The real cost of driving foreign students away
In 1965, then-French finance minister Valéry Giscard d'Estaing came up with the 'mot juste' for describing the way that the supremacy of the dollar provided the foundation for the financial supremacy of the US. The fact the dollar was so dominant in international transactions gave the US, d'Estaing said, an 'exorbitant privilege.' Because every country needed dollars to settle trade and backstop their own currencies, foreign countries had to buy up US debt, which in turn meant that the US paid less to borrow money and was able to run up trade and budget deficits without suffering the usual pain. The exorbitant privilege of the dollar was that the US would be able to live beyond its means.
It's always been an open question as to how long that privilege would last, but President Donald Trump's harsh tariff policies, paired with a budget bill that right now would add trillions to the budget deficit, might just be enough to finally dislodge the dollar. Annual federal deficits are already running at 6 percent of GDP, while interest rates on 10-year US Treasuries have more than doubled to around 4.5 percent over the past few years, increasing the cost of interest payments on the debt. As of the last quarter of 2024, 58 percent of global reserves were in dollars, down from 71 percent in the first quarter of 1999. The dollar may remain king, if only because there seems to be no real alternative, but thanks to the US' own actions, the exorbitance of its privilege is already eroding — and with it, America's ability to compensate for its fiscal fecklessness.
But the dollar isn't the only privilege the US enjoys. Since the postwar era, America's best universities have led the world. Harvard, Princeton, MIT, CalTech — these elite universities are the foundation of the American scientific supremacy that has in turn fueled decades of economic growth. But also, by virtue of their unparalleled ability to attract the best minds from around the world, these schools have given the US the educational privilege of being the magnet of global academic excellence. In the same way that the dollar's dominance has allowed the US to live beyond its means, the dominance of elite universities has compensated for the fact that the US has, at best, a mediocre K-12 educational system.
And now that privilege is under attack by the Trump administration. Cutting off federal funding for universities like Columbia and Princeton and eviscerating agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation were bad enough — but the administration's recent move to bar international students from Harvard would be a death blow, especially if it spread to other top schools.
The ability to attract the best of the best, especially in the sciences, is what makes Harvard Harvard, which in turn has helped make the United States the United States. Just as losing the privilege of the dollar would force the US to finally pay for years of fiscal mismanagement, losing the privilege of these top universities would force the country to pay for decades of educational failure.
As Vox contributor Kevin Carey wrote this week, foreign students are a major source of financial support for US colleges and universities, many of which would struggle to survive should those students disappear. But the financial picture actually understates just how much US science depends on foreign talent and, in turn, depends on top universities like Harvard to bring in top students and professors.
An astounding 70 percent of grad students in the US in electrical engineering and 63 percent in computer science — probably the two disciplines most important to winning the future — are foreign-born. Nineteen percent of the overall STEM workforce in the US is foreign-born; focus just on the PhD-level workforce, and that number rises to 43 percent. Since 1901, just about half of all physics, chemistry, and medicine Nobel Prizes have gone to Americans, and about a third of those winners were foreign-born, a figure that has risen in recent decades. It's really not too much to suggest that if all foreign scientists and science students were deported tomorrow, US science would grind to a halt.
Could American-born students step into that gap? Absolutely not. That's because as elite as America's top universities are, the country's K-12 education system has been anything but.
Every three years, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is given to a representative sample of 15-year-old students in over 80 countries. It's the best existing test for determining how a country's students compare in mathematics, reading, and science to their international peers.
In the most recent PISA tests, taken in 2022, US students scored below the average for OECD or developed countries in math; on reading and science, they were just slightly above average. And while a lot of attention has been rightly paid to learning loss since the pandemic — one report from fall 2024 estimated that the average US student is less than halfway to a full academic recovery — American students have lagged behind their international peers since long before then. Other wealthy nations, from East Asian countries to some small European ones, regularly outpace American peers in math by the equivalent of one full academic year.
To be clear, this picture isn't totally catastrophic. It's fine — American students perform around the middle compared to their international peers. But just fine won't make you the world's undisputed scientific leader. And fine is a long way from what the US once was.
America was a pioneer in universal education, and it did the same in college education through the postwar GI Bill, which opened up college education to the masses. By 1950, 34 percent of US adults aged 25 or older had completed high school or more, compared to 14 percent in the UK and 11 percent in France. When NASA engineers were putting people on the moon in the 1960s, the US had perhaps the world's most educated workforce to draw from.
Since then, much of the rest of the world has long since caught up with the US on educational attainment, and a number of countries have surpassed it. But thanks in large part to the privilege that is elite universities like Harvard or the University of California, and their ability to recruit the best, no country has caught up to the US in sheer scientific brainpower. Take away our foreign talent, however, and US science would look more like its K-12 performance — merely fine.
It seems increasingly apparent that the Trump administration wants to make an example of Harvard, proving its own dominance by breaking a 388-year-old institution with strong ties to American power and influence. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that the administration planned to cancel all remaining federal contracts with Harvard, while Trump himself mused on redirecting Harvard's $3 billion in grants to trade schools.
Grants and contracts are vital, but they can be restored, just as faith in the US dollar might be restored by a saner trade policy and a tighter budget. But if the Trump administration chooses to make the US fundamentally hostile to foreign students and scientific talent, there may be no coming back. Politico reported this week that the administration is weighing requiring all foreign students applying to study in the US to undergo social media vetting. With universities around the world now competing to make themselves alternatives to the US, what star student from Japan or South Korea or Finland would choose to put their future in the hands of the Trump administration, when they could go anywhere else they wanted?
The US once achieved scientific leadership because it educated its own citizens better and longer than any other country. Those days are long past, but the US managed to keep its pole position, and all that came with it, because it supported and funded what were far and away the best universities in the world. That was our privilege, as much as the dollar was. And now we seem prepared to destroy both.
Should that come to pass, we'll see just how little is left.
A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
10 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: What exactly is Trump's new travel ban about? Not national security
Any reasonable American could objectively ask what exactly President Donald Trump's new travel ban, which affects a dozen countries, is about. Is it about protecting Americans from 'murderers,' as Trump said Thursday, or punishing small countries for a modest number of students who overstayed their visas? The drive for Trump's first-term travel ban in 2017 and 2018 was clear. He was seeking to deliver on an ugly campaign promise to ban all Muslims from entering the US. That morphed, over the course of years as the administration adapted to court cases, into a ban on travel to the US by people from certain countries, most of which were majority-Muslim. It was only by agreeing to ignore Trump's anti-Muslim 2016 campaign statements and focus solely on the security-related language in his third attempt at a travel ban that the US Supreme Court ultimately gave its blessing to that ban. '… We must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself,' wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion. Trump is using that authority again in his second term. But this time, as he said Thursday in the Oval Office, the ban is about removing 'horrendous' people who are in the country now and about keeping murderers out. The data suggest the travel ban will primarily affect students and businesspeople from countries in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean as well as the Middle East. It was an attack on Jewish community members in Colorado by an Egyptian national that convinced Trump to speed up plans to ban people from a dozen countries from entering the US, restarting the travel ban policy he pioneered during his first term. But Egypt is not on the travel ban list. Neither is Kuwait, the country where Mohamed Sabry Soliman, the suspect in the Boulder attack, lived before coming to the US. 'Egypt has been a country we deal with very closely. They have things under control,' Trump told reporters Thursday. Instead, the travel ban includes countries that Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who assembled the list, feel don't have things under control. That includes places like Equatorial Guinea in Africa and Burma, also known as Myanmar, in Asia. Neither is a nexus of terror threatening the American homeland. Trump's order announcing the travel ban explains that these countries have high rates of students and other travelers overstaying their visas in the US. It points to a report of DHS 'overstay' data from 2023 to argue that for more than 70% of people from Equatorial Guinea with US student visas, there is no record of them leaving the US when their visa ended. In real numbers, that equals 233 people with student visas. The numbers are similarly small for other African countries. 'They're just throwing things at the wall,' said David Bier, an immigration expert at the libertarian-leaning Cato institute and a Trump immigration policy critic. 'There's not really a coherent philosophy behind any of this,' Bier added. The reinstated travel ban does include countries associated with terrorism, including Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, all of which were also included in Trump's first-term travel ban. But it's worth noting that no immigrant or traveler from one of these countries has launched a terror attack on the US in recent years, according to a review by the Washington Post during Trump's first term. A man from Sudan killed one person at a Tennessee church in 2017. 'The president claims that there is no way to vet these nationals, yet that is exactly what his consular officers and border officials have successfully done for decades,' Bier said. The man responsible for the ISIS-inspired truck bomb in New Orleans in January, Shamsud-Din Jabbar, was a Texas-born Army veteran and US citizen. The new travel ban also includes Afghanistan, which could jeopardize many Afghans related to those who aided the US during its war there, as Shawn VanDiver, president of the aid organization #AfghanEvac, told CNN's Jim Sciutto on Thursday. 'There are 12,000 people who have been separated through the actions of our government, who have been waiting for more than three and a half years,' he said. The Trump administration recently paused the processing of student visas, interrupting the plans of thousands of people to study in the US. In the Oval Office, Trump said he was not interested in banning students from China. 'It's our honor to have them, frankly, we want to have foreign students, but we want them to be checked,' Trump said, suggesting there will be even more strenuous background checks in the future. The existence of the travel ban list could also factor into tariff negotiations the Trump administration has taken on with nations across the world, as well as its effort to countries nations to take back migrants it wants to deport. 'It's about power and control and manipulating both the US population to suppress dissent as well as trying to manipulate foreign relations with these countries by getting them to do whatever he wants in order to get off the disfavored nation list,' Bier said.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Carmakers Use Stealth Price Hikes to Cope With Trump's Tariffs
(Bloomberg) — Car buyers racing to get ahead of President Donald Trump's tariffs face an uncomfortable truth — the trade war is already boosting US auto prices, often in ways nearly invisible to consumers. Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn The Global Struggle to Build Safer Cars The sticker price on a particular make and model may not have changed, at least not yet. But automakers have been quietly cutting rebates and limiting cheap financing deals, adding hundreds of dollars to buyers' monthly payments even as the companies say they're holding the line on pricing. Several have boosted delivery charges — a fee everyone must pay when buying a new vehicle — by $40 to $400 dollars, according to automotive researcher Inc. Some dealers, meanwhile, have decided to charge more for the cars already on their lots, knowing it will cost more to replace them. These stealth increases could help automakers cope with Trump's 25% levies on imported vehicles without risking his wrath, particularly once cars that landed in American ports after the tariffs were imposed finally start reaching showrooms this month. They'd all like to avoid the social-media fury he unleashed on Walmart Inc. (WMT) after the retail giant said the trade war had forced it to raise prices. But the auto industry's subtle price hikes are already having an effect. The average sale price for a new car jumped 2.5% in April, the steepest monthly increase in five years, according to the Kelley Blue Book car buying guide. The average reached $48,699, almost a record. Incentives, which once knocked 10% off the price, fell to 6.7%. Zero-percent financing deals — a key come-on in this age of high interest rates — dropped in April to their lowest rate since 2019, according to researcher Cox Automotive. And at some point, car buyers may balk. 'On the consumer side, they're seeing several thousand dollars of actual-experience price increase, whereas the factory is saying, 'No man, we didn't raise prices at all,'' said Morris Smith III, a Ford (F) dealer in Kansas. 'Stealth is a good word for it.' While the steps have helped car companies avoid outright price hikes until now, those are coming. Ford Motor Co. told dealers it will raise sticker prices as much as $2,000 on three models it builds in Mexico — the Maverick pickup, the Bronco Sport and the electric Mustang Mach-E. Japan's Subaru Corp. (FUJHY) is boosting prices $1,000 to $2,000 to help offset tariff costs, according to people familiar with the matter. Hyundai Motor Co. (HYMLF) is considering a 1% increase to the suggested retail price of every model in its lineup, a hike of at least several hundred dollars, Bloomberg reported last week. The Korean company also is likely to jack up shipping charges and fees for options such as floor mats and roof rails, which could turn off some inflation-weary consumers. Other automakers are hiking prices on their new 2026 models coming this summer and fall, but attributing the increases to the model-year changeover rather than tariffs. 'With a new product, having a higher price is not 'raising price' in the game of semantics,' said John Murphy, an analyst with Bank of America Corp. (BAC), at an event in Detroit Wednesday. 'So they don't really enrage certain folks that might come down on them for raising price.' All of these changes — the sticker price increases, reduced incentives and higher fees — will become more visible to car shoppers in the coming weeks. Since the 25% levies went into effect on April 3, dealers have been selling from a shrinking stockpile of pre-tariff cars. (There's an exemption for cars that comply with the terms of the US, Mexico and Canada free trade agreement, which only face an import tax on their non-American content.) That process is nearly done, and by late June, dealers will face the new reality of lots filled with cars that cost more to bring into the country. 'There's nothing they can do to prevent this from having an impact,' said Sean Tucker, editor of Kelley Blue Book. 'There's not a single cliff, but the date they run out of those pre-tariff cars, that's when you're going to see the most dramatic change.' Sales may suffer as a result. A recent survey from found that 65% of new car buyers would walk away if monthly payments rose just 5% in a market where car prices are already near historic highs. An Edmunds survey released Thursday found three-quarters of car buyers said tariffs would be a factor in their purchasing decisions. Shoppers are already not getting the deals that were commonplace just months ago. Take the Ford F-150 pickup, America's top-selling vehicle. Earlier this year, an F-150 could be had with a 1.9% interest rate on a 6-year loan, Smith, the Kansas dealer, said. Then, Ford only offered that rate for certain, higher-priced trim levels of the truck. Now, 1.9% financing is offered only on three-year loans, which are rare.'The dealers I'm talking to have every expectation that in the next 90 days to six months, there will be pretty significant price increases across the board,' Smith said, 'assuming something doesn't happen with the tariffs.' Some dealers are preparing for that day of reckoning by making as much money off their pre-tariff inventory as they can, charging over the sticker price. 'Dealers set final prices, and they're dealing with the knowledge that for every car they sell, it's going to cost them more to replace it than it used to,' Tucker said. Automakers might not just raise prices on the cars they import. They may choose to increase the costs of their more expensive, US-made models so the full weight of the tariffs doesn't fall on some of the cheaper vehicles they make overseas. General Motors Co. (GM), for example, imports more than 400,000 cars each year from its factories in South Korea, including the $20,500 Chevrolet Trax. 'GM doesn't necessarily have to raise the price of the Chevy Trax by 25% in order to pay a 25% tariff on the Chevy Trax, because those buyers are the most price-sensitive,' Tucker said. 'So maybe instead, you bump up the price of the Silverado pickup in order to pay the tariff on the Trax. But GM isn't going to put that on a window sticker.' Automakers may also drop the most affordable trims of their vehicles. Stellantis NV (STLA (STLA) decided to pause making the entry-level version of its electric muscle car, the Charger Daytona R/T, because of tariff risks, the company confirmed in May. The R/T, built at an assembly plant in Windsor, Canada, currently starts at $59,595, while the more powerful Scat Pack trim starts at $73,190. Cox forecasts tariffs could raise the price on imported cars by 10% to 15%, further exacerbating an affordability crisis. But those increases aren't likely to come in big chunks, instead phasing in slowly and quietly so as not to scare off customers, said Erin Keating, Cox's senior director of economics and industry insights. Still, some potential buyers will walk away. Domestic sales could fall from 16 million in 2024 to 15.6 million this year, according to Cox. The outlook from consumer analysis company J.D. Power is even bleaker, with tariffs predicted to cut US auto sales by about 1.1 million vehicles annually, or roughly 8%. Automakers are scaling back production in anticipation. More than a half-million fewer cars will be built in North America this year than in 2024, according to researcher AutoForecast Solutions. 'By enacting tariffs on Canadian and Mexican parts and vehicles, it slows the whole workings of this North American machine making vehicles,' said Sam Fiorani, AutoForecast's vice president of global vehicle forecasting. 'The vehicles that are being built will cost more, raising the price of vehicles and lowering the demand for them. It's all interconnected.' —With assistance from Chester Dawson. Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy Sign in to access your portfolio


Bloomberg
12 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Bessent Looks to Revamp Currency Monitoring After Damage Done
I'm Chris Anstey, an economics editor in Boston. Today we're looking at the US Treasury's semiannual foreign-exchange report. Send us feedback and tips to ecodaily@ And if you aren't yet signed up to receive this newsletter, you can do so here. The first US Treasury semiannual assessment of American trading partners' exchange-rate policies since Trump returned to the White House read, in substance, much the same as the last one under President Joe Biden.