top of page
Search

Stalled Progress, Stalled Country: the America First Agenda Harming America’s Domestic Economy and Global Reputation for Research and Innovation

Updated: Nov 27

Written by Lillian Schar, MSc Gender, Policy and Inequalities


Sharp policy changes have become a hallmark of Donald Trump’s second presidential term under the “America First Agenda.” Among the policies are unprecedented funding cuts to medical and scientific research, challenging the United States’s global reputation ① for research and development. Consequently, the American scientific community must look elsewhere for funds. The backbone of U.S. innovation is increasingly looking abroad to countries such as Canada ②, China ③ and countries in Europe ④ as these nations seek to gain from the American “brain drain” ⑤. The irony is that Trump’s America First policy agenda ⑥, intended to strengthen the domestic economy and U.S. nationalism, is weakening America’s position as a global leader in research and development. The term ‘brain drain’ was historically used to describe the outflow of European scientists to the U.S. in the mid-20th century, but today the tide is turning as America experiences an exodus of scientists to other countries As federal support for research withers, the unfurling brain drain threatens the country’s scientific progress and global influence ⑦.   


Policy Landscape 

 

Like other policies implemented under the America First agenda, cuts to scientific research and education are widespread. The Trump administration imposed new budgetary freezes  ⑧ across several federal agencies, including the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Over 4500 NIH grants ⑨ are currently frozen or terminated, according to Grant Witness grant tracker. Beyond federal agencies, educational institutions that receive funding through agencies like NIH and NSF for scientific and medical research are also suffering. The Trump administration targeted Columbia University, saying the university “fundamentally failed to protect American students and faculty from antisemitic violence and harassment.” ⑩ The administration initially froze approximately $700 million ⑪  in total grant funding from the NIH, leaving clinical trials in Alzheimer’s and cancer therapeutics ⑫ in limbo, and continued to withhold those funds until the university capitulated to several of the administration’s demands. Even after settling with the administration, Columbia’s research prospects, including studies surrounding maternal health, HIV, diabetes and obesity, and cancers, remain uncertain ⑬ as research endeavors must now remain aligned with the administration’s agenda. 

 

Despite the importance of such studies and research initiatives research funding and grants are painted as “frivolous” and “wasteful” under the America First agenda ⑭. Programs supporting local and international collaboration and community, environmental science, and global health are depicted as a profligate use of American taxpayer dollars. Meanwhile, as the U.S. withdraws major contributions to research universities, hospitals, and laboratories, other nations are seizing the moment as an opportunity. Both the European Union ⑤ and Canada ③ announced targeted programs ⑮ to attract displaced American researchers and are streamlining visa and grant application ⑯ processes. Countries are now framing their actions and attitudes towards these researchers as humanitarian intervention for stranded scientists, rather than pure gain for the innovation economy of the nation receiving new researchers, fueling economic growth and production.  

 

 

Domestic Fallout 

 

The domestic fallout from these cuts extends beyond the walls of any laboratory or university classroom. The U.S. innovation economy, long powered by scientific discovery and technological entrepreneurship, is already showing signs of strain. High-tech industries and biotech startups ⑰, many of which rely heavily on NIH and NSF seed grants, are reporting slowed growth and hiring freezes ⑱. The reduction in federal support for early-stage research has a domino effect for the domestic economy: fewer funded studies mean fewer discoveries that can be commercialized, leading to a declining number of startups and high-paying jobs in the science and technology sectors ⑲. 

 

In health and medicine, the consequences are even more acute. Clinical trials ⑳ for new vaccines, therapies, and medical devices are either delayed or outright terminated. Furthermore, projects studying emerging diseases, long COVID-19 ㉑, and antibiotic resistance ㉒ are being deprioritized. Cuts to disability and medical research programs are also likely to disproportionately harm marginalized and vulnerable communities ㉓, particularly communities that depend the most on federally funded innovation for access to new treatment and healthcare. Beyond administrative and capacity tolls within the research community, there is a palpable psychological toll ㉔. Scientists are calling the research landscape “devastating” and “a nightmare,” ㉕ and early-career researchers ⑲ are questioning whether a future in American science is still viable. 

 

International Consequences and the ‘Brain Gain’ 

 

The decline in U.S. research funding is a domestic and international concern for global science. For decades, the U.S. led international coalitions ㉖ on pandemic preparedness, climate research, and biomedical collaboration. Today, those coalitions are fracturing as the U.S. is replaced by nations, including those in the European Union and Canada ㉗, who are positioning themselves as new havens for scientific freedom ㉘. For example, Germany publicized its desire ㉙ to attract displaced U.S. researchers and is considering allocating part of its infrastructure and climate budget ⑤ in pursuit of this goal. The Netherlands ㉚ also announced a supplementary budget to increase funding for the recruitment of researchers from the U.S., and Canada is attempting to frame recruitment efforts as an opportunity for the country to strengthen its own reputation as a “medical and scientific powerhouse ” ③. 

 

The international shift carries political undertones. The suppression of scientific inquiry through budgetary attrition and ideological interference is increasingly viewed as a part of a broader pattern of democratic backsliding ㉛. By eschewing evidence-based policymaking, the U.S. undermines its credibility as a leader in science and democracy. In international research networks, America First is effectively America Alone.  

 

European institutions 


report surging interest from American researchers seeking positions abroad, and the European Union is launching simplified visa pathways for foreign scientists and expanded eligibility ⑤ for European Research Council grants. Within North America, the phenomenon is even more visible. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ㉝ and the Canadian Medical Association ㉞ both report sharp increases in inquiries from U.S. physicians seekingto relocate. Canada’s medical associations termed the phenomenon a ‘brain gain.’ However, Canada’s well-funded research ecosystem is limited; officials acknowledge they cannot absorb all the displaced talent ㉟ that is leaving the U.S. and putting funds towards incoming U.S. researchers can also mean cutting funds from existing Canadian research projects. Nonetheless, the exodus of U.S. scientists is both a symptom and signal of declining confidence in America’s reputation for scientific excellence that may prove to be one of the enduring legacies of America First. 

 

Domestic Pushback and Resistance 

 

Despite the grim outlook for the future of American research, there are institutional and grassroots efforts to resist this deterioration. Universities, medical centers, and research associations ㊱ have launched coordinated lobbying efforts urging Congress to restore stable funding for science. In response to these efforts, the Senate Committee on Appropriations passed a draft bill in July that approved a $47.2 billion budget ㊲ for the NIH, rejecting the Trump administration’s plan to decimate the national budget for biomedical research across agencies. But, with the government shutdown, the national budget remains neglected. 

 

At the state level, some governments are trying to fill the gap. California ㊳ and Massachusetts ㊴, both longstanding research hubs, expanded local grant programs and incentivized philanthropic investment in university research. Charities, like the Gates Foundation, are attempting to help bridge federal shortfalls by investing more in social and environmental research ㊵. However, even the Gates Foundation admits that they cannot fill the entirety of the hole left by the Trump administration, and the federal government needs to “step up.” ㊶ In addition to government-focused efforts, scientists are taking matters into their own hands through initiatives like Science Homecoming ㊷. Science Homecoming is a project that urges scientists to contact local newspapers in communities where their research would make the most impact and make the case for why these communities should care about federal funding cuts. The Science Homecoming website ㊸ also displays a map of the U.S. depicting where scientists successfully published editorials and op-eds. The site is meant to be a resource for researchers hoping to publicize the impact of federal funding cuts on their own projects and spread the word of the impact to smaller communities.   

 

Conclusion: America at a Crossroads 

 

The U.S. faces a crossroads that will define its future as a superpower for innovation. The loss of talent, credibility, and institutional continuity unfolding today could take decades to 


repair. Even if funding is fully restored to agencies, universities, and research associations, the loss of the best minds to other nations means rebuilding the intellectual capital within the U.S. is not guaranteed. Restoring U.S. leadership in research and development will require a fundamental recommitment to evidence-based policymaking operating under theories that promote the principles of collaboration for the public good. It also requires rebuilding trust between researchers and the federal government, which was eroded by political interference and fiscal neglect. If America First policies continue to cut off the sources of intellectual vitality and progress, the U.S. risks a future defined by obsolescence instead of innovation.  

 

Sources  

 

①  Neera Tanden, Ryan Mullholland, Adam Conner, « Attacks on the U.S. Innovation Ecosystem Are an Attack on a Wellspring of American Prosperity », Center For American Progress, 17 July 2025 

 

② Charles Grant, « Donald Trump’s Return to Office: Ten Consequences », Centre for European Reform, 28 March 2025 

 

 

④ Simone McCarthy, Joyce Jiang, and Yong Xiong, « In the race to attract the world’s smartest minds, China is gaining on the US », CNN World, 29 September 2025 

 

⑤ Bette Browne, « Europe courts US Scientists amid research cuts», Medical Independent, 13 July 2025 

 

⑥ John Kampfner, « The US brain drain has begun », Politico, 9 April 2025 

 

⑦ The White House, « America First Investment Policy », 21 February 2025 

 

⑧ Michael Feuer, « The end of the endless frontier? A warning on research cuts », Brookings Institute, 24 July 2025 

 

⑨ Donald J. Trump (Executive Order), « Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking », The White House, 7 August 2025 

 

⑩ « NIH Grant Terminations in 2025 », Airtable Grant Tracker 

 

 

 

 

⑭ The White House, « Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Stops Wasteful Grantmaking », 7 August 2025 

 

 

 

 

⑱ Fred D. Burkhardt « Biotech in a squeeze: Cuts to Research Are Reshaping the Industry », Trade & Industry Development, 25 September 2025 

 

⑲ Rachel Nuwer « U.S. Budget Cuts Are Robbing Early-Career Scientists of Their Future », Scientific American, 3 July 2025 

 

⑳ Irena Hwang, Jon Huang, Emily Anthes, Blacki Migliozzi, and Benjamin Mueller « The Disappearing Funds for Chronic Diseases », The New York Times, 4 June 2025 

 

㉑ Priya Venkatesan « US Government cuts funding for long COVID research », The Lancet, October 2025 

 

㉒ Jocelyn Kaiser « NIH’s key vaccine center slammed by contract cuts », Science, 10 May 2025 

 

㉓ Mia Ives-Rublee and Casey Doherty « The Trump Administration’s War on Disability », Center for American Progress, 28 July 2025 

 

㉔ Hannah Harris Green « ‘Impossible to rebuild’: NIH scientists say Trump cuts will imperil life-saving research », The Guardian, 7 August 2025 

 

 

㉖ Steve Wandiga, Leonard Ntakarutimana, and Fabian Mashauri « Global Health on the Brink: The United States Withdrawal from WHO, Paris Climate Accord, and the 90-Day Freeze on Foreign Assistance: Implications and Strategies for Action», The East African Health Research Journal, 30 January 2025 


 

㉘ « Trump is driving American scientists into Europe’s arms », The Economist, 27 March 2025 

 

㉙ Aitor Hernandez-Morales, Giedre Peseckyte, and Pieter Haeck « Europe to burned American scientists: We’ll take you in », Politico, 4 April 2025 

 

㉚ Hoger Onderwijs Persbureau « 25 million to attract threatened top scientists to the Netherlands », Erasmus Magazine, 25 April 2025 

 

㉛ McKenzie Carrier and Thomas Carothers « U.S. Democratic Backsliding in Comparative Perspective », Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 25 August 2025 

 

 

 

 

㉟ Avis Favaro « Canada’s brain gain: A scientific migration amid U.S. turmoil », CTV News, 19 October 2025 

 

 

㊲ Jocelyn Kaiser « With boost to NIH budget, Senate panel rejects Trump’s plan to slash agency », Science, 31 July 2025 

 

㊳ Shawn Hubler and Alan Blinder « California’s $23 Billion Plan to Restore Federal Cuts to Scientific Research », The New York Times, 13 September 2025 

 

㊴ Greg Ryan « Massachusetts Effort to Offset Trump’s Research Cuts Stall », Financial Post, 7 October 2025 

 

㊵ « Bill Gates’ Philanthropic Urgency: a catalyst for ESG », Charles Russell Speechlys, 2 July 2025 

 

㊶ Jennifer Rigby « Bill Gates pledges $912 million to global disease fight, urges governments to step up », Reuters, 23 September 2025 

 

㊷ Benjamin Plackett « How we’re battling Trump’s science cuts across small-town America », Nature, 23 April 2025 

 

㊸ « Science Homecoming », March 2025 

 

 

Comments

LSESU Think Tank | Best New Society 2024

bottom of page