'Science refugees': French university welcomes first US researchers
The programme has already drawn nearly 300 applicants from top institutions such as Stanford, NASA, and Berkeley.
The development comes as US universities have been threatened since Trump's return to the White House with massive federal funding cuts, causing research programmes to face closures.
Some staff also fear possible detention and deportation for their political views.
Advertisement
AMU - one of France's largest universities, with some 12,000 international students alone - is eager to provide a home for these scholars, with research funding for up to three years.
Historian Brian Sandberg said he decided to apply to the university in the southern Provence region on a return trip to the United States from France, when he feared he might face arrest at the border of his own country.
Though he was not detained, "it makes you think about what is your status as a researcher", said the academic from Illinois whose work focuses on religion, gender and violence.
Sandberg is now one of 20 scholars specialising in subjects ranging from health, climate science, astrophysics and the humanities set to relocate to France in September. There, they hope to pursue their research in what they see as a more open academic environment.
"The principle of academic freedom, as well as the entire system of research and higher education in the United States is really under attack," said Sandberg.
"If I stay in the United States, I can continue to teach, but as a researcher, for the next four years, we're stuck," he said, referring to Trump's term in office.
One academic who requested anonymity said Trump's policies directly threatened her work on gender and human-caused global warming.
"Apparently, one of the banned words... is 'female'," she said. "I don't know how you can get around speaking about females without using the word," she said.
Advertisement
In February, the Washington Post reported that the National Science Foundation was flagging research using terms such as "female" and "women" that could violate Trump's orders rolling back diversity initiatives.
But she said her decision to move to France went beyond her professional freedom.
"I've got kids, I don't want them to grow up in a very hostile area," she said.
AMU's programme is part of a broader push to cash in on US President Donald Trump's massive cuts in funding for education.
In May, France and the EU announced plans to attract US researchers in hopes of benefiting from the potential brain drain by supporting the costs of hosting foreign researchers.
Advertisement
French President Emmanuel Macron, who called the growing pressure on academia by Trump's administration "an error", has encouraged US scientists to "choose France".
He announced that his government would earmark €100 million to help attract foreign talent. French lawmakers have introduced a bill to create a special status for "science refugees".
European Commission head Ursula Von der Leyen has said the European Union will launch an incentives package worth €500 million to make the 27-nation bloc "a magnet for researchers".
For its part, AMU expects to welcome the other 12 American researchers in the coming months, with its budget of €15 million.
"Saving our American colleagues and welcoming them is also a way of welcoming and promoting global research," said the university's president Eric Berton.
"This is a science welcome programme, a science asylum programme. And above all, we want to enshrine the concept of science refugees in law," he added.
In recent years, France has already welcomed scholars forced into exile from Ukraine, Yemen, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
France 24
43 minutes ago
- France 24
Europe scrambles for response after Trump-Putin talks upend Ukraine ceasefire push
Europe France, Germany, and the UK are set to hold virtual talks on Sunday after the Trump-Putin summit derailed hopes for a Ukraine ceasefire. Trump, who had previously pushed for an immediate halt to fighting, has pivoted toward backing a broader peace agreement — raising alarms in Kyiv and European capitals. As Zelensky heads to Washington, EU powers are seeking to defend their role in the peace process. Follow our liveblog for the latest developments.
Euronews
2 hours ago
- Euronews
What is de-banking? How EU, US & UK banks screen their risky customers
Imagine logging into your bank account one morning and finding everything frozen—cards declined, standing orders stopped and your savings untouchable. No fraud alert, no bounced cheque. Just a brief message: 'We are closing your account. Please make alternative arrangements.' This is not a rare nightmare. Around the world, more people and businesses are being 'de-banked'—cut off from basic banking services. In the financial industry, the practice is called 'de-risking' or when banks sever ties with clients or even whole sectors to avoid regulatory or reputational risk. While it might sound like a niche compliance issue, in reality, it sits at the intersection of financial crime prevention, political rights, trade flows and everyday access to money—and the UK, US and EU are taking sharply different approaches to it. The US: Concerns over "woke capitalism"? Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at preventing banks from denying services based on political or religious beliefs. The order bans the use of 'reputational risk' as a justification for closing accounts and directs banking regulators to review practices within 180 days. Supporters say the move protects freedom of political expression and stops discrimination against conservatives, who claim they have been disproportionately targeted. Critics warn it could force banks to keep serving clients engaged in activities that create genuine financial crime or security risks. As with many issues Trump is passionate about, the topic of de-banking in the US was spurred by his personal experiences. He repeatedly accused JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America of refusing his business after his first term as president because of his and his supporters' conservative views. He claims JPMorgan gave him 20 days to close his account and that Bank of America refused a large deposit even though both banks have denied politically motivated action. Another high-profile case was that of the National Council for Religious Freedom (NCRF), an organization founded in 2022 that explicitly backs politicians who support combining politics with religion and vote against bills such as the Equality Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity and sexual orientation, "because it prohibits religious freedoms." Groups like these, especially if they rise to national prominence quickly and start depositing large sums into their accounts without providing sufficient background or donor transparency, can trigger automatic responses from banks worried about compliance with anti-money laundering regulation and are subject to enhanced monitoring. So when NCRF's accounts at JPMorgan Chase were suspended, it was probably not based on their clients political beliefs. Banks are profit-maximising institutions who aim to serve a wide yet reliable client base—drawing political attention to their work is the stuff of literal nightmares for them, especially banking behemoths like JPMorgan Chase. In a letter, the bank said the closure was due to incomplete compliance documentation—not religious or political reasons. Yet the NCRF used this decision to decry "woke capitalism" and launch a national campaign in the US to limit decisions, including reputational risk, and focus solely on quantifiable risks like credit, operational or compliance issues. The new executive order is cause for headaches for bankers. In practice, lenders may have to review thousands of past account closures, document decisions more extensively and possibly reinstate customers they previously cut off. The UK: Farage, Coutts and public outrage In Britain, the debate was turbo-charged by the 2023 Nigel Farage–Coutts affair. When the high-end bank closed the Brexit campaigner's account, internal documents later revealed the decision factored in his political views. The row became front-page news, prompting government promises to strengthen transparency. From a compliance and commercial standpoint, there are reasons why Coutts' decision may have been well within the norms of risk management. Farage's status as a politician makes him a Politically Exposed Person or PEP under anti–money laundering rules. UK banks are required to apply enhanced due diligence to PEPs, including detailed checks on sources of wealth, closer transaction monitoring and ongoing reassessment of any potential links to corruption or financial crime. That doesn't imply wrongdoing—but it does mean the account demands more resources and carries a higher regulatory burden. For a bank whose value proposition is built on discreet, low-risk relationships, this can tip the cost-benefit balance. Reports at the time suggested that Farage's account had fallen below Coutts' minimum financial thresholds for certain services. When a client no longer meets profitability benchmarks, but still demands high levels of compliance oversight and carries reputational sensitivities, a private bank has strong incentives to part ways. In that light, Coutts' choice looks less like a political purge and more like a calculated alignment of its client book with its risk appetite and commercial strategy. However, that was not the angle that dominated the headlines, and it ended up shaping de-risking and de-banking policy in a significant way in the UK. In 2024, complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service about account closures rose 44% to nearly 3,900, with a higher proportion upheld in favour of consumers. Meanwhile, over 140,000 business accounts were closed in 2023—raising concerns, especially for small businesses and non‑profits. Since then, UK banks must give customers at least 90 days notice before closure and provide more detail on why accounts are terminated. The conversation is still dominated by high-profile, politically sensitive cases—rather than the wider economic and trade implications of de-risking. The EU: Quiet, technical and high stakes By contrast, Brussels has treated de-risking as a long-standing, largely technical policy challenge. For years, EU institutions have issued guidance to safeguard financial inclusion while enforcing anti–money laundering and counter–terrorism financing (AML/CFT) rules. "European Banking Federation (EBF) member banks often find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place: they must comply with stringent AML/CFT requirements—they are required to end relationships with their riskiest clients—yet they are requested to ensure access to basic banking services for legitimate customers," the European Banking Federation told Euronews in a statement. "Hence their de-risking decisions should remain proportionate and risk-based, not indiscriminate bans on entire countries or customer groups," they continued. According to the EBF, most banks in Europe focus on individual, case-by-case de-risking and pay particular attention to 'red flags'. For example, situations where a customer's identity cannot be verified using secure, government-approved ID checks, or any transaction in which they cannot confidently confirm who the person or company really are or who the "beneficial owner" is. For member banks, it is a matter of weighing whether the risks can be reduced enough to comply with regulations and protect the bank's reputation, and whether managing that risk would require more time, money, and effort than the account is ultimately worth. "In the EU, de-risking is increasingly recognised as a significant consumer issue, though it is neither a new concern nor one that fully mirrors the priorities of the Trump Administration," the EBF statement continues. "For years, EU institutions—most notably the European Banking Authority—have issued guidance aimed at safeguarding financial inclusion and ensuring that legitimate customers are not unfairly excluded from the banking system."
France 24
5 hours ago
- France 24
Trump gives Putin 'peace letter' from wife Melania
The first lady's office on Saturday reposted a Fox News article on X containing the short letter, a day after Trump and Putin failed to find a breakthrough at their high-stakes meeting. Putin read the "peace letter" immediately after Trump handed it to him, while delegations from both sides looked on, according to Fox News. "In today's world, some children are forced to carry a quiet laughter, untouched by the darkness around them," read the letter, which was signed by the first lady and did not mention Ukraine by name. "Mr Putin, you can singlehandedly restore their melodic laughter," it added. "In protecting the innocence of these children, you will do more than serve Russia alone -- you serve humanity itself." "Such a bold idea transcends all human division, and you, Mr Putin, are fit to implement this vision with a stroke of the pen today," the letter read. "It is time." In July, the US president had said that his wife, who was born in Slovenia, had helped change his thinking about Putin. "I go home, I tell the first lady, 'you know, I spoke to Vladimir today, we had a wonderful conversation,'" Trump said. "And she said, 'Oh really? Another city was just hit.'" Trump attempted a rapprochement with Putin shortly after starting his second term, having campaigned on a pledge to end the Ukraine war within 24 hours. During the early months of his new term, he largely directed anger at Ukraine for the lack of a deal, but gradually began expressing frustration that Putin continued his attacks on Ukraine. Before the summit in Alaska, Trump had warned of "severe consequences" if Russia did not accept a ceasefire. However after meeting with Putin, Trump dropped his demand for a ceasefire, saying the best way to end the war "is to go directly to a peace agreement." Putin has long argued for negotiations on a final peace deal -- a strategy that Ukraine and its European allies have criticized as a way to buy time and press Russia's battlefield advances.
