A growing number of American scientists are considering relocating abroad, citing political interference, deep funding cuts, and what they describe as an increasingly hostile environment for scientific research in the United States—a trend experts warn could signal the start of a significant “brain drain.”
In recent months, concern over the Trump administration’s stance toward science and higher education has escalated. Proposals to dramatically cut the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—the world’s largest biomedical research agency—have sent shockwaves through the scientific community. The plan would slash the agency’s funding from approximately $48 billion to $27 billion, consolidating its 27 institutes into eight and eliminating four entirely, according to a report by The New York Times.
The proposed cuts have already impacted young researchers and universities dependent on federal grants. “This is a generation that we might lose,” said former NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins in an interview with 60 Minutes. “They’re the ones who are going to make those next breakthroughs for cancer and diabetes and rare diseases, and many of them aren’t sure there’s a path [in the U.S.] anymore.”
Concerns extend far beyond the NIH. The proposed federal budget also targets the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), cutting its $9 billion allocation to just $4 billion and eliminating entire divisions, including those dedicated to injury prevention, environmental health, and chronic disease, according to The New York Times.
A March 2024 survey by the journal Nature found that 75% of American scientists were considering leaving the U.S. to continue their research. European countries have responded by launching initiatives to attract them. In Belgium, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel has created a dedicated office to welcome U.S. researchers. “U.S. universities and their scholars are victims of political and ideological interference by the Trump administration,” said Jan Danckaert, rector of the university, in an interview with Rolling Stone.
France’s Aix-Marseille University has already received hundreds of applications from U.S.-based scientists for its “Safe Place for Science” program. “Europe saw many scientists flee for the U.S. during World War II,” the university noted in a statement to Rolling Stone. “It now appears that experts are starting to flow in the opposite direction.”
Jennifer Jones, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Rolling Stone she has spoken with scientists at both ends of their careers who are preparing to leave. “Some are seeking asylum because their work is no longer valued or funded,” she said. “When you lose early career folks, you lose capacity that could take years or decades to regain.”
Adam Siepel, a computational biologist at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, said the political climate is pushing scientists to explore opportunities elsewhere. “You start to wonder if it’s going to be possible to do science in this country,” Siepel told Rolling Stone. “If there is a major flow of scientists to other countries, where should we go?”
The Trump administration’s rationale for the proposed cuts appears rooted in ideological and fiscal motivations. The federal budget document refers to the NIH as “too big and unfocused” and accuses it of promoting “radical gender ideology” and funding research that contributed to the coronavirus pandemic, according to The New York Times.
In the 60 Minutes interview, Collins warned that the economic consequences of gutting research funding could be severe. He pointed to the Human Genome Project—a major NIH-funded initiative he once led— which cost $3 billion but is estimated to have generated over $1 trillion in economic impact. “If we had another occasion like that right now… would we in the United States in this situation have the courage to take it on?” he said.
Meanwhile, other countries are seizing the opportunity. China, Canada, Australia, and European nations have increased their scientific funding and recruitment efforts. Kristin Weinstein, a PhD candidate at the University of Washington, told 60 Minutes she and her family are considering moving to Europe or Canada to continue her cancer and autoimmunity research.
“Scientists are a group of people who are highly educated and who are good at forming community,” Weinstein said. “By defunding scientific research and creating brain drain, that helps to consolidate control and power.”
Experts warn that the effects of a brain drain may not be immediate but could erode American scientific leadership over time.
“It’s the kind of thing you don’t see right away,” said Dr. Stephen Jones, a former postdoctoral researcher at the University of Texas who now works at Vilnius University in Lithuania. “This takes time to manifest— sometimes because it has to get bad enough for people to decide to finally go somewhere else.”
Jones said his lab in Europe is now better funded and more stable. “I haven’t had to kick any students or researchers off my team,” he said. “My funding is more secure than ever.”
If the U.S. loses its standing as the global hub for research and development, experts say the consequences will not just be academic—they will be economic, medical, and geopolitical.
“Every dollar spent on NIH research results in about $2.50 worth of economic growth,” said Siepel. “Around 90% of FDA-approved new drugs started out with NIH support.”
While the Biden administration restored much of the NIH’s budget during its term, fears of another Trump presidency have revived anxieties in the research community. As other nations invest in science, researchers say the U.S. is risking not only its future competitiveness—but its legacy.
