UNITED STATES — President Trump has faced an unverified claim that the U.S. government has lost more than 10,000 STEM Ph.D.s since he took office, even as separate indicators point to widening concerns about a brain drain in the scientific workforce.
Available cited results do not confirm that specific “more than 10,000” figure, and the verification status remains unresolved. The claim’s framing also turns on the timeline: references to January 2025 as the start of Trump’s presidency matter when interpreting what “since taking office” covers.
Beyond the disputed total, a Nature survey and other reported measures describe mounting interest in leaving the United States and documented departures that have raised alarms among universities and research institutions. Those indicators, while not establishing a national count of lost Ph.D.s, outline pressures that can shape where researchers live and work.
A Nature survey found that more than 75 percent of U.S.-based scientists are considering leaving the country. The same survey found nearly 80 percent among early-career researchers.
The figures have circulated as a shorthand for unease within science and engineering fields that rely on long training pipelines. The interest captured by the Nature survey does not equal departures, but it signals the depth of sentiment among working scientists and those still building careers.
Separate estimates reported a large multi-year outflow among researchers of Chinese descent. An estimated 20,000 U.S.-based researchers of Chinese descent left the country between 2010 and 2021.
That estimate spans multiple administrations and predates Trump’s return to office in January 2025, complicating efforts to connect any single presidency to a full accounting of losses. Still, the cited results described the exodus as accelerating during Trump’s second term, alongside reports of researchers returning to China.
Fields named in the reporting included artificial intelligence, robotics, mathematics, and nuclear fusion. Those disciplines carry strategic weight in countries competing for talent, and the visibility of moves in such areas can amplify perceptions of a broader exodus.
Individual examples have also drawn attention, though the anecdotes do not establish the scale implied by the “more than 10,000” claim. Reported departures included ChatGPT developer Kai Chen moving to Canada, spaceflight safety expert Jonathan McDowell moving to the UK, and carbon capture expert Yi Shouliang moving to China.
The expertise associated with those names spans high-profile corners of research and technology. In the absence of an official tally of Ph.D. exits, prominent moves can shape narratives about where cutting-edge work will happen and which countries can attract experienced specialists.
Even so, the available information does not tie those cases to a national count of Ph.D. holders leaving government roles, academia, or industry. The examples illustrate mobility patterns, not a verified total of “lost” STEM Ph.D.s.
Alongside mobility pressures, the cited results described funding disruptions that can push researchers to look elsewhere. The Trump administration canceled 7,737 research grants totaling $8 billion from the NIH and NSF.
The same body of information also reported that $1.7 billion in NIH funding has been withheld, and over 2,200 grants totaling $3.8 billion have been canceled. Universities responded by freezing hiring, delaying clinical trials, and scaling back or shutting down laboratories, the cited results reported.
Funding volatility can ripple quickly through labs that depend on grant timelines, particularly for postdoctoral researchers, principal investigators, and graduate students whose pay and positions often attach to specific awards. When a grant ends abruptly or expected money does not arrive, researchers can face stalled projects and fewer openings to move into.
Career instability can also shape cross-border decisions for scientists who already weigh job security against family, professional networks, and immigration status. The cited results linked the institutional responses to effects that can narrow pathways into academic roles and shrink opportunities in grant-funded research.
The same reporting described changes at the National Science Foundation that could tighten the pipeline for new researchers. The NSF cut the number of graduate fellowships it offers in half.
A reduction in fellowships can constrain options for graduate students who depend on stable multi-year support, particularly in fields where external funding signals prestige and helps labs recruit. When fellowships and grants tighten at the same time, laboratories can struggle to plan staffing and research agendas.
The reported funding shifts also intersect with immigration-adjacent pressures in the research workforce, where job offers and continued employment often matter for visas and future sponsorship. A hiring freeze or lab closure can reduce the number of roles that institutions can support, even before researchers weigh opportunities abroad.
Destination patterns described in the cited results suggested an increase in moves to China and other countries, especially in the highlighted strategic areas. Such trends can reflect differences in research funding, industrial policy, and the availability of stable academic or industry roles, without proving that one factor alone drove decisions.
As scientists consider leaving, institutions that compete for talent can also find themselves competing in immigration pathways for those who stay. The same pressures can shift demand and competition for high-skill routes such as O-1, EB-1, and NIW, while changing how willing employers are to sponsor roles during periods of uncertainty.
At the center of the debate remains the unresolved “more than 10,000 STEM Ph.D.s” claim. The cited results did not substantiate that specific figure, even while describing survey sentiment, estimated departures over 2010 to 2021 among researchers of Chinese descent, and named examples of scientists moving to Canada, the UK, and China.
Proving a national total is difficult in part because definitions vary. A count would depend on what “lost” means, whether it refers to government employment specifically, the departure of U.S.-based scientists regardless of employer, or a broader decline in the number of Ph.D. holders working in the country.
Any verification would also need a consistent time window aligned with January 2025, the start date referenced for Trump taking office in the claim’s framing. Tracking departures can require separating intent from action, and distinguishing citizenship and visa categories that shape whether a move counts as emigration, a temporary posting, or a return.
To validate or refute a number like “more than 10,000,” public data would need to connect workforce counts to measurable flows. Useful benchmarks would include longitudinal workforce data, visa and adjustment trends, university hiring and placement outcomes, and changes in grant-funded headcount tied to the kinds of NIH and NSF funding actions described in the cited results.
Nature Survey Warns of Brain Drain as Thousands Leave U.S. Under Trump
Recent reports highlight a potential exodus of STEM Ph.D.s from the U.S., driven by significant funding cuts and career instability. While a specific claim of 10,000 lost researchers remains unverified, surveys show high levels of intent to emigrate. The cancellation of $8 billion in research grants and reductions in graduate fellowships are cited as primary drivers for scientists seeking more stable opportunities in countries like China and Canada.
