LONDON — Thought writing a 10,000-word dissertation was tricky? Try managing Britain’s embattled university sector.  As students pack their bags, sort their kitchenware and prepare for the time of their lives at campuses across the U.K., university officials face the headache of keeping their struggling institutions economically viable — all while politicians take potshots at them. “The underlying financial settlement for universities is not really sustainable,” warned Universities UK International Director Jamie Arrowsmith, an organization representing 141 universities.  International students provide significant income to the sector by paying considerably higher tuition fees than domestic students. However, Labour’s bid to slash migration levels means international students are in the firing line. It’s a stark contrast from Tony Blair’s New Labour government in the 2000s, which was “actively encouraging the growth of the international student population,” according to Labour peer and former Universities Minister Margaret Hodge. She recalled writing to Blair espousing how this expansion would increase the U.K.’s soft power: “If you wanted to create good diplomatic connections and promote peace across the world, those student relationships paid off fantastically.” A string of policy changes has left institutions searching elsewhere for cash, as Prime Minister Keir Starmer focuses on disadvantaged British youngsters. A white paper due this fall will outline specific higher education reforms, including calls for universities to contribute more to economic growth. The sector warns it could all be undermined if the government keeps discouraging overseas students from coming to Britain. PULLING UP THE LADDER  Britain’s universities have an enviable reputation. The QS World University Rankings in June put 17 U.K. universities in the top 100, while a London Economics report calculated higher education contributed more than £265 billion in the 2021/22 academic year. It’s little wonder students across the globe want to study here. Anxious about populist parties like Reform UK, Tory and Labour governments have seen fewer foreign students as a way to get numbers down. | Richard Baker / In Pictures via Getty Images But while international students starting in 2021/22 brought net economic benefits of £37.4 billion, they’re also counted in immigration figures — and that’s a headache for the government. Anxious about populist parties like Reform UK, Tory and Labour administration have seen fewer foreign students as a way to get numbers down.  They were banned from bringing family members on all but post-graduate research routes back in January 2024. That decision by then-Conservative PM Rishi Sunak followed 135,788 visas being granted to dependents of foreign students in 2022, nearly nine times the 2019 figure. Arrowsmith said he understood why the policy was introduced, but warned it had hit “the U.K.’s attractiveness” to prospective foreign students, particularly when “other countries have had more open and welcoming policies over the last three to four years.” Home Office figures in October 2024 showed the effect — with an 89 percent drop in visa applications for dependents between July to September 2023 and the same period in 2024. Tory peer and former Universities Minister, David Willetts, said he understood concerns about dependents, but thought it should be made clearer to voters that students are only temporary migrants. “My constituents, when I was an MP, who worried about migration, were worried about [people] coming to Britain to settle, to use the NHS,” he said. “They weren’t worried about a Chinese student doing physics for a couple of years.” Fellow Tory peer and former Universities Minister Jo Johnson concurred, saying people were more concerned with illegal immigration. “They’re a very special category of immigration that’s more akin to tourism or temporary visitors.”  Now, Labour is wearing Conservative clothing.  The Home Office marked the new academic term this week by directly contacting tens of thousands of foreign students, warning them not to outstay their visas and telling them they “must leave”  if they have “no legal right to remain.”  The immigration white paper published this May also planned to reduce the graduate visa — where international students can remain in the U.K. after finishing their qualification — from two years to 18 months in most cases. Ministers have also mooted a levy on fees universities receive from foreign students to reinvest in domestic training. A graduation student sits outside Senate House at Cambridge University. | Joe Giddens/PA Images via Getty Images Johnson, however, said the Treasury didn’t like raising money for a specific purpose, meaning the Department for Education “may be being rather optimistic” in assuming revenue would go towards skills.  Hodge was similarly sceptical: “If it were linked to encouraging international students, but recognizing there might be a cost to public services, I think I’d feel more comfortable,” she said. “At the moment, I’m not sure that it’s anything else other than raising more money.” The moves have also upset the main higher education union. “Unfortunately, the government remains wedded to a funding model that leaves international students propping up U.K. higher education,” said University and College Union (UCU) General Secretary Jo Grady in a statement to POLITICO. She added: “Their fees are essential to the financial stability of the sector, so it is economically illiterate that Labour has refused to lift the Tories’ visa restrictions.”  STRAPPED FOR CASH Though Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson insisted the government will “always welcome international students where they meet the requirements to study,” some have taken the hint — and given the U.K. a pass.  In 2023/24, 732,285 overseas students studied at U.K. higher education providers, a 4 percent drop from the 2022/23 record high and the first fall since 2012/13. The number of student visas granted also fell from its record in 2022 of 484,000 by 5 percent in 2023 and 14 percent in 2024. The drop-off was particularly acute among EU students. After Brexit, European students weren’t eligible for home student status, meaning they paid international fees and couldn’t acquire a student loan.  This led to a 50 percent drop in accepted applicants for U.K. undergraduate study from EU countries in 2021/22, which continued to fall the following two years.  Universities still need to pay their bills.  In 2022/23, U.K. higher education providers had an income of £50 billion, of which 52 percent came from tuition fees — international students paid 43 percent of that figure.  The decline “has … been increasingly difficult,” said Arrowsmith, stressing “one of the main sources of funding that was helping to mitigate the reduction in resource is … no longer quite as stable.”  Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson insisted the government will “always welcome international students where they meet the requirements to study.” | Andy Rain/EPA While international fees rose without any cap, domestic tuition fees were frozen from 2017 until this fall at £9,250. Despite rising to £9,535, the hike in employers’ national insurance contributions hampered extra savings — forcing universities to tighten their purse strings. A Universities UK survey of 60 institutions in May found 49 percent closed courses to reduce costs, up from 24 percent in spring 2024. In the same month, the Office for Students, which regulates higher education, forecast a third consecutive year of financial decline in 2024/25.  “Inflation has been particularly high,” argued Arrowsmith, “That really exacerbated the situation,” particularly when there were “increased expectations” on academic research. It’s little surprise the House of Commons’ Education Committee is investigating potential insolvency within higher education institutions.  The Department for Education reiterated that the independence of universities meant they must ensure sustainable business models. But Willetts and Hodge disagreed on whether increasing domestic fees would improve the situation. Willetts “would love to see a healthy, proper increase in the fees” to put universities “in a stronger position” rather than relying on overseas students. However, Hodge said the “incredibly expensive” university experience was “almost getting to the cost of going to bloody Eton” and the debt was “putting working-class kids off.” OUT OF THE IVORY TOWERS  To show young people university isn’t their only option, the government launched Skills England and funded a growth and skills levy supporting apprenticeships.  But universities don’t think this should come at the expense of international students. And it seems the public agrees. British Future research found 54 percent of people thought international students enhanced the reputation of U.K. universities overseas, while 61 percent thought the government should increase or keep the amount of overseas students the same. Domestic students were supportive, too. “British students appreciated the opportunity of studying with students from other countries,” said Willetts. “It enriched the experience.” Education wonks believe focusing too much on domestic skills could come back to bite ministers — and excessive policy changes prevents what international students, and employers, want most of all: clarity. “They need certainty and stability if they’re going to make decisions,” argued Arrowsmith, stressing frequent alterations under different administrations made “prospective students think twice [about Britain] as a destination.”  The UCU echoed this and felt Britain should be open for business.  “We are also calling on universities to join us in the fight for a more open border policy that will protect the sector, help contribute tens of billions of pounds to the economy, enrich our society and bolster the U.K.’s global standing,” said Grady. A government spokesperson said: “We recognize the valuable contributions which genuine international students make to the economy and the university sector and we want them to continue to come to the U.K.” But they argued: “We are simply tightening the rules so those wishing to stay in the U.K. must find a graduate-level job within 18 months, which is fair for both students and to British workers and taxpayers.”

The Department of Homeland Security said Wednesday it intends to publish a proposed rule that would limit the length of time foreign students are allowed to stay in the United States. Since 1978, foreign students, or F visa holders, could stay in the U.S. for their “duration of status,” meaning as long as they were enrolled as a full-time student. The proposed rule set to publish Thursday would allow for foreign students and exchange visitors to stay up to the duration of the program they are participating in, not to exceed a 4-year period. DHS officials said the rule is to correct a system in which foreign students have “taken advantage of U.S. generosity” by becoming “forever students.” “For too long, past Administrations have allowed foreign students and other visa holders to remain in the U.S. virtually indefinitely, posing safety risks, costing untold amounts of taxpayer dollars, and disadvantaging U.S. citizens,” a DHS spokesperson said in a statement. “This new proposed rule would end that abuse once and for all by limiting the amount of time certain visa holders are allowed to remain in the U.S., easing the burden on the federal government to properly oversee foreign students and history.” If finalized, the rule would require foreign students to be regularly assessed by DHS to remain in the U.S. for a longer period. Advocates who represent foreign students, said this rule will create uncertainty for these students and leave them with more bureaucratic hurdles to clear. “International students deserve assurance that their admission period to the U.S. will conform to the requirements of their academic programs,” said Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance, which represents 500 presidents and chancellors of public and private colleges and universities. “They already represent the most closely monitored population in the U.S. and are subject to rigorous oversight by DHS and academic institutions.” The proposed rule could dissuade some students from choosing to study in the U.S., said Fanta Aw, executive director and CEO of NAFSA: Association of International Educators. “It will certainly act as an additional deterrent to international students choosing to study in the United States, to the detriment of American economies, innovation, and global competitiveness,” Aw said in a statement. The logistical hurdles, such as pauses in visa interviews, have already caused international student enrollment to take a hit. A report from the Institute of International Education, which collected feedback from hundreds of U.S. higher education institutions, found that 35 percent of the schools they surveyed saw a decrease in applications for this fall, compared with only a 17 percent decrease the previous academic year. There are also serious financial implications for colleges if fewer foreign students enroll, because they typically pay more tuition and receive less scholarship support.

Bill Anderson is the CEO of Bayer. Europe was once the epicenter of progress. After centuries of the Dark Ages, a radical new way of acquiring knowledge — the scientific method — cemented the continent’s place at the apex of civilization. Problem is, that was around 400 years ago. Today, Europe is home to strong research universities and prodigious talent, but it has been losing ground, particularly to the U.S. and China. In the 1990s, for example, half of all new medicines originated in Europe — now, the figure’s down to one in five. And the life sciences is just one of many such industries. Europe must reverse this trend, and now is the time to act. We stand on the precipice of a new world order, with increasing trade uncertainty and multipolarity, and it’s not yet clear how things will shake out. In this period of flux, Europe’s leaders rightly want to elevate science and innovation to the heart of its economy. But for this to become a reality, its member countries need to step up their game in terms of simplifying regulation. Starting a business in Italy or Greece, for example, can take months due to needless hurdles like in-person meetings, notary fees and bank account setups. It’s no wonder that advances in AI are almost exclusively happening in the U.S. and China. The biotech revolution attracts 75 percent of its talent in the U.S. and Asia, and Brazil is at the forefront of agricultural innovation. Meanwhile Europe is all too often sitting on the sidelines, asking “what’s allowed?” rather than “what’s possible?” Here’s the thing: Europe can produce world-changing innovation. In fact, some of today’s pioneering startups, like CRISPR Therapeutics, emerged from Europe. But thanks to a more accommodating regulatory environment, proximity to research hubs and access to venture capital, these companies have expanded heavily in the U.S. This isn’t to say the U.S. is without problems, or that Europe should try to refashion itself into Silicon Valley. In fact, Europe publishes about twice as many scientific articles as the U.S., and is home to multiple research hubs that foster international collaboration. However, we need a distinctly European course correction to once again unleash Europe’s innovative spirit. I am confident that with the right mindset and conditions, this can be done — but not if we continue down the path of business — or rather, bureaucracy — as usual. As last year’s Draghi report on EU competitiveness stated: “The only way to become more productive is for Europe to radically change.” I’ve personally had the rare privilege of working and living in five different European countries, including in Germany for the last two years, as the CEO of Bayer — a 160-year-old life sciences company headquartered in Germany. And we’ve now kicked off the most radical transformation since the company’s founding. Upending decades of tradition is not for the faint of heart, but sometimes it’s essential. And here are a few lessons worth bearing in mind, whether modernizing a company or a continent: Firstly, it’s time to simplify regulations and embrace the new technologies required to solve our biggest challenges, just like the U.S., Canada and other countries have already done. The U.K., for example, passed a bill allowing the development and marketing of gene-edited crops in 2023. As last year’s Draghi report on EU competitiveness stated: “The only way to become more productive is for Europe to radically change.” | Teresa Suarez/EFE via EPA On this front, we welcome the EU’s increased openness toward gene editing in agriculture, which carries tremendous potential to help farmers adapt to climate change. For instance, Italy showed courageous leadership last year, breaking with two decades of policy to allow the first field trial of a gene-edited crop, which scientists developed to improve the rice plant’s resistance to a prevalent fungus. The rest of the continent ought to follow this lead. Next, Europe also needs investment. While innovation in Europe has grown, prices for pharmaceuticals have decreased. And why is it that one of the most advanced continents, with a market of 450 million people, is seen less and less as a place to invest for developing the drugs of tomorrow? We need to change that. Everyone deserves reliable and affordable access to medicines, and everyone has a role to play. Investing in research and development (R&D) is the beating heart of the life sciences — and it comes at an enormous financial cost: More than 90 percent of pharmaceutical research ends in failure. But without R&D, our industry would be dead on arrival and have little to offer patients. So, it’s time for Europe to step up and view paying fair prices for new pharmaceutical innovation as an investment in the future — not just another cost to be minimized. At Bayer, we operate in a new model called “dynamic shared ownership,” where employees enjoy the autonomy to make decisions, share resources and direct their focus toward the biggest priorities. And we’re seeing the model pay off already, with rapid growth in our pharmaceuticals business — together, our two biggest launch medicines have grown 80 percent in sales year over year, and one is now a blockbuster. The truth is, the expat scientists who come to Europe won’t have an easy time translating their discoveries into impactful products and therapies without systemic changes. Supporting scientists also requires robust IP protection, a speedier regulatory framework and a better environment for high-risk, high-reward investors. Any innovative life sciences company in Europe would welcome these dramatic changes to the status quo. And as the world’s economic order shifts, it’s Europe’s turn to level the playing field. In 50 years, will we look back on 2025 as the moment our continent rose to the challenge and opened its arms to the future? Will we celebrate the biotech hub of Berlin as we now do Boston, with scientists flocking there to start companies, test cures for diseases and develop tools to help farmers feed the world? Or will we utter a collective sigh, pondering what could have been? It’s time to decide.

TRUMP SPARKS EUROPE’S ‘NEW ENLIGHTENMENT’  The EU aims to grab a rare chance generated by the White House’s repression of U.S. higher education. By ELENA GIORDANO European universities and top politicians have mobilized in response to Trump’s domestic measures. | Photo-Illustration by Natália Delgado Illustration by Natália Delgado /POLITICO Donald Trump’s war on some of America’s most iconic colleges is a major opportunity for European academia and research. Now the EU is under pressure to seize it. University professors and research center directors across the continent see silver linings in the U.S. president’s crackdown on American higher education, which includes targeting professors and students as well as heralded Ivy League institutions like Harvard and Columbia while freezing billions of dollars in federal funding. “This is the chance for Europe to start a new Enlightenment and create new partnerships around the world,” said Alain-Laurent Verbeke, a law professor at Belgium’s KU Leuven research university who has also taught at Harvard Law School since 2007. European universities and top politicians have mobilized in response to Trump’s domestic measures, creating new initiatives aimed at attracting top foreign talent to Europe by offering generous grants and greater academic freedom. Earlier this month, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and French President Emmanuel Macron unveiled a €500 million plan named “Choose Europe for Science” aiming to lure foreign researchers to the EU. “We are doubling the potential amount that researchers who relocate to Europe from anywhere in the world can request as relocation funds,” said Maria Leptin, president of the European Research Council (ERC), the bloc’s public body for scientific and technological enquiry which is partnering with the Commission on the initiative. “We need to step up our efforts. And not because of what is happening in the U.S., we need to do it anyway.” Last week the Commission announced plans to accelerate visa procedures to attract U.S. researchers and on Friday, EU research ministers met in Brussels to discuss how to increase Europe’s competitiveness in science and innovation. “Let’s use this momentum, and this opportunity, and attract the brightest and best talents of the world,” Commissioner for Startups, Research and Innovation Ekaterina Zaharieva said. By massively boosting its research and academic development the EU stands to strengthen its economic competitiveness and innovation, while putting itself in a better position to tackle critical challenges such as climate change and health care. “Research is the foundation of the companies of tomorrow. By investing in research, we’re investing in Europe’s competitiveness and in the jobs of tomorrow,” said French Research Minister Philippe Baptiste ahead of the European Council meeting on Friday. STEPPING UP EFFORTS While Trump has provided the political momentum for Europeans to invest more in science and research, experts warn the EU will need to do far more to strengthen its position and achieve true independence from the U.S. “It would be an illusion to think that a few additional high-level grants will be sufficient,” the ERC’s Leptin said. “What top-level researchers need are good infrastructure, good support from their research institutions. Young people need good career prospects, they need good long-term funding,” she added, noting that it’s mainly up to EU member countries to “step up their efforts and make research attractive.” Earlier this month, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and French President Emmanuel Macron unveiled a €500 million plan named “Choose Europe for Science” aiming to lure foreign researchers to the EU. | Gonzalo Fuentes/EPA-EFE Multiple European governments have reacted to the possibility of attracting top U.S. talent by establishing new grants and offering new postdoctoral positions. Since Trump’s crackdown began, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Belgium and Norway have launched targeted initiatives to attract foreign researchers by offering funding, institutional support and long-term career opportunities in fields like health, climate and AI. Similarly, European universities such as Belgium’s Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) and France’s Aix-Marseille University (AMU) have allocated funds to recruit postdoctoral scholars who are “victims of political and ideological interference” in the United States. FEAR AND LOATHING Top European academics observe that their counterparts in the U.S. have become increasingly cautious and fearful amid Trump’s repressive policies, which are often based on the pretext of rooting out alleged antisemitism and so-called woke ideologies on college campuses. Jan Danckaert, rector of VUB, said U.S. researchers have started using anonymous email accounts and encrypted messaging platforms to communicate with international partners. “This shows they are very much concerned about the way they contact institutions outside the U.S.,” he said, noting fears that even minor collaborations on projects that fall foul of the Trump administration could be used as a basis for further funding cuts. Top European academics observe that their counterparts in the U.S. have become increasingly cautious and fearful amid Trump’s repressive policies. | Sarah Yenesel/EPA-EFE Working with U.S.-based colleagues has become increasingly difficult since Trump began his second term in January, said Frank Oliver Glöckner from the Pangaea environmental data center. “It is a combination of people fearing about losing their jobs and them not being able to maintain or deliver the same data anymore,” he explained. Glöckner added that some U.S. researchers were now unable to join video conferences without top-level managerial approval. “This is the first time that we ever heard about something like that … and it changed from one day to another,” he said. Self-censorship is also a growing problem among U.S. researchers, the European academics observe. “They don’t want their names published in official media, in scientific reviews, or whatever,” Glöckner said. Danckaert echoed that concern. “What we see from the colleagues in the U.S. is that there is a kind of auto-censorship installing,” he said. “They are much more cautious about the contacts they have and the way they communicate. They are always looking behind.” After KU Leuven’s Verbeke publicly criticized Trump in the European press, he said several colleagues at Harvard privately thanked him for voicing opinions they themselves were unable to express. “I understand professors who do not want to speak up, and I respect it, but at the same time, I think I have a moral duty to speak up,” he said. Verbeke acknowledged that doing so could jeopardize his chances of obtaining a U.S. visa — or of returning to teach at Harvard. “I am truly a transatlantic at heart, and I never imagined that we would one day reach a point where the very hotspot of academic freedom would be called into question,” German Minister for Research, Technology and Space Dorothee Bär said on Friday. “That is why we must now be a safe country, a safe harbor, a safe continent. And yet, I’m not giving up hope that The Land of the Free will one day live up to its name again.”

PARIS ― European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Monday slammed U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign against American higher education as she unveiled a half-billion-euro plan to attract foreign researchers. “The role of science in today’s world is questioned. The investment in fundamental, free and open research is questioned. What a gigantic miscalculation,” von der Leyen said. “Science has no passport, no gender, no ethnicity or political party.” Appearing alongside French President Emmanuel Macron at Paris’ storied Sorbonne University on Monday, von der Leyen said the “Choose Europe for Science” initiative would put forward a €500 million program from 2025 to 2027 to attract foreign researchers to “help support the best and the brightest researchers and scientists from Europe and around the world. “ Several speakers at the event hit out at Trump’s efforts to gut federal research funding and threats to cut funding to universities like Harvard to the tune of billions of dollars over conservative criticisms of higher education and allegations of antisemitism on campuses. Both French Minister of Higher Education Philippe Baptiste and Robert Proctor, a prominent professor of the history of science at Stanford, called what’s happening across the Atlantic a “reverse enlightenment.”  The head of the European executive did not name-check American researchers or Trump, but her targets were clear. She even framed her speech around the story of Marie Curie — the groundbreaking, Nobel Prize-winning scientist who fled Russian-occupied Poland for France.  Von der Leyen also announced she would put forward a “European Innovation Act” and a “Startup and Scaleup Strategy” to cut red tape and boost access to venture capital to help turn innovative science into business opportunities. She added that she wants EU countries to spend 3 percent of their gross domestic product on research by 2030.

A prestigious Belgian university urgently warned its staff in recent days of possible risks of collaborating with American colleges amid United States President Donald Trump’s ongoing crackdown on higher education institutions. “The United States government took several measures that threaten the autonomy of universities and academic freedom,” Ghent University (UGent) said in an email to staff that POLITICO has seen the text of, adding that due to its many research collaborations with U.S. institutions, “the university is concerned about these developments.” UGent is recognized as one of the world’s leading universities, ranking 109th globally and second in Belgium, according to the 2025 Best Global Universities ranking. The university outlined a set of guidelines and best practices for academics and students traveling to the U.S., highlighting increased border controls, shifting attitudes toward the LGBTQ+ community and the possibility of arrest for researchers who have publicly criticized the Trump administration. UGent also advised researchers working on projects in partnership with U.S. institutions —particularly on “topics the U.S. government considers sensitive (climate change, transgender rights, diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) programs)” — to store their data on internal servers. “This way you avoid that the data can be deleted if it is on a U.S. server,” the university said. In the U.S., Trump has launched an unprecedented campaign against some of the country’s most prestigious universities, introducing stricter regulations and threatening to freeze or cut federal funding unless institutions comply with his administration’s demands. On April 14, the U.S. Department of Education announced plans to freeze $2.2 billion in federal funds to Harvard University after the Ivy League institution refused White House demands to adopt new policies on student and faculty conduct and admissions. Last week, UGent Rector Rik Van de Walle voiced his support for Harvard. “Political control of universities’ core tasks and silencing of academics is unacceptable in the US and elsewhere,” he said. “We should never accept politicians having the final say in universities. That is the prerogative of their staff and students.” Max Fahler contributed to this report.

Harvard University filed suit Monday against the Trump administration, challenging its decision to cut more than $2 billion in grants in a high-profile showdown between the government and the prestigious private institution. Harvard President Alan Garber said in a statement announcing the suit that the university chose to challenge what it considered unreasonable demands from an administration antisemitism task force to “to control whom we hire and what we teach.” The administration’s demands, he said, “would impose unprecedented and improper control over the university” and came without any real effort to engage on the issue of antisemitism. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Massachusetts. “The gravy train of federal assistance to institutions like Harvard, which enrich their grossly overpaid bureaucrats with tax dollars from struggling American families is coming to an end,” said Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, in response to the lawsuit. “Taxpayer funds are a privilege, and Harvard fails to meet the basic conditions required to access that privilege.” The Trump administration has launched a review of roughly $9 billion in grants and contracts with the university over the treatment of Jewish students that it says violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, including during protests of the Israel-Gaza war that roiled campuses across the country last year. Already, the administration has pulled more than $2 billion in federal funding from the school and is considering pulling $1 billion more in grants. In addition, the Internal Revenue Service is scrutinizing the university’s tax-exempt status, and the Department of Homeland Security has threatened to revoke Harvard’s ability to enroll international students, who make up about 27 percent of its total enrollment. The Education Department is also probing the university’s federal funding. “These actions have stark real-life consequences for patients, students, faculty, staff, researchers, and the standing of American higher education in the world,” Garber said. The lawsuit said the federal government launched a broad attack on billions in research funding at Harvard and half a dozen institutions “with little warning and even less explanation.” Lawyers on behalf of the institution said the federal government is “withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decisionmaking at Harvard.” To avoid losing funds, the administration earlier this month demanded the institution reform its governance, change its hiring and admissions policies, report foreign students and students with green cards for “conduct violations,” audit academic programs or departments for antisemitism using an external party, end diversity programs and reform student discipline procedure, among other requirements. “All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: Allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution’s ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions,” the lawsuit said, adding that the sweeping research funding freezes have “nothing at all to do with antisemitism.” Lawyers representing Harvard include some with GOP and Trump administration ties. They include Robert Hur, William Burck, Steven Lehotsky, who was a law clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia; and Scott Keller, who was formerly the Texas solicitor general. They argue that the administration’s actions flout the First Amendment and Title VI compliance procedures that must occur before revoking federal funding. The university argued that the government has “made no effort to follow those procedures” before freezing or terminating its funding, which include attempting to secure voluntary compliance, holding a hearing and unveiling a report of findings. Lawyers also said the funding freezes will force the school to reduce or halt ongoing research projects, terminate employment contracts and make cuts to departments and programs. If Harvard continues to use its own resources in place of the funding, the school will then have to reduce the number of graduate students it admits and the number of faculty and research staff. They also argued it could economically hurt the Boston area, since the university is one of Massachusetts’ largest employers. “Defendants’ actions threaten Harvard’s academic independence and place at risk critical lifesaving and pathbreaking research that occurs on its campus,” the lawsuit said, adding that the freeze is “part of a broader effort by the Government to punish Harvard for protecting its constitutional rights.”

WHY TRUMP IS EUROPE’S ACCIDENTAL CITY-BUILDER Europe’s émigrés built America’s skylines, suburbs and strip malls. Will the U.S. brain drain do the same for the EU? By AITOR HERNÁNDEZ-MORALES in Brussels, Belgium Illustration by Tomato Košir for POLITICO At the height of World War II, Adolf Hitler dreamed of developing rockets that could destroy American cities. It’s an irony of history that he not only failed to achieve this, but inadvertently helped shape the modern-day U.S. metropolis. Like countless political leaders before him, Hitler considered the built environment a canvas for the projection of power. He recruited architects and urbanists who could reflect the Third Reich’s values, and punished innovators whose “degenerate” structures weren’t aligned with the regime. Many of those persecuted visionaries eventually sought refuge in the U.S. There, they were instrumental in redefining the American city, creating the urban landscapes we know today. Nearly a century later, President Donald Trump is poised to provoke a new exodus — this time, in reverse. URBANISM IN TRUMP’S HEADLIGHTS The U.S. administration’s recent moves to cancel environmentally sensitive urban development projects, impose an official style for federal buildings and target free speech on college campuses are setting the stage for America’s best and brightest city-builders to seek their fortunes across the Atlantic. Cruz García — founder of the WAI Architecture Think Tank and an associate professor at Columbia University — told POLITICO of the instability facing those working on publicly funded projects, and highlighted the administration’s decision to review 400 initiatives funded by the Environmental Protection Agency. Concerned that environmental resilience projects serving historically marginalized communities may be delayed, significantly altered or canceled, he noted that many people who had received grants for projects had already received termination notices. Federal cut-backs “definitely could, or would, potentially lead scholars to seek to continue their work abroad,” he said. According to Billy Fleming, an associate professor at Temple University’s Tyler School of Art and Architecture,  the “focus on kidnapping and deporting” foreign students like Georgetown University fellow Badar Khan Suri or Tufts University researcher Rümeysa Öztürk — who were both detained for attending pro-Palestinian campus protests — is also likely to undermine the U.S. as a destination for promising architects. “American schools of architecture have long relied on international students,” he said. “Attacks on student visa holders could upend their financial models and force the closure of smaller programs or departments. In those with smaller endowments […] it could lead to the closure of entire schools of architecture.” But the impact of Trump’s measures extends beyond academia. Billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has ordered mass layoffs and budget cuts at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It also terminated a $1 billion program to repair and climate-proof aging or damaged affordable homes, while jeopardizing a plan to build housing for thousands of low-income families. Harvard’s Graduate School of Design recruited Bauhaus founder Walter Gropius. | Wikipedia The Department of Transportation has similarly ordered a review of projects that “improve the condition for environmental justice communities or actively reduce greenhouse gas emissions” and is considering canceling federal funding for cycle lanes. Julie Deutschmann, spokesperson for the Architects’ Council of Europe — which represents the interests of over 500,000 architects from 36 countries — believes all this may “lead some architecture and urbanism professionals to relocate in search of environments where innovation, sustainability and academic openness are better supported.” “Political decisions can significantly influence the global flow of talent,” she said. “Europe’s foundation in these areas positions it well to attract talent.” TARGETED BY TOTALITARIANISM Historian Barbara Steiner, director of Bauhaus Dessau Foundation, which preserves the legacy of the revolutionary German art school, sees a clear parallel between the 1930s and the present “upheaval and uncertainty.” “We are on the way to a system of totalitarian coordination over all aspects of society from economy to the media, culture and education, of appearances, spaces and thinking in order to gain control over heterogeneous societies and critical discourse,” she said. The U.S. architectural community has been particularly jarred by Trump’s move to impose an official style on federal buildings, with an executive order requiring they “respect regional, traditional, and classical architectural heritage.” A revival of a widely condemned order he issued in 2020, it has reminded many of mandates imposed by authoritarian leaders of the past. Immediately after taking power, Hitler had targeted architects whose aesthetics weren’t aligned with his totalitarian regime. His particular bête noire was the Bauhaus school due to its promotion of minimalist and functional design. And though the Third Reich was yet to developed its signature style — the heavy, stripped classicism that survives in Berlin’s Olympiastadion or Nuremberg’s rally grounds — Bauhaus represented the distinctly internationalist outlook it detested. Steiner said Nazi leaders attacked Bauhaus buildings for their rejection of “regional traditions,” for being “architectural sins that were cold, repellent and unattractive.” The school’s embrace of Jewish, foreign and progressive students and faculty also led them to denounce it as a hotbed for communists. And when the “degenerate” institution was ultimately closed, with many of its members obliged to flee, America was waiting to receive them. THE EXILES THAT BUILT AMERICA U.S. universities tripped over themselves to take in Europe’s displaced visionaries. Harvard’s Graduate School of Design recruited Bauhaus founder Walter Gropius, who served as a “hub between displaced European modernists and American architects” and taught several generations of students to embed “the usefulness of sociology” into their designs, Steiner said. The sleek, modern “International Style” he promoted would come to define the aesthetics and layout of U.S. cities for decades to come. Many of that movement’s most iconic U.S. buildings would eventually be designed by the last Bauhaus director, Mies van der Rohe, who joined the Illinois Institute of Technology after leaving Germany. His steel-and-glass residential towers on Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive became an instant reference point for high-rise housing, while his Seagram Building in New York inspired countless knockoffs in business districts. “Mies reimagined downtowns,” said Timothy Welch, director of the University of Auckland’s Urban Planning Program. “His tower-in-a-park model created a new urban typology — open plazas surrounding minimalist skyscrapers.” But the impact wasn’t just on urban areas, it also seeped into America’s sprawl, cementing the aesthetic of the standardized suburban single-family home. Hitler’s particular bête noire was the Bauhaus school due to its promotion of minimalist and functional design. | Alexander Savin via Wikipedia Many who made their way to the U.S. had been involved in the progressive city-building projects of 1920’s “Red Vienna,” and their socially minded outlook helped shape California’s postwar suburbs, explained architectural historian Volker M. Welter. Leopold Fischer’s well-known Los Angeles neighborhood of detached houses, for example, were a “translation” of the social housing estates he built with Gropius in 1920’s Dessau — a reflection of the European vision of “architectural modernism as a social commitment.” But the exiled European architect who perhaps had the most profound impact on U.S. cities was Austria’s relatively unknown Victor Gruen. Both Jewish and a committed socialist, he was forced to flee after the Anschluss and eventually settled in California, where he was repulsed by the period’s car-centric culture. “Gruen internalized a vision of urbanism centered on human-scaled, socially integrated spaces,” Welch said. And in a bid to recreate “Vienna’s café culture and walkable streets,” he invented the shopping mall — a space meant to shield consumers from traffic by combining housing, civic facilities, public amenities and shops. “The irony, of course, is that his solutions were ultimately coopted by the very forces of commercialization and automobility he fought against,” Welch commented. But while most malls became, in Gruen’s own words, “avenues of horror,” the faithful adaptation of his concept in Kalamazoo inspired the creation of pedestrian zones in dozens of cities. Gruen introduced “ideas about pedestrian priority, mixed-use development and public space that would later become central to […] contemporary urban design.” AMERICA’S BRAIN DRAIN While the full impact of Trump’s ongoing MAGA measures remains to be seen, Europe already stands out as a potential haven for U.S. architects and urbanists. Tania Gutiérrez-Monroy, an architectural historian and assistant professor at the University of British Columbia, said the administration’s budget cuts meant it is no longer “far-fetched” to imagine researchers working on urban climate resilience or equity projects leaving the country. “At what point does continuing this work abroad become the more viable — or ethical — choice?,” asked architect Cruz García. The EU’s universities and governments are keen to welcome modern-day intellectual émigrés and have set up recruitment drives to compliment existing research schemes like Erasmus+, Horizon Europe and the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions. Deutschmann emphasized that Europe offers forward-thinking émigré architects plenty of professional opportunities too. The EU’s “robust investment in urban resilience, sustainable mobility, green infrastructure and affordable housing,” with legislative packages like the Green Deal and programs like the New European Bauhaus, means there’s a strong “demand for innovative, socially engaged, and environmentally conscious design,” she said. “Europe’s commitment to these goals [show] that architecture and urban planning are not just technical challenges — they are acts of leadership,” Deutschmann added. “They are about building the future we believe in — one that reflects European values and aspirations.”

John Kampfner is a British author, broadcaster and commentator. His latest book “In Search of Berlin” is published by Atlantic. He is a regular POLITICO columnist. Every empire, real or imagined, builds monuments to progress. The Nazi regime was developing a colossal science center as part of Hitler’s great Germania project for Berlin, only for war to intervene. It was buried in rubble under an artificial hill, where the victorious Allies eventually built a listening post instead. In 2010, the Skolkovo Foundation built a glistening tech hub in the west of Moscow, as the Kremlin’s answer to Silicon Valley. Much of it now lies empty, with the war in Ukraine and economic sanctions putting paid to that dream. Political power has been projected through science since the time of the ancients. But when scholars’ ability to work freely is threatened, they depart — as happened under Nazi rule, during the Soviet period and, in recent years, as President Vladimir Putin has consolidated his stranglehold over the Russian Federation. Over the 20th and early 21st century, most of these scholars fled to the U.S. — a land that encouraged research without fear or favor. No matter its other failings, people from all over the world flocked there to take up opportunities at unrivaled universities. But now, thanks to President Donald Trump and his rapid-fire assault on the country’s higher education institutions, a reverse brain drain has begun. And much of it is headed for the continent he seemingly abhors — Europe. These scholars aren’t leaving just out of choice. As funding is summarily removed, home-grown scholars and researchers are finding themselves out of jobs, and entire departments are closing. Meanwhile, foreign academics, many who have made the U.S. their home, are being kicked out or refused entry, often on spurious grounds, or are in fear it will happen to them. Margaret McFall-Ngai, a biochemist at the California Institute of Technology, described the situation as “grim and getting grimmer.” Highlighting one of many cases, she spoke of “an American student who is amazing in every way, but the universities are either closing their programs for this year or are trimming down dramatically, so she has nowhere to go. I sent her CV to colleagues in Europe, and she’ll be heading over to Max-Planck in Germany to do her graduate work,” she said. And this isn’t an isolated incident. Of the 690 postgraduate researchers who responded to a poll in the publication Nature, 548 said they were considering leaving the U.S. One even responded: “This is my home, I really love my country, but a lot of my mentors have been telling me to get out, right now.” Moreover, as McFall-Ngai pointed out, there are countless stories of international students frightened to leave the U.S.: “I have grad students and postdocs who are Slovenian, Belgian, Portuguese, French, Austrian, Mexican, Chinese and Irish.” Several, she said, wanted to go on vacation to see their families, “but they were told they would not be able to re-enter the U.S. if they left.” So far, firings have taken place at institutions including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The National Institutes of Health — the world’s largest funder of biomedical research — was forced to jettison 1,200 employees and put grant reviews on hold, essentially turning off funding for labs. And as the cuts are coming, some federal agencies have been required to remove terms deemed unacceptably “woke,” such as diversity, gender and climate science from their websites. But for Europeans and Canadians, still reeling from the open contempt the Trump administration holds them in, revenge is a dish best served cold. Thanks to President Donald Trump and his rapid-fire assault on the country’s higher education institutions, a reverse brain drain has begun. | Photo by Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images Thirteen EU member countries, including France and Germany, have already written to Commissioner for Startups, Research and Innovation Ekaterina Zakharieva, urging increased funding and infrastructure to attract migrating scientists. And French Minister of Higher Education and Research Philippe Baptiste called for a “swift and robust response” to the “collective madness” of these decisions. Several universities across Europe have gone on a recruitment drive, finding new pockets of funding to bring in specific individuals. France’s Aix Marseille University earmarked €15 million for 15 three-year positions as part of its new Safe Place for Science program, and the university says it’s receiving a dozen applications a day from “scientific asylum seekers.” Vrije Universiteit Brussel announced 12 positions for international researchers “with a specific focus on American scholars.” The Pasteur Institute in Paris noted it was working to recruit experts in fields such as infectious diseases and origins of disease. And the vice-chancellor of Cambridge University said they are “certainly organizing” for potential hires from the U.S. Similarly, Patrick Cramer, president of the Max-Planck Institute in Berlin, described the U.S. as “a new talent pool.” He said he already had several names on his list that “brought a twinkle” to his eye — especially those involved in artificial intelligence. But the safe havens aren’t just confined to Europe: Australia, for one, is looking at fast-track visas for the best and brightest. And the most beckoning destination will likely be Canada, given its proximity to the U.S. in terms of both distance and culture. During Trump’s first term, there was much talk of Americans fleeing north, but the numbers remained small. This time, however, the outflow is likely to be in earnest, including not just formal academics but also journalists, activists, and anyone who might feel threatened or unable to operate freely. One of the first to announce his move was Timothy Snyder, one of the best-known experts on authoritarianism, who has left Yale for the University of Toronto. Snyder has described Canada as “the Ukraine of North America,” with Trump’s America looming over the border. But while fellow academics aren’t begrudging the welcome given to new arrivals, some are expressing concern about the money that’ll be diverted from existing budgets. Universities in Canada and many European countries have had to make financial cuts for several years now. And some might come to resent the star status given to the new cohort from overseas — as happened in the U.S. in the 1930s and after World War II. However, it’s important to remember that in fleeing to America, those academics vastly improved the quality of the work at their institutions, as well as the status of their newly adopted country. That legacy is now going up in smoke, thanks to a White House that appears hell-bent on destroying not just economic and political paradigms, but a higher education system that really did make America great — though seemingly not for long.