“You can’t have science without scientists,” California Representative Zoe Lofgren said to The New York Times, as National Science Foundation grant funding dropped to its lowest level in at least 35 years, below over 50% of its 10-year average. In 2025, the NSF awarded just $989 million in new grants as of late May less than half the usual rate with steepest cuts to early-career scientists, STEM education, and fundamental fields such as physics, engineering, and biology NSF grant funding as of May 21.
The scale of disruption is staggering. In Harvard University alone, nearly 1,000 grants totaling more than $2.4 billion have been rescinded, with the National Institutes of Health cutting more than 600 grants totaling about $2.2 billion Harvard researchers ravaged. Universities nationwide have imposed hiring freezes, let go of staff, and suspended new graduate admissions. At the NIH, the world’s largest funder of biomedical research, 1,300 employees were dismissed and over $2 billion in grants cut short, halting projects on cancer, Alzheimer’s, and children’s health NIH budget slashing and firings.
The ripples are felt far beyond individual labs. “These cuts are the height of self-inflicted harm,” quoted Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, warning that America is a threat to lower economic growth and loss of global competitiveness, as China ramps up spending on R&D Trump Has Cut Science Funding. The NSF graduate-student funding—the core of the next generation’s scientific workforce has been reduced, with only 1,000 fellowships granted this year, down from over 2,000 in previous years. During this dislocation, foreign governments and universities have initiated targeted recruitment.
Canada’s “Canada Leads” program offers grant funds and streamlined work visas to early-career biomedical researchers, in an effort to reverse a conventional brain drain into a brain gain Canada Should Hire Scientists Trump Fires. In France, Aix-Marseille University’s Safe Place for Science program commits up to $16 million in funding for displaced American scientists, and the European Commission is weighing a special passport that would simplify cross-border travel for researchers Global science bodies pivot. Australia’s Global Talent Attraction Program provides competitive wages and moving packages, and the European Research Council has increased its moving allowance for non-EU grantees to €2 million EU to entice more US scientists. The response from United States-based scientists has been immediate.
Nearly half of the 300 applications to Safe Place for Science came from U.S. scientists, including AI and astrophysics experts. France’s Institute of Genetics, Molecular and Cellular Biology saw U.S. inquiries twice as high this year, and Germany’s Max Planck Society witnessed a tripling of American researchers’ interest Global science institutions redirect. “There’s a whole pool of talent, a whole cohort that is being affected by this moment,” stated Brad Wouters of Canada’s University Health Network. But the global rush to poach U.S. talent is not cheap. European universities themselves have not-so-roomy budgets, with the research budget of the University of Oslo 7% less than it was in 2019. Canadian universities, which are eager to poach as well, are operating huge deficits, and the budgets of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research mere notches below $1.4 billion annually 48 times less than NIH. There are even language, pension, and family ties making relocation difficult for most scientists.
In addition to the money, foreign recruiters have now settled on freedom of scientific research as the most selling point. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has promised to incorporate freedom of scientific research into EU law, and university presidents across Europe stress that “What they want above all is to be able to continue their research and that their academic freedom be preserved” EU must recruit more US scientists.
Scientific talent migration has not been uncommon. The U.S. has long been a magnet for foreign scholars, with nearly 40% of its PhDs being awarded to foreign nationals through 2010, and 60% of postdocs holding foreign visas Brain drain, brain gain or brain sharing?. The current exodus differs in scale and direction. The Association of American Universities states that although 65% of foreign STEM doctorates stay in the U.S. ten years after receiving their degrees, the nation’s proportion of globally mobile students has fallen from 28% in 2000 to a mere 15% today.U.S. Faces Increasing Competition for Foreign STEM Talent. Changes in visa and immigration policies add to the problem. Faculty surveys show 54% lost international students or postdocs due to visa issues last year, and 42% lost international collaborators who were unable to obtain U.S. visas. Most report that current policies hurt recruitment of best and brightest talent, prestige of U.S. institutions, and international competitiveness of American science U.S. Visa and Immigration Policy Challenges.
The threats are extended to international cooperation and data sharing. “Science is a global endeavor,” emphasized Patrick Cramer of the Max Planck Society, referring to the fact that data sets and results in many instances are traded between international teams. Disruptions in U.S. funding put in danger not only national research capacity but also the integrity of international scientific networks. Matthias Johannsen, president of the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, warned, “In general, this is threatening the whole research collaboration framework globally” Global science institutions flip. Migration of high-skilled individuals can benefit both countries of origin as well as host countries, with the promise of fostering innovation, knowledge transfer, and economic growth, as recent studies show.
The GlobSci survey found that 40% of migrant researchers maintain research collaboration with the home country, and that research laboratories with multinational, heterogeneous personnel are more active and productive Brain drain, brain gain or brain sharing?. But the politically motivated, sudden erosion of American research capability jeopardizes the sustainability of such global “brain sharing.” For scientists like Brandon Coventry, a postdoctoral fellow in neural implants, the decision to leave is fraught with personal and professional challenges. “I’ve never wanted to necessarily leave the United States, but this is a serious contender for me,” he said. For others, like Marianna Zhang, whose NSF grant was canceled, the path forward is uncertain: “It’s no easy solution, just fleeing and escaping to another country.”
As global hiring speeds up and the U.S. scientific community is confronted with unprecedented uncertainty, the globe waits to witness how the next installment of international science plays out.
