Slashing Brand USA’s budget: Dangerous blow or a rethink for America’s tourism?

By Graham McKenzie

I vividly recall attending IPW more than a decade ago, sitting outside in the midday sun as Brand USA was introduced to the global media amid a surge of excitement and anticipation.

The launch, underscored by a film celebrating American diversity and Rosanne Cash’s rendition of “Land of Dreams,” set high expectations for this new national marketing agency, even as scepticism lingered about its long-term impact. Fast forward to today, and Brand USA is firmly established as a key player in U.S. tourism marketing.

Yet, it has not been without controversy, especially regarding its approach to centralising control over international marketing spend, sometimes at the expense of state and local destination marketing efforts. Amidst a growingly negative international perception of the USA, now further damaged by the latest wave of ICE protests, the question of America’s future as a friendly, welcoming holiday destination has never been more relevant.

Has Brand USA

Has Brand USA delivered on its promise?

Brand USA’s own ROI studies claim impressive results: since 2013, its marketing efforts have generated $28.8 billion in international visitor spending and supported tens of thousands of jobs annually, with a reported ROI of over $20 for every dollar invested. However, a closer look at global tourism rankings reveals a more nuanced picture. While the U.S. remains the world’s most powerful travel and tourism market in terms of economic contribution, its share of global international tourist arrivals has actually declined since Brand USA’s inception.

In 2023, the U.S. welcomed 66.8 million international visitors—a strong rebound from pandemic lows, but still below the peak years before Brand USA was established, and with a reduced share of the global tourism pie.

This raises a critical question: what would America’s international tourism landscape look like if Brand USA had never existed? Would the decline in global share have been steeper, or would state and city marketing agencies have stepped up to adapt to changing global dynamics? While Brand USA’s centralised approach brought coordination and scale, it has also, almost since day one, made a land grab for all international marketing spend to be under its control. This sometimes overshadows the efforts of individual states and destinations.

The risks of slashing the budget—and the opportunity for a rethink

The Senate Commerce Committee’s proposal to slash Brand USA’s funding from $100 million to just $20 million is seen by many as a serious threat to the U.S. tourism industry. Many destinations across the country depend on Brand USA to maintain international visibility, and a drastic reduction in funding could mean fewer international visitors, decreased spending, and job losses in hospitality, transportation, and retail sectors. Small businesses and communities that rely on tourism dollars would be hit hardest. The specific sector that the agency was set up to support in the first place.

But is this also an opportunity? If the budget reduction goes ahead, perhaps it’s time to rethink the model entirely. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the industry was forced to pivot—putting more emphasis on destination stewardship, fighting overtourism, and focusing on quality rather than quantity of visitors.

Could a leaner Brand USA, or a more decentralized approach, allow for a return to these principles? Might this be a chance to empower state tourism boards and local destinations to take up the cudgel of overseas marketing if they are not already doing so, fostering more authentic, sustainable, and diverse tourism experiences?

What’s next for Brand USA Travel Week—and America’s presence abroad?

The future of flagship events like Brand USA Travel Week, which has become the leading forum connecting U.K. and European buyers with U.S. travel exhibitors, is now uncertain. With reduced funding, will Brand USA Travel Week survive in its current form, or will we see a return to broader platforms like World Travel Market (WTM) for America’s overseas promotion?

If Brand USA’s role diminishes, state tourism boards and city DMOs may need to step up their international presence, either independently or through new coalitions. This is however in a period when some organisations have dropped funding for Canada, Mexico, China and parts of South America.

Key questions for the industry:

If Brand USA’s budget is slashed, will states and cities fill the gap, or will America’s global tourism share continue to erode?

Is this the moment to shift from a quantity-driven strategy to one focused on quality, stewardship, and sustainable growth?

What will happen to Brand USA Travel Week, and could we see a return to WTM or other international platforms for U.S. destinations?

Has Brand USA’s centralisation of international marketing spend stifled innovation at the local level, or has it provided much-needed coordination?

If the U.S. had never created Brand USA, would its global market share be even lower—or would a more fragmented approach have yielded better results?

With the annual IPW in Chicago in full swing, the coming weeks and months will be crucial. The choice to either reinforce Brand USA’s centralised approach by maintaining budget levels or pivot toward a more decentralised model will help determine America’s position in the global tourism market for the years ahead.

Related News Stories:  Lawmakers propose huge cut to Brand USA funding