The US visa squeeze and Europe's (necessary) moves
During the night of Saturday, 20 September, researchers at Harvard University - including, incidentally, the son of the writer, along with researchers at other centres of excellence in the United States - received an ominous message: the Trump administration, through a 'proclamation' by the President, would impose from the following Monday a $100,000 fee for the issuance of any H-1B visa, which is used to hire foreign engineers and scientists. It was a bolt out of the blue. Now there will be a legal battle over the President's prerogatives, but what does this decision tell us about the Trump presidency?
The 'extractive' nature of the new regime is confirmed, as I have pointed out in articles on these pages with Moreno Bertoldi (il Sole, 28 July and 9 September). The decision, although partly scaled down after the initial announcement (it will only apply to new visas and will not be annual), will penalise Indian engineers in particular, who make up more than 70% of H-1B visa beneficiaries. The recent tensions between India and the US over the imposition of 50% tariffs, which are producing strategic realignments in Asia, will be exacerbated.
The decision has been read as the victory of Steve Bannon's right-right nationalists over the tech-right of the digital bigwigs. In reality, such a reading is misleading. The decision will end up reinforcing the oligarchic and clientelistic nature of the new American capitalism. Indeed, while digital companies have the 'deep pockets' to shoulder the new tax, this is unlikely to be the case for universities, independent research centres and start-ups in the digital arena. Eventually, this dichotomy will reduce the innovation potential and productivity of the US economy.
How should the European Union (EU) react to this umpteenth unsettling decision by Trump? Indications given in previous articles emerge.
First, we need to strengthen the attractiveness of our research system by reforming the European Research Council, taking inspiration from the US Horizon programme, simplifying its procedures and funding ideas rather than consortia, as suggested by a recent Bocconi report. It is essential that the Commission's proposal on the EU's multi-annual budget to increase the funds for the Horizon programme from EUR 90 billion to EUR 170 billion for the period 2028-34 be preserved from the onslaught of diligence that will certainly take place during the negotiations with the Council. But to have a chance of making a difference, this increased effort on research must be accompanied by a deepening of capital market integration, because only by overcoming 'bank-centrism' will it be possible to finance innovative projects that are 'long on ideas but short on collateral'.
