Is Peace corps still active? did Trump touches it? compare that with Fulbright. which program got the deepest hit?
Executive summary
The Peace Corps remains an active U.S. government program but is under renewed budgetary and staffing pressure in the Trump administration’s 2025–26 actions and reviews [1]. The Fulbright exchange program has faced a far deeper immediate threat in the same administration’s budget proposals and leaked memos that would eliminate or dramatically slash Fulbright funding [2].
1. Peace Corps: still operating, but braced for restructuring and cuts
The Peace Corps continues to operate overseas today, yet agency employees and advocates report they are bracing for “significant restructuring” and deep staff cuts as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reviews the agency’s footprint and functions [1]. Historical precedent shows the agency has been a target before: the Trump White House in its first term proposed reductions in the Peace Corps budget and included the agency among entities to be considered for reorganization under Executive Order 13781 [3] [4]. Reporting also documents discrete program suspensions in certain countries during prior Trump years — for example, Peace Corps programs in China were abruptly cut during the earlier administration, reflecting geopolitical tensions rather than programmatic failure alone [5].
2. What “Trump touched” looks like: proposals, past cuts, and competing rhetoric
The Trump administration’s influence over the Peace Corps has been uneven: earlier attempts to trim the Peace Corps budget and curtail country-specific programs occurred during his prior term, and now staffers are being told to expect aggressive efficiency-driven restructuring [3] [1]. At the same time, some political actors and allies argue for expanded volunteer numbers and reframing of soft-power missions — a rhetorical tension underscored in reporting that includes statements about rebuilding volunteer corps size even as internal cuts are considered [1]. The mixed signals matter: a review by a DOGE-style body can produce severe staffing and operational disruptions even if headline budgets or political rhetoric sometimes promise growth [1].
3. Fulbright: targeted for elimination in budget blueprints and memos
Fulbright’s exposure is more acute: leaked administration budget documents and public status updates for the program indicate proposals to slash State Department and USAID funding nearly in half and, in some drafts, to eliminate the Fulbright Program and related educational and cultural exchange funding entirely [2]. The FY2026 discretionary budget submission referenced a 93% decrease in funding for Educational and Cultural Exchanges and explicitly flagged Fulbright among programs at risk of elimination, a level of proposed retrenchment far deeper than the Peace Corps’ current public-facing threats [2].
4. Comparing impact: which program got the deepest hit?
On the evidence available in reporting, Fulbright faces the deepest, most existential budgetary hit: formal budget drafts and program-status notices name Fulbright for elimination or massive cuts [2]. The Peace Corps is under acute operational threat from staffing cuts and restructuring reviews that could degrade capacity, but reporting shows a mix of proposed cuts, past reductions, and some political voices advocating expansion — a different profile from Fulbright’s explicit elimination threat in the leaked budget materials [1] [3] [4]. Both programs have experienced program suspensions in geopolitically sensitive countries under the prior Trump administration [5], but Fulbright’s potential removal from core funding lines constitutes a deeper, more immediate fiscal blow according to the sources [2].
5. Stakes, agendas and unanswered questions
The policy choices reflect competing agendas: budget “efficiency” and centralization through DOGE-style reviews, geopolitical retrenchment in targeted countries, and proposals to rebrand or fund exchange and service work via alternative vehicles or private partners [1] [6] [7]. Reporting notes the Peace Corps’ high per-volunteer cost relative to other exchange programs and the suggestion that some functions could be outsourced or shifted — arguments that inform efforts to downsize or restructure [4]. Gaps remain in public record: final congressional appropriations, the outcome of DOGE reviews, and any administrative choices to convert or privatize functions are not fully documented in these sources, so ultimate program fates will hinge on budget negotiations and agency-level decisions [1] [2].