Comment on FR Doc # 2026-13248

Docket ID: ED-2026-OPE-0991 Re: International Education Programs and Fulbright-Hays Program; Recission of Regulations (91 FR 39945) I am writing as a faculty member at the George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs to oppose the proposed full rescission of the regulations governing Title VI (34 CFR Parts 655–658, 660, 661, 669) and the Fulbright-Hays Act programs (34 CFR Parts 662–664). I recognize the Department's interest in reducing administrative burden. But this proposal eliminates the entire regulatory framework, not just the burdensome provisions, and that raises real concerns: 1. **Transparency.** The current regulations define eligibility, selection criteria, and areas of national need through public rulemaking. Removing them lets the Department redefine these terms competition-by-competition with no public notice or comment, undermining predictability for institutions that build multi-year language and area-studies programs around this funding. 2. **Institutional planning.** Title VI-funded National Resource Centers and FLAS fellowships, and Fulbright-Hays' research and group-projects-abroad grants, support faculty hiring and graduate training that unfold over years. Removing stable, defined criteria makes that planning much harder, even if appropriations continue. 3. **Accountability for what comes next.** The Department suggests it may replace competitive grants with contracts or subgrants. Any such shift should go through public notice and comment, not be introduced administratively once the current regulations are gone. The national need these programs address — building deep language and regional expertise for diplomacy, security, and research — hasn't diminished. In fact, we are facing a great deal of interest in regional studies that equip American citizens with expertise needed to enhance America's interest abroad in the future. I urge the Department to withdraw this proposal, or pursue a narrower revision targeting the specific provisions it considers duplicative, rather than a full recission. Respectfully submitted,