To the Editor:
As 2025 draws to a close, taking stock of what the year has wrought on higher education is a grim affair. Much has been laid to waste, including a storied program that the Department of Education itself had hailed as “one of the most significant legislative initiatives in the history of U.S. higher education.” On September 10, directors of international studies programs at colleges and universities nationwide received notice that federal grants under Title VI of the Higher Education Act were being terminated on the grounds that they “do not advance American interests or values.”
But what did these grants support? Research, language instruction, curriculum development, K-12 teacher training, library acquisitions, and public outreach — in short, a rich array of programs on Africa, East and Southeast and South Asia, Middle East, Latin America, and Eastern and Western Europe. Scholarships for American students studying foreign languages in the U.S. and abroad. The production of knowledge and intellectual capital about our rapidly changing world. Capacity building on issues of vital importance to U.S. trade, security, and competitiveness.
For over 65 years, Title VI helped make the American university system the envy of the world through thriving programs that provided training in language, technology, history, economics, politics, culture, and society to the next generation of specialists. It has created countless opportunities for American students and enriched the fabric of American culture.
How could anyone who cares about the long-term prosperity of America believe that programs educating global citizens and future leaders of the world “do not advance American interests or values”? If immediate steps are not taken to rescue international education in the U.S., 2025 may mark the surrender of America’s place on the world stage to other players.
Optics matter. Take, for example, China’s commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II in late August of this year. The world’s eyes were on Xi Jinping, flanked on each side by Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, presiding over a massive display of military hardware in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. Less spectacular but no less significant was the release in China of a box office sensation, Dongji Rescue, just a few days before the parade.
The movie is a heady cocktail of blood, gore, and heroism loosely based on the October 1, 1942 U.S. torpedoing of the Japanese ocean liner Lisbon Maru, whose secret cargo included 1,800 British prisoners of war. Only 300 or so POWs survived — thanks to valiant efforts by Chinese fisherfolk on Dongji Island, who rescued them from hostile fire and treacherous waters. Highlighting Allied losses tied to U.S. intelligence failures and celebrating Chinese sacrifice, the movie delivers a pointed message: America is an unreliable ally, while China is both compassionate friend and powerful adversary.
Military parade and movie screen move in lockstep: hard power and soft power, technology and imagination. The history that people absorb shapes the visions of the future they will support. Coercive power alone cannot make people believe in any particular story; they must be persuaded, and being persuasive requires knowledge. Whether one regards any foreign country as an ally, an adversary, or something in between, it is crucial to understand it. Title VI programs have equipped Americans who have gone on to careers in the State Department, CIA, NSA, Department of Defense, and other federal agencies with the linguistic and cultural expertise necessary to evaluate foreign intentions and capabilities.
When political and economic relations are strained, keeping communication open through educational exchanges becomes even more important. While America is dismantling its international education and abandoning soft power, other countries are stepping into the vacuum. China has ramped up area studies and language training in universities and expanded scholarship programs for foreign students. Universities in Japan and South Korea are courting international scholars and students in the United States whose studies have been interrupted by canceled visas.
In doing so, they are also taking a page from America’s playbook. Since 1958 when the Congress decided to respond to a security crisis by passing the National Defense Education Act, this country’s “long game” has been international education. Title VI programs of the Department of Education have been that rare seedbed, cultivating future leaders who can navigate regions’ complex political, social, and economic landscapes. By training Americans to engage meaningfully with the world, these programs helped foster long-term partnerships rooted in mutual understanding rather than purely transactional interests.
As the current administration makes preparations for the 250th anniversary of our nation’s founding, the words of founding father James Madison are especially noteworthy: “a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” What happens if we stop investing in language learning, cultural fluency, and global knowledge? Who will negotiate in trade wars, prevent conflicts, or lead in solving climate crises? What is more dangerous: the cost of investing in education, or the cost of a nation unprepared to deal with a wider world from which it cannot hide? Whether we choose to nurture or neglect them, these investments will determine not only America’s future but the future of the world.
Penny Edwards (Walter and Elise Haas Professor of Asian Studies, Professor, Southeast Asian Studies, Director, Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley)
Youngju Ryu (Professor, Asian Languages and Cultures, Incoming Director, International Institute, University of Michigan)
Akiko Takeyama (Professor, Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies, Director, Center for East Asian Studies, University of Kansas)
Chelsea Foxwell (Professor of Art History, East Asian Languages and Civilizations, Director, Center of East Asian Studies, University of Chicago)
Celeste Arrington (Associate Professor of Political Science and International Affairs and Director of the George Washington Institute for Korean Studies, George Washington University)
Eric Schluessel (Associate Professor of History and International Affairs and Director of the Sigur Center for Asian Studies, George Washington University)
Frederick Dickinson (Professor of History and Director, Center for East Asian Studies, University of Pennsylvania)
Mitchell Lerner (Professor of History and Director, East Asian Studies Center, Ohio State University)
Rachel Rinaldo (Associate Professor of Sociology, Faculty Director of the Center for Asian Studies, University of Colorado Boulder)
Danielle Rocheleau Salaz (Executive Director, Center for Asian Studies, University of Colorado Boulder)
Min Zhou (Distinguished Professor and Director of Asia Pacific Center, University of California, Los Angeles)
Xueguang Zhou (Kwoh Ting Li Professor in Economic Development, Professor of Sociology, Director, Center for East Asian Studies, Stanford University)
John Groschwitz (Associate Director, Center for East Asian Studies, Stanford University)
Zev Handel (Professor of Chinese and Director, East Asia Center, University of Washington)
* The views expressed in this letter are the authors’ own and are not that of their universities.
