A nation of global researchers needs our support

A fourth-year graduate student in experimental physics is waiting for a detector upgrade on which her thesis depends. When funding uncertainty pushes the upgrade back by a year, her expected graduation moves with it. Instead of finishing in one year, she now needs two.

Another fourth-year graduate student travels abroad to present his research at a conference. While he is outside the United States, a change in immigration procedures delays his return. He spends weeks navigating paperwork before he can re-enter the country. He misses his annual thesis committee meeting as a result, and the ordeal pushes his graduation further away.

We, the authors, are graduate students at large research universities in the U.S. While these stories are fictionalized, the problems are real and faced by people we know and work with. Beginning Sept. 15, a Department of Homeland Security rule will replace the open-ended “duration of status” system for F and J visas with fixed periods of admission capped at four years. Students whose degrees take longer will have to apply for an extension before the clock runs out. Other new proposals would restrict federally funded conference attendance and international research collaborations, adding more uncertainty for physicists whose work takes them across borders.

Policies like these add scrutiny, pressure, and paperwork to a graduate education that is already difficult to navigate. For students deciding where to train, and whether to build their careers in the U.S., this uncertainty can cause challenges before they enter the lab and long after they leave it.

While rapidly shifting policies are making the U.S. training pipeline less stable, less effective, and less accessible to students around the world, the physics community is not helpless. To sustain scientific progress and innovation in today’s climate of uncertainty, they must rise to the occasion and be the advocates and supporters that these students need and deserve.

Scientists of today and tomorrow

There is a misconception that graduate education is solely workforce training, as though the work starts after the degree. As graduate students ourselves, we write and maintain software, calibrate detectors, author papers, and teach. A reduction in graduate support harms the entire research ecosystem, starting now and lasting for years.

Physics is particularly vulnerable. According to a report from the American Institute of Physics, non-U.S. citizens consistently earn just under half of the doctorates awarded each year in the U.S.

The long-term impact becomes apparent when you consider the fields in which international students are concentrated. Data from the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics shows that temporary visa holders in 2024 earned 61% of U.S. doctorates in computer and information sciences, 54% in engineering, and 52% in mathematics. These are highly technical fields, areas in which expertise would take the longest to rebuild. In the most extreme cases, entire segments of knowledge that are not traditionally prioritized in the U.S. could fade from the American research ecosystem altogether.

Furthermore, international students often remain in the country after they have earned these advanced degrees. Of temporary visa holders who earned U.S. science and engineering doctorates from 2017 to 2019, 73% were still working in the U.S. five years later. Policies that make it harder for these students to come to (or remain in) the country remove valuable participants from the American scientific workforce.

Feeling the effects of uncertainty

The last few years have been tough for universities. According to the Association of American Universities, total Ph.D. applications dropped by 15% between fall 2025 and fall 2026, with domestic applications rising by 3% but international applications falling by 21%. This does not mean that departments are replacing international students with domestic ones. Instead, they have fewer of both: Domestic enrollment fell by 5% and international student enrollment fell by 11%, the steepest drop in over 20 years.

New immigration policies are compounding this issue. For international applicants, the Department of Homeland Security's new rules may change what a U.S. admissions offer is worth, as it no longer comes with the promise of stable immigration status for the duration of a degree.

Physics has already been affected. More than 60% of physics departments in the U.S. received fewer international applications for fall 2026, and 55% made fewer offers to the international students who did apply.

Enrollment and admissions are not the only processes being impacted by new policies. The National Science Foundation has recently prohibited collaboration between researchers it funds and international institutions it identifies as “security risks,” including several leading Chinese universities. For students and researchers, this directly impacts who they can write papers with, which datasets they may use, and whether their collaboration will remain intact.

Something harder to quantify is also under threat: the world’s willingness to view the U.S. as a place worth the risk of building a scientific career. For decades, that willingness has attracted a steady stream of talented students. That willingness is a form of soft power that has taken many years to build and will not easily return once it erodes.

The effect of these changes is an environment in which those engaged in science cannot plan for their future, and the students burdened by that uncertainty are those with the least power to resolve it.

A system built by everyone

We have heard from friends who don’t know if they’ll be allowed to complete their degrees, and colleagues who spend more time thinking about how to keep their families together than working on the science they are passionate about.

When fewer students attend graduate school overall, fewer types of students attend, too. But a group with diverse backgrounds and experiences is better suited to tackle the unique challenges of research. Landing on the moon, developing the Standard Model, and detecting gravitational waves were accomplished by domestic and foreign scientists working together in the U.S.

Open exchange between scientists, regardless of their birthplaces, has made the American engine of innovation powerful. For decades, U.S. institutions have encouraged this exchange. Every scientist who trains here carries that sentiment forward, extending American methods, collaborators, and amity into labs across the world. When international students are pushed out of this system, it does not just shrink lab rosters. Instead, it dismantles a network that is sustained by the combined efforts of its participants.

Balancing security concerns

Some supporters of the administration's recent policies cite the need for research security. It's true that some research is sensitive, and there are cases of undisclosed foreign funding or intellectual property leaving the country through research channels. For example, in 2021, the former chair of Harvard’s chemistry department was convicted of lying to federal investigators about his financial ties to a Chinese-run talent recruitment program.

While these concerns are real, the U.S. already has a framework to handle this, and it has been working for 40 years. In 1985, the National Security Decision Directive 189 established that, “to the maximum extent possible, the products of fundamental research remain unrestricted.” Importantly, this directive defines fundamental research based not on subject matter but on exclusion, as anything that is not already restricted for proprietary or national security reasons. When there is a genuine need to protect something, the directive aims to have it classified accordingly, not to restrict who is allowed to work on it.

Recent policy, such as the NSF’s restriction on collaboration with institutions it identifies as security risks, deviates from this standard. It draws restrictions not around the research itself, but around the researcher, using nationality as a proxy for risk. This approach not only misses the mark by protecting against people instead of knowledge, it does so at a cost not visible on the same timeline as its benefits. The loss to science may only be felt years down the line through collaboration that was never able to happen, students who chose to study elsewhere, and expertise that may be lost for good.

Protecting the future of science

Early-career researchers across the U.S., regardless of country of birth, should feel safe, secure, and welcomed. Advisors, mentors, and peers all have an important role to play in creating this environment. To combat the uncertainty, isolation, and fear that can limit student development, they can:

1. Stay informed

Members of research departments and communities should not be oblivious to conditions that materially affect their students and programs, especially since those impacts will harm science in the long run. They should stay aware of changes and inform their students about them. For example, advisors should be aware that for international students, travel may come with complications that other students do not face.

APS provides many resources, including a toolkit to help navigate this situation. It includes practical short-, medium-, and long-term recommendations for department leaders, research advisors, and international students.

2. Communicate

Clear, timely, and proactive communication is important to help students navigate uncertainty. When changes in university or government policies may affect trainees, advisors should make an effort to ensure that students know where to turn for reliable guidance.

They can also help bridge gaps between students, departments, university leadership, and international student offices by directing students to appropriate resources and providing support where they can. Good mentors make it clear that students can approach them with concerns and emphasize that they are committed to helping trainees navigate challenges affecting their education, research, or well-being.

3. Use your voice

Advisors, mentors, and peers should be willing to use their positions to advocate for both their students and the long-term health of their programs. This does not always require formal advocacy. It can be as simple as speaking up in a department meeting, questioning decisions that may unnecessarily harm or place burdens on students, and making sure student interests are represented in administrative discussions.

Faculty can also help guard against reactive decisions made in response to short-term uncertainty. This includes encouraging departments to think carefully before reducing graduate cohorts and pushing back against the unnecessary exclusion of international students from research, funding, or professional opportunities because of confusion or excessive caution surrounding immigration policies. They can also urge departments to communicate immigration-related changes clearly and promptly, so that students are not left to interpret complex policies on their own.

Protecting the ability of the U.S. to recruit, train, and retain talented researchers from across the world is crucial for the future of the scientific enterprise. Graduate students form the foundation of that future, yet they often feel the harshest impacts of rapidly changing policy. Navigating through uncertainty, while sustaining research progress, technological innovation, and student well-being, will require advisors and colleagues to play an active role in supporting both scientists and their science.