logo
Trump's War on Education Is Driving Academics Like Me Abroad

Trump's War on Education Is Driving Academics Like Me Abroad

On a recent flight back to the U.S., I wondered if I would be stopped at passport control. It was at this moment when I thought it may be time to consider leaving America.
I was returning from Marseille, France after participating in a workshop in March that I co-organized at the Iméra research institute on climate change and religious conflict during the Little Ice Age. The topic is now effectively banned from federal funding after the Trump Administration stripped support for scientific research that mentions the word 'climate,' amid a broader purge of 'woke' keywords in the federal government.
Iméra leaders had asked me to attend a meeting with university administrators and government ministers on the broad crisis in research and provide an American perspective. The event was much bigger than I had imagined, and there was a press conference, where I shared my criticisms of the Trump Administration's assault on research and higher education.
For months, I have watched coordinated attacks on the National Endowment for the Humanities, Smithsonian Institution, Institute for Museum and Library Services, Fulbright Program, Woodrow Wilson Institute, U.S. Institute of Peace, Kennedy Center, USAID, Department of Education, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and other federal agencies that support academic research and education.
Read More: Inside the Chaos of Trump's Foreign-Aid Freeze
I personally know many colleagues and former students who have had research funds and grants frozen or terminated, while others have lost jobs or contracts. Academic grant competitions and peer review processes are being politicized and disrupted, effectively censoring the types of research that can be pursued. When politicians—rather than professionals—can select which types of research can be funded and how that money can be spent based on their own preferences, the entire pursuit of knowledge is corrupted.
So when Aix-Marseille Université (amU) decided to launch a 'Safe Place for Science' program, I became one of the 298 researchers who applied. After all, I was already due to spend one year there as a visiting professor, and the initiative promises three years of research funding. The university has invested €15 million for the program and is lobbying the French government to match that amount, so it can double its planned hires to 39 people.
The program comes amid a wider European push to attract American and international researchers who are based in the U.S. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has unveiled a €500 million program to make the continent a 'safe haven' for researchers, and France has committed another €100 million.
There is certainly interest state-side, as the surge in applicants for amU's program showed. Data analyzed by Nature also found that the number of applicants in the U.S. looking for jobs in Canada has climbed by 41%, in Europe by 32%, and in China by 20% compared to a year earlier. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has even called the Trump Administration's attacks on research a 'once-in-a-century brain gain opportunity.'
It's a stunning development, considering that the U.S. has long been a place of refuge for researchers and academics. In 1933, when Adolf Hitler consolidated power in Germany, leading scientists such as Albert Einstein fled the country. Later, during the Second World War, other intellectuals and artists fled occupied Europe, including Hannah Arendt, who notably escaped through Marseille with the help of American journalist Varian Fry.
Ever since, American research universities and laboratories have relied on an open system of international recruitment of the best and brightest from across the globe. The federal government has supported the development of this system by providing visas for faculty and students, as well as billions in funding through competitive, peer reviewed grants.
Read More: The Trump Administration Is Pausing Student Visa Interviews at Embassies
That approach helped turn the U.S. system of higher education into a model of excellence for the entire world.
These research universities have been informally linked with a broader network of regional state universities and small private colleges that often provide higher education to the public at relatively low cost for middle- and working-class Americans. The GI Bill of 1944, the expansion of regional state universities in the 1960s, and the evolution of community colleges since the 1970s have dramatically boosted access to higher education, becoming a key form of upward social mobility for millions of Americans.
These institutions have also served as a key plank in the civil rights movement and other forms of protest, meaning an assault on them will undermine free speech and assembly, as well as other democratic principles.
For now, I am on the shortlist at amU's 'Safe Place for Science.' Whether I am ultimately selected for a position or not, I foresee conducting research collaborations with French academics with French or E.U. funding in the coming years, considering that the entire U.S. sector has been thrown into disarray.
Packing up and relocating to France, or any other country, will be an adjustment. But it is clear that an era of U.S. brain drain is beginning, as researchers and scientists seek opportunities in places where academic freedom and research are still valued.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Epstein's ghost is haunting Trump, and America's enemies could summon more
Epstein's ghost is haunting Trump, and America's enemies could summon more

The Hill

time10 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Epstein's ghost is haunting Trump, and America's enemies could summon more

It's the irony of all ironies: How could President Trump put his credibility on the line with his hard core MAGA supporters over Jeffrey Epstein? Trump has survived a felony conviction and was twice impeached and acquitted. He was found liable by a judge of sexual assault, owes potentially millions of dollars in libel suits for his actions and avoided possible prosecution and considerable jail time for gross mishandling of highly classified material. None of these mishaps prevented Trump from being reelected as America's 47th president. Yet, despite this graphic history, Trump is now threatened by the ghost of a convicted sexual predator. How can this be? As Epstein's attorney Alan Dershowitz wrote in the Wall Street Journal on July 16, Trump was free and clear of any and all entanglements with his client. And it was reported that Trump had once barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago. Extreme elements of his MAGA constituency have turned against Trump. For what seem to be irrational reasons, they have accused the president of a cover-up and lying about not providing full transparency on the Epstein saga and releasing the so-called 'client's list' that Dershowitz asserted was nonexistent. Conspiracy theories sprouted like mushrooms: for example, that Trump was obviously hiding his relationship with Epstein or protecting others in his administration and circle of friends from the Epstein stain. Shrill calls reverberated through Washington's political gasosphere for Attorney General Pam Bondi to resign over this failure to release the Epstein files. Having bragged that he could shoot someone dead on Park Avenue and be absolved, it is incredible that Trump could be attacked by his MAGA allies on such an extraordinarily trivial matter, given the magnitude of obstacles he has previously faced and overcome. Worse, so far, the explanations of why part of his base is incensed make little sense. That Trump has somehow now become part of the 'deep state' that he vowed to eliminate is nonsensical. Promising to release all 'any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony' on Epstein (and, for that matter, JFK's assassination) and not following through has been part of Trump's lifelong pattern of deception and disinformation, if not outright lying. It is quite possible — again, quoting Dershowitz — that there simply was no there there regarding the Epstein files, and that Trump simply exaggerated or distorted that possibility to play to his base. Then he got caught. And now Trump is lashing out against this base. Whether this is a minor tempest and will dissipate soon or has tsunami-like consequences remains to be seen. Why has this brouhaha over Epstein been so explosive? Is this the state of American politics today when a leader's credibility among his followers fractures over literally nothing, as occasionally happens in marriages? Has Trump violated some mythical bond or unspoken oath with this base? Or is the MAGA movement's instability or irrationality causing such a backlash? The timing is not helpful to Trump. In the midst of what could be a major global tariff war, the conflict in Gaza still blazing and Vladimir Putin given 50 days to put up or shut up on a cease-fire and peace negotiation in Ukraine, how do these outside players react? Do all or many shake their heads believing that this is simply the vulgarity of U.S. politics and ignore this display? Or do others, probably in Beijing and Moscow, see this as a fatal weakness in American culture and society to be exploited? Despite Trump's refusal to believe Russia interfered on his behalf in the 2016 election, make no mistake: Chinese and Russian, as well as other intelligence services, are exploring how these flaws and cracks in American politics can be exploited. For example, assuming that ex-KGB officer Putin wanted to alter the 2016 election, imagine how he could have exploited the so-called Steele dossier that alleged Trump's sexual misconduct in Moscow. The internet would have been filled with torrid stories and deep fake shots of Trump in compromising positions. With AI and other technical means, identifying seemingly minor issues that could have otherwise profound political consequences would not be difficult for an adversary or for anyone wishing to meddle in politics. This happened during Brexit. With social media as a force multiplier, it is easy to see how political fractures could be generated. As a thought experiment, suppose the resurrection of Epstein's ghost originated in a certain building in the Kremlin or inside Beijing's Forbidden City. That, I am sure, did not happen. But it could. Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at Washington, D.C.'s Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are authors of a forthcoming book on preventing strategic catastrophe.

Judge weighs reality of Trump ‘ideological' deportation policy as activists crackdown trial ends
Judge weighs reality of Trump ‘ideological' deportation policy as activists crackdown trial ends

The Hill

time10 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Judge weighs reality of Trump ‘ideological' deportation policy as activists crackdown trial ends

A federal judge on Monday questioned the true nature of the Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists during closing arguments of a bench trial over the controversial arrests. U.S. District Judge William Young, an appointee of former President Reagan, must determine whether the so-called 'ideological deportation policy' exists, such that the administration singled out campus activists critical of Israel's war in Gaza unlawfully. The plaintiffs, who make up several university associations, argued that the administration's policy is to revoke the visas and green cards of noncitizens based on their pro-Palestinian advocacy in aim of chilling speech. 'It is stifling dissent, your honor,' said Alexandra Conlon, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. 'That's the goal.' But the Justice Department called the suggestion 'silly,' contending that the trial evidence demonstrated no such policy exists. 'This policy is a product of the imagination and creative conjuring of the plaintiffs,' said DOJ lawyer William Kanellis. The arguments cap a roughly two-week trial over the crackdown, namely the arrests of and efforts to deport foreign-born students and faculty members linked to campus demonstrations. It was the first major trial of President Trump's second administration. Across several days, green card-holding professors at U.S. universities took the stand to testify that the high-profile arrests of outspoken students, like former Columbia University pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk, made them fearful and stifled their speech. On Monday, Conlon argued that was the administration's goal. She referenced statements made by Trump and other officials lauding the arrests and said they were 'designed to terrorize' those who share the views of those who were arrested. She also pointed to testimony from a senior Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), official that 'most' names his team was directed to investigate in March came from Canary Mission, a pro-Israel online blacklist that is anonymously run. The site has been accused of doxxing people protesting Israel's war with Palestinian militant group Hamas but describes its mission as documenting individuals and organizations 'that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews on North American college campuses and beyond.' Conlon called the group 'extremist.' 'The fact that's the pool of people the government started with shows you what the point of this policy was,' she said. Young questioned whether the trial evidence showed Canary Mission is 'extremist' and said it seems 'perfectly appropriate' for the government to take leads from any source, noting that leads frequently come from a 'wrongdoer' or 'rival gang.' But Conlon said those leads relate to alleged lawbreaking, where here, the leads amount only to criticism of Israel or the U.S. 'That's how you end up with someone like Ms. Ozturk being described as pro-Hamas,' she added, a reference to the student's arrest being publicly linked only to an op-ed urging her university's divestment from Israel. Secretary of State Marco Rubio deemed several of the campus demonstrators threats to the nation's foreign policy, invoking a statute that makes deportable any noncitizen whose 'presence and activities in the United States' is thought to have 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.' In a memo explaining the apparent threat posed by Khalil, Rubio cited the student's beliefs as justification for his deportation. Young later expressed having 'trouble' with the apparent policy. Without making any formal findings, he said it seems to him that the new administration is implementing new foreign policy within the existing legal framework – efforts that fall squarely within executive powers. The Justice Department argued that's exactly right. Ethan Kanter, another DOJ lawyer, said that noncitizens do not have equivalent rights under the First Amendment. The nature of those rights are 'context dependent' and tied to 'competing government interests in play.' 'That is what these cases demonstrate,' Kanter said, though noting that the judge does not have to rule on that matter to decide the case in the government's favor. Young zeroed in on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)'s use of masks as a cause of concern, saying he's not aware of any other law enforcement agencies in the U.S. that allow the practice. He signaled disbelief in the government's contention that the agents were protecting their identities, instead suggesting that the 'common sense' interpretation might be that their objective is to 'spread fear.' 'Perhaps they're afraid what they're being called upon to do is of concern,' the judge said. Kanter rejected that notion, asserting that those decisions came down to the 'judgment, experience and operational needs' of individual agents. Kanellis, the other DOJ lawyer, compared the plaintiffs' case to the fictional Don Quixote's fight with windmills. In the story, Quixote sees windmills and believes they are giants. He's flung off his horse while riding to 'fight' them and does not believe his squire who notes they are windmills, not giants, insisting they were changed. 'Plaintiffs in this case imagine lawful standards amount to some grand government conspiracy,' Kanellis said, adding the challengers have been 'knocked off their horse.' But Young said another historical reference better befits the case. He described King Henry II of England asking his court to rid him of a 'troublesome priest.' Two knights went out to 'hack down' the bishop. The president, Young said, has likewise raised various concerns about campus protests. 'He doesn't have errant knights, but he's got Stephen Miller,' the judge said, referencing the top White House adviser. Young said he will issue a written ruling deciding the case but gave no indication of when it can be expected.

Commanders, Guardians name changes were years in the making: Timeline of key events
Commanders, Guardians name changes were years in the making: Timeline of key events

USA Today

time10 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Commanders, Guardians name changes were years in the making: Timeline of key events

While the Washington Commanders and Cleveland Guardians have held their current names for a few years now, the teams and their past mascots – the Redskins and Indians, respectively – were thrown back into national conversation by President Donald Trump over the weekend. Trump said in a social media post on July 20 that the Guardians and the Commanders, each playing their fourth season under their new names in 2025, should revert back to their old names. "The Washington 'Whatever's' should IMMEDIATELY change their name back to the Washington Redskins Football Team. There is a big clamoring for this. Likewise, the Cleveland Indians, one of the six original baseball teams, with a storied past. Our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen," Trump's post on Truth Social said. "Their heritage and prestige is systematically being taken away from them. Times are different now than they were three or four years ago. We are a Country of passion and common sense. OWNERS, GET IT DONE!!!" Trump concluded. Later Sunday afternoon, July 20, Trump threatened to restrict the Commanders from building on the old RFK Stadium site if the franchise doesn't change its name. "I may put a restriction on them that if they don't change the name back to the original 'Washington (name),' and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, 'Washington Commanders,' I won't make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington," Trump posted. The president's most recent comments come after he previously said on social media in October 2013 that the president should not be telling the Redskins to change their name, because our country has "far bigger problems." Here's a timeline of each franchise's name changes. Timeline of Washington Commanders name change Here's a timeline of key events in the evolution of the Washington Redskins to the Washington Commanders. Timeline of Cleveland Guardians name change Here's a timeline of key events in the evolution of the Cleveland Indians to the Cleveland Guardians. In a meeting with reporters Sunday, July 20, Guardians' president of baseball operations Chris Antonetti said that he was unaware of Trump's statements prior to the meeting and that changing the name back to the "Indians" was "not something [he has been] tracking or [has] been paying a lot of attention to." "We've gotten the opportunity to build the brand as the Guardians over the last four years and are excited about the future," said Antonetti. Antonetti did not provide any indication that the team plans on reverting to its former name. Contributing: Jon Hoefling, Nate Davis & Ayrton Ostly, USA TODAY Gabe Hauari is a national trending news reporter at USA TODAY. You can follow him on X @GabeHauari or email him at Gdhauari@

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store