:
CSPC SVP and Director of Policy Peter Sparding was featured in Tuesday's episode of the Monocle Daily to discuss the timely findings of his recently published book "No Better Friend? The United States and Germany Since 1945." He discusses his findings on the history of the relationship and current implications for the future of national security, economic partnership, and diplomacy between the two countries.
