Innovation

Research: US turnaround cancels 7400 projects worth 19 billion. Europe's chance

With the policies of the new US administration, funding drops. applications to European programmes grow and the EU tries to attract talent, but more investment is needed

by Francesca Cerati

17 March 2026

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

For decades, the United States was the natural destination for those who wanted to do research at the highest level. Universities such as Harvard, Columbia or Berkeley have attracted generations of scientists from all over the world thanks to a combination that is difficult to replicate: abundant funding, academic autonomy and an ecosystem of innovation. In recent months, however, something is changing.

The new US administration's policies on scientific research are reshaping the global balance of life sciences. Funding cuts, greater uncertainty and a more restrictive environment for international students and researchers are pushing a growing part of the scientific community to look elsewhere. And for Europe, a strategic window may be opening.

According to an analysis by Teha Group, more than 7,400 federal research grants worth more than USD 19 billion were cancelled in the first year of the Trump administration, including USD 17.5 billion in the life sciences. The cuts mainly affected the programmes of the two main federal research funding agencies: the National science foundation (NSF) and the National institutes of health (NIH). The slowdown does not only affect already awarded funding. New grants also show a significant decline. In 2025, projects funded by the Nsf fell by 25 per cent compared to the average for the period 2015-2024, while those of the Nih dropped by 21 per cent. Added to this is the political signal that came with the presidential budget proposal for 2026, which envisages a drastic reduction in resources: up to -61.7% for the National science foundation and -44.3% for the National institutes of health compared to previous levels.

Although Congress rejected the most radical cuts, the signal is clear: research is no longer a priority in the same form as in the past. The new context also introduces elements of greater political discretion in the allocation of funds. Indeed, a federal order issued in August 2025 required agencies to align funding with the administration's priorities and the so-called 'national interest', increasing the possibility of revoking or reviewing grants.

The consequences are already becoming apparent. The number of PhD scholarships offered by the Nsf has fallen by 26% by 2025, with an even more pronounced reduction in the life sciences, where the decline reaches 57%. At the same time, the environment for international students and researchers has become more complex, with stricter visa procedures, stricter controls and a perceived less welcoming climate.

The result is also visible in American universities: in the autumn of 2025, new enrolments of international students fell by 17% compared to the previous year. And uncertainty is growing among researchers. A survey published in Nature last year indicates that more than 75% of PhD students and postdoctoral researchers are considering leaving the US due to changes in the research system. In this scenario, Europe could become an alternative destination for some of this talent. And the first signs are already visible. Applications for European research council (Erc) grants by US-based researchers have increased by 117%, while applications for Marie Skłodowska-Curie grants have grown by 14%.

The European Union is trying to intercept this dynamic with new initiatives. The Choose Europe programme, launched in 2025 with a budget of EUR 874 million, aims to increase the attractiveness of the European research system through new funding instruments and incentives for researchers to move to the continent. Alongside the EU initiatives, several countries are also moving: France, Austria and Spain (see article below) have launched specific programmes to attract researchers working in the US.

However, a strategic question remains open: whether Europe will really succeed in turning this American discontinuity into a competitive advantage. Indeed, the continent continues to invest less in research than the United States and even less than China in relation to GDP. Without a structural strengthening of the scientific ecosystem, the risk is that the new mobility of talent will remain only a partial opportunity.