The U.S. Still Draws Top Foreign Students — For Now: Why Keeping the Talent Pipeline Matters

The U.S. Built Its Scientific Edge by Attracting Global Talent

For much of the 20th century, scientific leadership rested largely outside the United States. On the eve of World War II, Europe hosted the great laboratories, and American research—especially in physics—was widely seen as trailing. That changed when a wave of émigré scientists fleeing fascism—figures such as Einstein, Fermi, Bethe, Szilard and von Neumann—remade U.S. science. The influx of talent helped power wartime innovation, and after the war the U.S. institutionalized its advantage by adopting Vannevar Bush’s model of federally supported university research, turning the country into a global magnet for talent.

Recent Disruptions and a Cautious Reprieve

Decades later, that steady flow has shown signs of strain. In June, the Trump administration curtailed or suspended visas from 19 countries, explicitly affecting student and exchange categories. In the spring it canceled thousands of student SEVIS records—the Department of Homeland Security’s official files for international students—before pausing after legal challenges. August arrival records showed roughly a 19% year-over-year drop in new international student entries—the largest non-pandemic decline on record—and some surveys reported that leading researchers were considering leaving the U.S.

Still, there is a cautious bright spot: federal data reported by Nature indicate that international PhD totals are essentially flat year over year. That is not a triumph, but it is not the collapse many feared; it buys time to organize the policies and political will needed to preserve America’s research pipeline.

Why International Students Matter for Frontier Fields

In disciplines that drive today’s technological frontier—computer science, engineering and mathematics—international students are far more than a rounding error. In 2023, temporary-visa holders earned 62% of doctorates in computer and information sciences, 56% of engineering PhDs and 53% of doctorates in mathematics and statistics. These students supply labs, graduate programs and startups with talent essential to discovery and commercialization.

Contrary to the argument that the U.S. trains foreign students only to see them leave, many stay: roughly three-quarters of international science and engineering PhDs from the 2017–2019 cohorts remained in the U.S. five years later. Keep the pipeline open, and the country retains the teams that win grants, file influential patents and found new companies. Close it, and the loss is one of capacity and momentum—not just headcount.

Domestic Supply Is Insufficient

It’s tempting to assume that restricting foreign students would free spots for American-born candidates. The reality is that the domestic pipeline is not large enough or consistently prepared. While more U.S. citizens and permanent residents have pursued STEM degrees over the last decade, graduate growth has been uneven and even dipped 3% year over year in 2022. U.S. 15-year-olds scored below students in 25 other international education systems in math, and only 15% of ACT-tested high school graduates met the ACT’s STEM readiness benchmark in 2023.

If every foreign STEM student left the U.S. tomorrow, the domestic STEM sector would be severely diminished. By contrast, China is already producing nearly twice as many STEM PhDs as the U.S., primarily with domestic talent. Population scale is part of that advantage; to compete, America cannot rely solely on its own demographic resources.

From Patents to Startups: The Downstream Payoff

Immigrants contribute disproportionately to innovation: they account for roughly 23% of U.S. patents—well above their share of the population—and their patents are, on average, at least as influential by citations and market value. This inventive edge fuels economic success: about 46% of current Fortune 500 companies were founded by an immigrant or the child of an immigrant, and immigrants founded roughly 55% of U.S. unicorns. Many leading private AI and deep-tech firms include immigrant founders; Jensen Huang, Taiwan-born and U.S.-raised, is a high-profile example as the founder of NVIDIA.

At the highest levels of science, the pattern persists: since 2000, immigrants have won roughly 40% of the Nobel Prizes awarded to Americans in physics, chemistry and physiology or medicine. Recent laureates who came to the U.S. from abroad illustrate how an open research system attracts and retains top talent.

Policy Matters: Keep the Doors Open

The current steadiness in international PhD numbers is reassuring—only if policymakers preserve the conditions that drew those students here: stable study-to-work pathways, predictable visa processing and clear, consistent rules. When those elements are in place, researchers tend to come, contribute disproportionately to discoveries and startups, and often stay.

The choice is strategic: maintain the talent pipeline and sustain grant-winning teams, breakthrough patents and deep-tech startups—or risk losing ground to competitors who are scaling domestic talent quickly.

Note: A version of this piece originally appeared in the Good News newsletter.