‘No way to invest in a career here': US academics flee overseas to avoid Trump crackdown
Eric Schuster was over the moon when he landed a lab assistant position in a coral reef biology lab at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography (SIO). The 23-year-old had recently graduated with a bachelor's degree in nanoengineering from the University of California, San Diego, into a fiercely competitive job market. He felt like he'd struck gold.
But the relentless cuts to scientific research and attacks on higher education by the Trump administration have turned what felt like a promising academic future into unstable ground.
'There are several labs, both at our institution and around the US, that have essentially just sent everyone home because they have no money,' Schuster said, expressing concern not just for oceanography but for all fields of scientific research. The multi-pronged attacks have 'been seriously detrimental to just about everyone', he said.
Though Schuster is grateful for his position, he is in a constant state of worry about whether it will still exist tomorrow. UCSD, which SIO is a part of, told the Guardian that the Trump administration has ended or frozen roughly $90m in grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Nearly 200 other grants are facing delays. SIO researchers have noted that the 'vast majority' of their funding comes from the government.
Schuster has decided he's not going to stick around to see if he will lose his job.
He'll be starting his graduate studies this fall in France with a European University Networks (EUN) program, a transnational alliance of higher education institutions. He plans to stay outside of the US after to continue his career.
'It's a grab bag that anyone you're talking to has had decreased funding, or lost almost all of their funding, or is having trouble continuing their funding,' he says.
'That, along with the pretty pervasive and growing anti-science establishment narrative … have been strong motivators to look elsewhere,' Schuster said.
Schuster is one of many budding academics reflecting what could become a significant American brain drain, sending the brightest minds in the country to flee the US and take their scholarly endeavors elsewhere. Historically, the US has attracted top talent from around the world, but the moves by the Trump administration may have reversed these conditions in record time.
Research institutions are feeling the strain from funding cuts from some of the biggest grant-making bodies in the world. The National Science Foundation (NSF) funds about 25% of federally backed basic research at US universities, but Trump's proposed budget would cut over $5bn, or 57%, from its budget, chopping it from roughly $9bn down to $3.9bn. The US National Institutes of Health would lose about 40% of its budget compared to last year.
But those cuts aren't the only cause for anxiety. Nerves throughout the scholarly community are also on edge given what is widely perceived as a historic attack on academic freedom through administration assaults against universities such Columbia and Harvard University under the guise of rooting out antisemitism and diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Dozens more universities are waiting for their turn.
A recent Nature survey revealed that approximately 75% of US-based scientists are contemplating relocation, with early-career researchers and PhD students particularly inclined toward opportunities in Canada, Europe and Australia.
Valerio Francioni is one of them. A 32-year-old Italian citizen who moved to the US after getting his PhD at the University of Edinburgh, Francioni is now a postdoctoral research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology studying neuroscience.
International students have faced nonstop chaos in the past few months, from visa suspensions to the attempted deportations of several students who expressed support for Palestinians. Last month, the Trump administration ordered US embassies worldwide to immediately stop scheduling visa interviews for foreign students as it prepares to implement comprehensive 'social media screenings' for all international applicants.
'As an international, there's just no way that you can invest safely into a career here right now, there's just no way to plan ahead. The situation is just too volatile to feel that you're making a safe investment by being here,' Francioni said.
A recent report from the Economist suggests that international students (and some domestic) are losing interest in American PhD programs. Searches for US PhD programs on the website FindAPhD fell 40% year on year in April, while interest from students in Europe has fallen by 50%. Data from another website, Studyportals, shows a decrease in interest for domestic PhDs among Americans, and a rise in interest for international programs compared to the previous year.
Though his own visa has not been affected yet, Francioni plans to leave the US once his run at MIT is finished. He had wanted to stay in Boston – it's a great place for people in the neurotech field, he says, and his American partner is there. But his calculus has changed in the past few months.
Kristina, originally from Sweden, is grappling with the same questions. A mathematics professor at a university in the north-east US, Kristina requested that only her first name be used and her institution not be named over concerns of retaliation by the Trump administration.
'Right now, I think that everyone who's not a citizen feels that we cannot express our opinions,' Kristina said.
She's been in the US for 25 years, but does not have US citizenship. She is now debating whether to stay or leave. To her, the question is a moral one, whether to leave for safety or stay to 'fight for a more democratic future'.
Emmanuel Guerisoli, a French and Italian academic with a PhD in sociology and history, moved to the US in 2010 to pursue a masters in sociology. He is now finishing a postdoc at the Zolberg Institute on Migration and Mobility at the New School.
Guerisoli is concerned about being targeted by Ice because of discussions he has led in class on the war in Gaza. He was offered a tenure-track position at a different institution, he said, but it was quickly rescinded, which he was told was due to the Trump administration's funding cuts.
He gave up on applying to academic jobs in the US and decided to move to Argentina this summer, where the dread of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents knocking down his door will not follow him every day.
'It's not just that you're being questioned on your political beliefs, but any type of critical or academic engagement on certain topics that go beyond the realm of just politics are being targeted,' he said.
'Even if the state department renews my visa, I would be concerned about teaching courses the way I have done it in the past,' he said.
Scholars at Risk, which assists academics facing political pressure, saw this coming.
'The recent policies have created a tremendous amount of anxiety,' Robert Quinn, the group's executive director, said. He worries the loss will have ripple effects far beyond campus.
'When a big economic contributor gets disrupted, that's going to begin to affect everybody relatively quickly in those communities,' Quinn said. 'Beyond that is the effect on public health. If we look at the cutting of the research pipeline, that means fundamentally cutting off access to services and medicines and treatments that affect every American who happens to get sick.'
Quinn says that Scholars at Risk is working on ways to support US academics exploring foreign opportunities.
Several other countries are jumping in to fill the void, and have already begun courting American academics.
The European Union has pledged €500m (around $556m) over the next two years to become a prime destination for displaced scientists. France's president, Emmanuel Macron, announced $113m for a national program to bring in American researchers, and Aix-Marseille University separately announced Safe Place for Science, a three-year, $16.8m program to attract 15 American scientists working in climate, health and astrophysics.
A university spokesperson previously told the Guardian that more than 60 applications have been received, 30 of them coming within the first 24 hours.
Meanwhile, Denmark is fast-tracking 200 positions for American researchers. In a widely shared Instagram post, the head of the Danish chamber of commerce directly invited American scientists to consider Denmark, 'a place where facts still matter'.
Sweden's education minister held a roundtable of university leaders to strategize on attracting frustrated US talent, and publicly called for American scientists to relocate.
Canadian institutions are following a similar path. The University Health Network in Toronto and associated foundations are investing CA$30m ($21.5m) to bring in 100 early-career scientists from the US and beyond. Meanwhile, the University of British Columbia reopened graduate applications in April specifically to accommodate interested US students.
Carter Freshour, a 22-year-old US citizen, had just begun his masters program in business at the Thunderbird School of Global Management in Arizona when Trump took office.
As soon as the attacks on higher education began, he dropped out of the program out of fear of the direction the country is heading. He is now in the process of moving to Madrid, where he will finish his business degree, and then plans to move to Portugal.
'I don't want to live in a country that does not abide by the laws that they have set in stone,' Freshour said. 'It has deeply troubled me, the direction that the United States is going.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
43 minutes ago
- Sky News
Israel-Iran live: Donald Trump arrives back at White House as Security Council mulls Iran action
Donald Trump is hosting a meeting of his National Security Council at the White House to discuss potential US action in Iran. Listen to our Trump 100 podcast as you scroll.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Trump's taking Maga fire over ‘forever wars', but the real battle awaits
'I'm the one that decides,' declared President Trump last week when asked by a reporter who gets to say what 'America First' really means. Faced with a backlash from parts of his base over the prospect of the US supporting Israel in military action in Iran, the president said his word is final — 'after all, I'm the one that developed America First' — adding that 'the term wasn't used until I came along'. In fact, the phrase dates back to the First World War when Woodrow Wilson used the slogan to appeal to voters who wanted America to stay out of the conflict. (They didn't get their wish.) The America First Committee was founded in 1940 to protest against US involvement in the Second World War, but gained notoriety after high-profile members such as the aviator Charles Lindbergh and the automotive tycoon Henry Ford led to a perception that it had antisemitic and pro-fascist sympathies. However, since Trump launched his first bid for president ten years ago, it has taken on a new meaning. 'He has driven the term back into usage,' says Julian Zelizer, the Princeton University historian and author of The Presidency of Donald J Trump: A First Historical Assessment. 'He has the most power to shape what it actually includes.' Now it represents a whole movement, extending from foreign policy to trade to immigration. No more forever wars. No more favours for other countries out of the goodness of Uncle Sam's heart. But in a week where parts of Trump's base came out and criticised the president directly, the question is being asked in Washington: is Trump still in control of the agenda — or is it the base that decides? There are certainly plenty of figures in Washington who have distinct views on what America First ought to mean in practice. Last week, the row over Iran has seen a US version of blue on blue: Maga on Maga. As the alt-right influencer Jack Posobiec put it: 'I'm just thankful the neocons are here to tell us who is REAL MAGA.' Trump has distanced himself from certain members of his cabinet, saying that his head of intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is 'wrong' on her intelligence assessment of Iran. But in his second term, Trump has had ultimate authority over his cabinet. Learning from the first term, he picked them for loyalty and deference. As a figure with close ties to the administration says: 'It's a football team. He's the manager, they're the players, they listen to the manager and that's all there is to it.' It is why the voices he needs to worry more about may be the ones on the outside. Enter the Maga-verse — the network of former advisers, informal advisers and influencers free to speak, exerting varying degrees of influence on the president. One figure close to the White House says: 'There are a bunch of people that we look to to see how things are landing.' Indeed, the administration last week reached out to key figures as they tried to control the narrative. There are different spheres of influence. Steve Bannon, Trump's former adviser, is widely regarded as the godfather of Maga. While he no longer has a place in the White House, he is seen as a temperature check on the movement by keeping the government in touch with the grassroots through his media and bringing up the next generation of Maga — several of whom have gone on to take jobs in the administration. 'Everybody just folds to whatever big corporate interest there is and this administration is only slightly different to that,' explains an insider. 'Steve keeps a check on it.' Bannon's War Room podcast regularly ranks among the top ten in the US, and has more than 200,000 followers on X. The former executive chairman of the alt-right news website Breitbart had lunch with the president last week — just before Trump's spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt announced a two-week window to make a decision on his next steps in Iran. Next, Tucker Carlson — the former Fox News host — who last week accused Trump of taking America on the wrong path. This led to Trump saying: 'I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen.' 'He's definitely relevant,' says one Maga figure. 'But it's a much younger, less-likely-to-vote demographic that he now appeals to. It's a much lower propensity voter. I don't think he would take that as an insult. He lives in a cabin in the woods in Maine.' After the barrage of words, Trump later said he shared a phone call with Carlson who apologised for going too far. Then there's Laura Loomer — the right-wing conspiracy theorist — who regularly leads the news in DC with her social media and investigations. A Republican insider says: 'She's probably the best opposition researcher in Republican politics nationwide and she's devastatingly destructive to people. Some people might walk around with their chest puffed out and go, 'Oh, I'm not scared of Laura Loomer.' They're all scared of Laura Loomer.' Last week, Loomer and Carlson have clashed on Iran, while Bannon warned against the US getting too embroiled in any conflict. The changing media landscape is giving these figures greater prominence. Matt Boyle, the Washington bureau chief at Breitbart, says: 'We live in impassioned times, especially in the podcast era and new media.' It's not gone unnoticed in Maga world that last week streaming overtook cable and broadcast as the most-watched form of TV in the US. Yet the base is insistent there is no civil war. 'We're not a monolith, we're not the left, they don't tolerate dissent, right?' says one Maga figure. 'One part of the coalition is holding the other part of the coalition accountable.' Boyle, who was recently spotted dining with both Bannon and the Democrat senator John Fetterman, says: 'I do think that when the president makes his decision that the movement is gonna fall in line very quickly. He is the leader of the America First movement. He built this movement.' Yet Trump has never been a perfect fit for some of the views within it. In 2016, he said of America First that he wanted to make decision-making more 'unpredictable'. 'We won't be isolationists — I don't want to go there because I don't believe in that,' Trump said. 'But we're not going to be ripped off any more by all of these countries.' The historian Victor Davis Hanson, of the Hoover Institution think tank at Stanford University, says: 'Trump is neither an isolationist nor an interventionist, but rather transactional. The media fails to grasp that, so it is confused why tough-guy Trump is hesitant to jump into Iran, or contrarily why a noninterventionist Trump would even consider using bunker busters against Iran. 'The common thread again is his perception of what benefits the US middle class — economically, militarily, politically and culturally.' But internal debates go beyond foreign affairs. The other main Maga priorities are bringing jobs back to the US — through tariffs — and cracking down on immigration. Tensions have bubbled on all of these: last week Trump exempted the farm and hospitality industries from the immigration raids, only for Maga activists to raise alarm. The president then changed it back. Raheem Kassam, who is a close ally of Bannon, a co-owner of the Butterworths restaurant in Washington — a Maga hotspot — and a former adviser to Nigel Farage, says: 'It's definitely become more complex and thoughtful and flexible. 'There's now a depth where you can't necessarily fit all of Maga policy on a banner held up at a rally. You used to be able to say it was 'build the wall', 'drain the swamp'. It's developed more, it's deeper, it's denser and that's kind of what the establishment is really upset about this time. It's like, 'Oh, these guys have actually developed an element of political sophistication.'' For now, most agree — at least publicly — that Trump is king. Yet privately what is making the base so jumpy is this idea that Trump is being forced by the deep state into the default establishment policy position. If it happens to Trump, what chance does his successor have? Hanson says: 'Trump decides — in the sense of le Maga état, c'est moi. Almost everyone who tried to redefine Maga or take on Trump has mostly lost rather than gained influence. 'The key question is whether Maga continues after 2029, given Trump's unique willingness to take on the left rhetorically and concretely in a way that far exceeds the Reagan revolution, and in truth, any prior Republican. Trump's bellicosity, volatility, and resilience — his willingness to win ugly rather than lose nobly — ensure him credibility and goodwill among the base that in turn allows him greater latitude and patience.' Or as a recent visitor to the White House puts it: 'A lot of them want a Maga ideology whereas Trump is happy with it just being about him.' Kassam adds: 'Trump does largely get to decide what America First means. But the point is, there's a whole movement behind it that will want to keep the America First agenda even after Trump.' The real fight to define America First is likely to come when Trump exits the stage.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Scientists reveal how humans will have superpowers by 2030
By 2030, rapid technological advancements are expected to reshape humanity, unlocking abilities once confined to science fiction—from superhuman strength to enhanced senses. Robotic exoskeletons may soon allow people to lift heavy objects with ease, while AI-powered wearables, such as smart glasses and earbuds, could provide real-time information and immersive augmented reality experiences. Healthcare may be revolutionized by microscopic nanobots capable of repairing tissue and fighting disease from within the bloodstream, potentially extending human lifespans. Developers are also working on contact lenses with infrared vision and devices that allow users to "feel" digital objects, paving the way for entirely new ways to experience the world. Tech pioneers like former Google engineer Ray Kurzweil believe these innovations are early steps toward the merging of humans and machines, with brain-computer interfaces offering direct access to digital intelligence. While many of these breakthroughs are already in progress, others remain in the experimental phase, facing significant technical and ethical challenges, including concerns about privacy and safety. Still, some of these futuristic technologies may become reality within the next five years, with the potential to enhance human strength, cognition, and perception in ways never before possible. Superhuman strength Kurzweil, a self-proclaimed futurist, has claimed that the foundation of human immortality will begin in 2030, with man set to merge with machines by 2045. By 2030, robotic exoskeletons could give human beings super strength, either by enabling feats like lifting huge objects in factories or making soldiers stronger on the battlefield. US-based robotics company Sarcos Robotics has already demonstrated a robotic exoskeleton that has a 'strength gain' ratio of 20-to-one. This means that normal people can carry weights of up to 200 pounds over an extended period of time. The suit took 17 years and $175 million to develop. Other exoskeletons, such as German Bionic's 'Exia' exoskeleton, incorporate AI that learns from the wearer's movement, enabling them to lift huge weights without feeling tired. These exoskeletons are already being used by staff in German hospitals. Super-healing and immortality In five years, humans could have tiny 'nanobots' in their bloodstream to keep them healthy, meaning people could recover rapidly from injury and even from diseases such as cancer. Kurzweil has claimed that by 2029, artificial intelligence will become 'superhuman' and that will allow for more technological breakthroughs to follow rapidly. One of the upcoming breakthroughs, according to Kurzweil, will be the development of microscopic nanobots that operate within the bloodstream, maintaining health without the need for constant medical monitoring. In his latest book, The Singularity Is Nearer, Kurzweil forecasts a dramatic transformation in human life after 2029, with essential goods becoming more affordable and people beginning to merge with machines through technologies like brain-computer interfaces, similar to Elon Musk's Neuralink. He also pointed to recent advances in artificial intelligence, including tools like ChatGPT, as evidence that his 2005 predictions are on track, stating that "the trajectory is clear." Super vision Contact lenses that enable wearers to see huge distances or even to beam computer information directly into their eyes could be on sale by 2030. Scientists in China recently developed contact lenses that allow wearers to see in the dark. The new lenses allow wearers to see infrared light, without requiring bulky night-vision goggles. Professor Tian Xue, at the University of Science and Technology of China, said he hopes his work could inspire scientists to create contact lenses that offer people 'super vision.' Enhanced senses Devices that give humans enhanced senses could be on the market, with research by Ericsson, a Swedish multinational networking and telecommunications company, suggesting that digital wristbands could soon give anyone the ability to 'feel' digital objects. Pioneering 'cyborg' designers have already tested devices that give people superhuman senses. Entrepreneur, transhumanist, and self-described cyborg Liviu Babitz created 'Northsense,' which allowed him to sense when he faces magnetic north. Manel Munoz, founder of the Trans Species Society, implanted two 'fins' on top of his head, which enabled him to 'hear' the weather. The sound is transmitted through his skull by bone conduction. Munoz has said he hears the weather through the 'sound of bubbles.' Knowing everything instantly with digital wearables By 2030, AI-enhanced wearables such as earbuds could enable everyone to plug into 'digital superpowers,' with everyone able to receive answers instantly. Meta is already adding AI to Ray-Ban glasses, and Google is designing an operating system for XR (augmented reality and virtual reality). Computer scientist Louis Rosenberg has said that these abilities will emerge from the convergence of AI, augmented reality, and conversational computing. 'They will be unleashed by context-aware AI agents that are loaded into body-worn devices that see what we see, hear what we hear, experience what we experience, and provide us with enhanced abilities to perceive and interpret our world,' Rosenberg explained. 'I refer to this new technological direction as augmented mentality and I predict that by 2030, a majority of us will live our lives with context-aware AI agents bringing digital superpowers into our daily experiences.'
