American businesses and communities bring expertise, innovation, and hospitality to the world. Global Ties U.S. shows how those strengths can build international relationships—with a growing emphasis on commercial opportunity, workforce development, and local prosperity.
Imagine a local manufacturer, university, or community organization sharing its expertise with a visitor who faces a similar challenge abroad. The first useful result may be a better question. A later result may be someone they can call.
Global Ties U.S. supports a nationwide network of community organizations that help implement professional exchange programs. Its role in the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) connects visiting international leaders with American expertise and community life.
The 2026 report describes a network of more than 70 nonprofit organizations working in 115 cities and towns across all 50 states. Those hosts make international engagement accessible through professional meetings, local visits, and hospitality.
The U.S. Department of State sponsors IVLP. U.S. embassies nominate and select its international participants. Global Ties network members help deliver the local exchange experience.
A local organization is a useful first conversation about hosting or sharing expertise. IVLP does not have an open application process for international participants.
Read the State Department’s program overviewInternational leaders meet U.S. counterparts around a defined professional or policy question.
Businesses, educators, public agencies, and community hosts share what their place knows and does.
Participants may keep in touch, exchange knowledge, or arrange a further visit.
Some connections lead to formal cooperation, research, investment discussions, or business relationships.
This pathway explains how an exchange can develop. It is an NDS research interpretation of how introductions, continued contact, and practical cooperation can connect.
Under the Trump administration, commercial diplomacy is an explicit focus in the professional-exchange discussion. In the October 29, 2026 Global Ties U.S. fireside chat, Deputy Assistant Secretary Shannon Sprenger framed the question around tangible benefits for American businesses and industries.
That emphasis gives the relationship a practical purpose: understand a community’s strengths, connect relevant expertise, and follow what the exchange helps people do. The community hosts, professional meetings, and continued contact described in this study provide infrastructure for that work.
“Where are we sharpening our focus on commercial diplomacy to create tangible benefits for American businesses and industries?”
The remarks frame professional exchange around tangible benefits for American businesses and industries. Community-based exchange provides a nationwide foundation for that commercial focus. Read the fuller discussion of commercial diplomacy and delayed results →
The emerging opportunity is to connect American strengths with international relationships that can support practical work together. The Global Ties model brings that work into local businesses, universities, public institutions, and communities across the country.
Professional exchanges introduce international leaders to American innovation and know-how. Communities can share strengths in manufacturing, medicine, technology, energy, education, and public service while making relevant connections abroad.
85% of respondents said IVLP created opportunities to highlight American excellence and innovation.
International relationships can help U.S. businesses understand potential partners and markets. At the same time, exchanging ideas and best practices develops the knowledge and skills Americans bring back to their work.
70% reported benefits for local businesses and commercial ties; 62% reported stronger skills and job performance.
Continued contact gives a first meeting a next chapter: shared research, professional cooperation, repeat visits, or business relationships. Local hosts help create the trust and familiarity that make those next conversations easier.
14% of professional resources reported a formal business or professional relationship with a contact met through IVLP.
These findings point toward a broader practice of commercial diplomacy: more American places, people, and institutions participating in international economic relationships. A purposeful exchange makes the introduction. Local expertise makes it relevant. Continued cooperation gives it room to grow.
Explore the evidence behind the model →Before asking what changed years later, look at what was organized: professional meetings, participating experts, volunteers, and time devoted to welcoming international visitors.
Global Ties U.S. reported local economic impact alongside $6.1 million in core federal IVLP funding, describing an approximately 12-to-1 impact-to-funding ratio.
A visit can support economic activity while people are in town, as well as create relationships that continue afterward. Those are different parts of the story and deserve separate records.
These are network-wide figures from the October 26, 2026 announcement for its “last reporting year.” The announcement does not identify that year precisely. The ratio is a reported economic-impact comparison, not profit, federal tax receipts, or a city-specific return.
The study received 762 responses from people connected to 48 member organizations in 31 states. It asks what Americans gained from participating in IVLP activities during July 2025–June 2026.
Agreed that IVLP created opportunities to highlight American excellence and innovation.
Respondents · reported percentageAgreed that IVLP programs promote local businesses and strengthen international commercial ties.
Respondents · reported percentageAgreed that participation strengthened their skills and improved job performance.
Respondents · reported percentageReported development opportunities they would not otherwise have had.
Respondents · reported percentageSaid they gained skills or experiences that helped them contribute to their communities.
Respondents · reported percentageReported greater knowledge of international affairs; the report describes more than 80%.
Respondents · reported percentageThese are participant self-reports, not percentages of all Americans or of all visitors. The 762 is the total response count; it is not an assumed denominator for every question. See the study notes for complete/partial responses and item bases.
14% of professional resources reported that their organization began a formal business or professional relationship with an international contact met through IVLP. Separately, 6% of volunteers reported professional relationships with visitors.
These findings are especially relevant to commercial diplomacy: they document reported relationships that continued beyond a meeting. They do not supply contract values, export revenue, or verified investment amounts.
Across respondents, 25% said they had traveled to see an international visitor or received visitors following participation. Among volunteers, 45% reported a close personal friendship with an international visitor.
Professional-resource and volunteer findings have different subgroup bases. They should not be added together.
| Finding | Reported share | Respondent group |
|---|---|---|
| A platform for local expertiseAgreed that IVLP created opportunities to highlight American excellence and innovation. | 85% | Respondents |
| Business connections matterAgreed that IVLP programs promote local businesses and strengthen international commercial ties. | 70% | Respondents |
| Learning that returns to workAgreed that participation strengthened their skills and improved job performance. | 62% | Respondents |
| Access to professional developmentReported development opportunities they would not otherwise have had. | 56% | Respondents |
| More capacity to contribute locallySaid they gained skills or experiences that helped them contribute to their communities. | 72% | Respondents |
| A wider view of the worldReported greater knowledge of international affairs; the report describes more than 80%. | 80%+ | Respondents |
| Institutional and professional visibilityAgreed that visitor programs enhanced their organization’s prestige or their personal reputation. | 79% | Respondents |
| Understanding the policy contextReported a deeper understanding of U.S. foreign policy. | 62% | Respondents |
| Greater engagement with local issuesReported becoming more engaged with local issues following participation. | 74% | Respondents |
| A path into community serviceReported volunteering in their communities as a result of their exchange experiences. | 54% | Respondents |
| Visits beyond the original exchangeSaid they had traveled to see a visitor or received international visitors following participation. | 25% | All respondents |
| A formal business or professional relationshipReported that their organization began a formal relationship with an international contact met through IVLP. | 14% | Professional resources |
| Professional connections through volunteeringReported developing professional relationships with international visitors. | 6% | Volunteers |
| A close personal friendshipReported developing a close personal friendship with international visitors. | 45% | Volunteers |
The report’s Social Ties Index combines whether a close personal or business relationship formed with how frequently people communicated. It helps move the discussion from counting introductions to understanding continuing contact. The appendix reports this distribution for 460 respondents.
A close personal or business relationship, with communication at least monthly.
A close personal or business relationship, with communication a few times a year or less.
No lasting relationship with international visitors reported under the study’s classification.
Stronger ties were associated with more strongly reported benefits. More frequent participation was also associated with stronger reported benefits. The study explicitly says it cannot determine the direction of causality: people who see benefits may participate more, and participation may reinforce those benefits.
Respondents reported an average 10.5 years of involvement. A majority, 51%, participated a few times a year, and 19% participated more frequently. This gives a concrete example of why international engagement deserves a longer observation period.
The Social Ties Index is Global Ties U.S.’s study classification, not a country ranking or a Commercial Diplomacy Index score. The reported tie categories are reproduced here. Explore the ratings by relationship strength in the visual appendix →
The U.S. benefits span cultural knowledge, local pride, workforce skills, and economic opportunity. Explore how seven kinds of benefit vary with relationship strength and with the roles Americans play in the exchange.
Cultural awareness
Sharing a community’s capabilities
Compared with 3.59 for weak ties
Respondents with strong ties reported the highest benefits in every category shown here. The pattern gives communities a reason to follow the relationship beyond the first introduction.
| Category | Weak ties | Moderate ties | Strong ties | Group mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local Excellence | 3.99* | 4.11 | 4.53* | 4.18 |
| Global Knowledge | 3.86* | 4.11 | 4.50* | 4.04 |
| Cultural Awareness | 4.08* | 4.10 | 4.50* | 4.20 |
| Community | 3.84* | 3.78* | 4.24* | 3.95 |
| Civic Engagement | 3.81* | 3.78* | 4.24* | 3.92 |
| Economic Impact | 3.59* | 3.72 | 4.17* | 3.78 |
| Workforce Development | 3.63* | 3.52* | 4.11* | 3.77 |
Source asterisks mark reported statistically significant differences from the mean for that category and respondent group (p≤0.05). No tests have been recalculated.
The cross-tabulation tables do not print cell-level or category-specific Ns. The Social Ties distribution N must not be assumed to be the base for every cross-tab cell. All three groups use the same 1–5 display axis.
The Social Ties Index combines relationship formation with communication frequency. Its distribution covers 460 respondents: 174 volunteers and 286 professional resources.
Volunteers and professional resources contribute through different activities. Their responses show how connections can continue beyond the original visit. Source: page 18. The Social Ties Index combines reported formation of a close personal or formal business/professional relationship with frequency of communication. Originally developed with the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. It is not a CDI score.
Open a category for the question wording, reported group means, and table-level respondent counts. “Professional resources” means people participating in a professional capacity.
| Question | All respondentsN=599 as printed | VolunteersN=293 as printed | Professional resourcesN=360 as printed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. IVLP programs create opportunities for my community to demonstrate our achievements and overall excellence. | 4.30 | 4.42* | 4.21* |
| 2. IVLP programs promote our local businesses and strengthen international commercial ties. | 4.02 | 4.25* | 3.86* |
| 3. IVLP programs highlight American excellence and innovation. | 4.27 | 4.37* | 4.21* |
| 4. IVLP programs showcase U.S. global leadership. | 4.17 | 4.27* | 4.10* |
| 5. IVLP programs emphasize American values and promote American culture. | 4.14 | 4.31* | 4.04* |
| Reported category average | 4.18 | 4.31* | 4.08* |
Asterisks follow the individual source table footnotes, which identify statistically significant differences between volunteers and resources. The original annotations are retained; no tests have been recalculated.
| Question | All respondentsN=705 as printed | VolunteersN=268 as printed | Professional resourcesN=437 as printed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. I learned a great deal about the country and culture of international visitors whom I have met. | 4.27 | 4.58* | 4.08* |
| 2. I have a deeper understanding of U.S. foreign policy because of my interactions with international visitors. | 3.79 | 4.04* | 3.63* |
| 3. My friends, family, and/or colleagues have learned a great deal about other countries and cultures through my involvement in international visitor programs. | 3.91 | 4.32* | 3.67* |
| 4. I have learned more about international affairs and issues generally through my interactions with international visitors. | 4.19 | 4.44* | 4.04* |
| Reported category average | 4.04 | 4.35* | 3.85* |
Asterisks follow the individual source table footnotes, which identify statistically significant differences between volunteers and resources. The original annotations are retained; no tests have been recalculated.
| Question | All respondentsN=684 as printed | VolunteersN=263 as printed | Professional resourcesN=421 as printed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. I am better able to discuss cultural differences from an informed perspective. | 4.17 | 4.39* | 4.04* |
| 2. I am more likely to consider different cultural perspectives when evaluating issues and challenges. | 4.29 | 4.46* | 4.19* |
| 3. My ability to differentiate between similar cultures has improved. | 4.07 | 4.24* | 3.97* |
| 4. I am more aware of how my own culture influences the way I see people from other countries. | 4.28 | 4.40* | 4.21* |
| 5. In situations where I encounter cultural differences my comfort level has increased. | 4.20 | 4.34* | 4.12* |
| 6. I feel more comfortable explaining my values to people from other countries. | 4.15 | 4.30* | 4.06* |
| Reported category average | 4.20 | 4.35* | 4.10* |
Asterisks follow the individual source table footnotes, which identify statistically significant differences between volunteers and resources. The original annotations are retained; no tests have been recalculated.
| Question | All respondentsN=671 as printed | VolunteersN=259 as printed | Professional resourcesN=412 as printed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. I have a better understanding of my local community's needs. | 3.72 | 3.82* | 3.65* |
| 2. I have a greater appreciation for different cultural groups of my local community. | 4.12 | 4.19 | 4.08 |
| 3. I have greater pride in my local community. | 4.07 | 4.16* | 4.01* |
| 4. I am more willing to work with other members of my community on local issues or problems. | 3.94 | 3.94 | 3.95 |
| 5. I have gained skills or experiences that make me better able to contribute to my local community. | 4.00 | 4.03 | 3.98 |
| 6. My attachment to my local community has been strengthened. | 3.87 | 4.00* | 3.78* |
| Reported category average | 3.95 | 4.03* | 3.91* |
Asterisks follow the individual source table footnotes, which identify statistically significant differences between volunteers and resources. The original annotations are retained; no tests have been recalculated.
| Question | All respondentsN=671 as printed | VolunteersN=256 as printed | Professional resourcesN=403 as printed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Participate in events or activities sponsored by groups reflecting a national heritage different from my own. | 4.14 | 4.22* | 4.09* |
| 2. Participate in inter-faith activities. | 3.58 | 3.70* | 3.51* |
| 3. Have a lengthy conversation with a non-native English speaker. | 4.05 | 4.15* | 3.98* |
| 4. Attend a lecture/workshop/campus discussion on global issues. | 4.10 | 4.18* | 4.05* |
| 5. Volunteer in my local community. | 3.79 | 3.95* | 3.68* |
| 6. Become more engaged with a local or community issue. | 3.85 | 3.96* | 3.78* |
| Reported category average | 3.92 | 4.03* | 3.85* |
Asterisks follow the individual source table footnotes, which identify statistically significant differences between volunteers and resources. The original annotations are retained; no tests have been recalculated.
| Question | All respondentsN=618 as printed | VolunteersN=247 as printed | Professional resourcesN=371 as printed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Improve the ability of the local community to attract international investment. | 3.81 | 3.87 | 3.77 |
| 2. Enhance the ability of local businesses to export goods and services overseas. | 3.64 | 3.71 | 3.60 |
| 3. Help create jobs in the local community. | 3.47 | 3.52 | 3.44 |
| 4. Enhance the image of the community as a good place to live. | 4.20 | 4.31* | 4.13* |
| Reported category average | 3.78 | 3.85* | 3.73* |
Asterisks follow the individual source table footnotes, which identify statistically significant differences between volunteers and resources. The original annotations are retained; no tests have been recalculated.
These ratings describe perceived economic benefits; they do not measure actual investment, export revenue, or jobs created.
| Question | All respondentsN=466 as printed | VolunteersN=125 as printed | Professional resourcesN=341 as printed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. I have learned new skills that allow me to do my job better. | 3.76 | 3.85 | 3.73 |
| 2. Participation in international visitor programs has enhanced the prestige of my organization or strengthened my personal reputation. | 4.09 | 4.11 | 4.09 |
| 3. My co-workers and colleagues have learned a great deal about other countries and cultures through my involvement in international visitor programs. | 3.90 | 3.90 | 3.90 |
| 4. I gained access to unique professional development opportunities that I wouldn't have had otherwise. | 3.68 | 3.68 | 3.67 |
| 5. My involvement in international visitor programs provides me unique business opportunities that I wouldn't have had otherwise. | 3.39 | 3.36 | 3.41 |
| Reported category average | 3.77 | 3.78 | 3.76 |
Asterisks follow the individual source table footnotes, which identify statistically significant differences between volunteers and resources. The original annotations are retained; no tests have been recalculated.
A frequency rating is different from an impact rating. The first question uses six response levels; the second uses four. The means below are response-category averages, not event counts.
During the last 12 months, how often have you/members of your organization attended, participated, or volunteered in these international visitor programs and activities?
| Reported mean | All respondentsN=628 as printed | VolunteersN=249 as printed | Professional resourcesN=379 as printed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Participation frequency | 2.89 | 3.11* | 2.75* |
During the last 12 months, how many times have you hosted international visitors for dinner as part of a home visit? / During the last 12 months, how many times has your organization hosted international visitors?
| Reported mean | All respondentsN=629 as printed | VolunteersN=649 as printed | Professional resourcesN=380 as printed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting frequency | 2.35 | 2.14 | 2.49 |
Volunteer wording concerns the individual; resource wording includes the respondent and/or organization members. Hosting compares home dinners with organizational hosting. These are ordinal response-category means, not counts of events. Intermediate response labels are not supplied here. The frequency table footnote defines asterisks as significant differences between volunteers and resources.
597 complete · 78.35%
165 partial · 21.65%
762 total responses
280 volunteers · 37.28%
471 professional resources · 62.72%
751 responses represented
The role table represents 751 responses: 280 volunteers and 471 professional resources. Its percentages use this role-table total. Survey completion percentages use 762 total responses.
Transcribed from the supplied 2026 study appendix, pages 13–19. Counts, means, percentages, and asterisks are reproduced as published. Headline percentages earlier on this page retain their published respondent groups; table Ns are not assumed to be their exact item denominators.
All category questions, relationship comparisons, response counts, source annotations, and scales are included.
Start with real expertise and a reason for people to meet. Then choose what to record before, during, and after the exchange.
Identify what your company knows well and which international question you need answered. Ask a local exchange organization whether an appropriate program or professional meeting fits.
Explore four business questions →Bring together relevant industries, researchers, educators, and public agencies. Compare each place’s strengths before deciding what joint work makes sense.
Explore industry connections →Agree on an appropriate follow-up, keep the purpose of the meeting, and record later contact or projects with the people involved.
Keep your research in My Notebook →For CDI research, the study offers a useful measurement model: record documented activity, observe continuing contact, and investigate later results on their own timelines.
This is our interpretation of how the evidence can inform commercial-diplomacy research. The national survey does not supply comparable activity scores for every country or city, and its percentages have not been inserted into CDI rankings.
Global Ties U.S. distributed the online survey through its Community-Based Members on June 1, 2026; it closed July 15, 2026. It concerned U.S. participants involved in IVLP activities between July 2025 and June 2026.
Participating organizations represented 69.6% of active Community-Based Members, according to the report. That is organization coverage, not a response rate among all eligible people. Respondents described their primary role as professional resources (63%) or volunteers (37%).
The questions combined opinion scales with open-ended accounts of experiences, participation, and relationships. This was the third study, following the 2023 and 2024 editions.
The findings describe participating respondents. People who choose exchange activities may already view them favorably. The report cautions against generalizing to the U.S. population.
The report says it uses listwise deletion for missing data. The appendix supplies table-level respondent counts for each category and subgroup. The featured percentages and appendix means retain their published bases and scales.
Reported relationships and perceptions are valuable evidence. They do not establish how much an exchange caused a sale or an investment. The separately reported network activity and economic-impact totals use a different reporting basis.
Download the organized study summary and featured findings below. The visual appendix also provides its complete tables as CSV and JSON.
Find a local exchange organization, describe your expertise, and ask where a relevant introduction could begin.
