Few would have predicted a decade ago that the US, the world¡¯s greatest research powerhouse, could find its scientific foundations under such strain. Yet here we are, with growing public mistrust of ¡°expert elites¡±, politically motivated limitations on study topics, budget cuts and bans on international students.

Hungary¡¯s crackdown on the Central European University in 2018 reminds us how quickly political forces can cripple institutions dedicated to open inquiry, and the parallels to what is happening the Harvard University are not lost on anyone.

Consequently, many US scholars are already looking overseas for more stable conditions ¨C and . At the same time, various schemes aimed at attracting senior US researchers to Europe have been established. But their ethics have been questioned; while such schemes may help individuals preserve their research careers, they risk imposing further damage on the US system as a whole by facilitating a brain drain.

This would not be a good thing from anyone¡¯s perspective. The US and Europe share deep historical bonds, forged through intellectual exchange and scientific advancement. Today¡¯s challenges demand a renewed transatlantic partnership grounded in democratic principles and the universal pursuit of knowledge. Rather than viewing researcher migration as a competitive opportunity, we in Europe must reimagine it as ¡°knowledge circulation¡± that strengthens the transatlantic research ecosystem and revitalises the centuries-old Republic of Letters tradition.

51³Ô¹Ï

This approach requires vigilance from all participants. Europe may currently be casting itself as a haven for unfettered inquiry but the political forces currently threatening American science could emerge anywhere tomorrow. European far-right parties are by no means exclusive to Hungary: they are making electoral gains across the continent.

Nevertheless, our immediate aim should be to safeguard America¡¯s longer-term position as a global power in science. And, to that end, any schemes to support US scientists should be focused primarily on early career researchers (ECRs).

51³Ô¹Ï

As scholars who have studied the effects of shifting political regimes on higher education, we believe that graduate students, postdocs and junior faculty are most in need of rapid, tailor-made pathways to support work compromised by political interference or sudden funding loss.

Established academics often have institutional clout to withstand political storms. ECRs, by contrast, lack extensive networks and reputational capital. They frequently depend on project budgets, senior mentors and temporary appointments. In sciences that require major funding, budget cuts and politicised review processes can leave them without a salary. In social sciences and humanities, their critical perspectives leave scholars vulnerable to censorship. In such circumstances, many ECRs may simply abandon promising research careers before they have truly begun.

How best to help them? Rather than designing brand-new programmes, improving and streamlining existing pathways is likely to be the quickest way to start making a difference. Europe must build on the success of the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions scheme for?ECRs and the European Union¡¯s recently expanded rescue funds. The European Commission should also make it quicker and easier for the existing European University Alliances to embrace US universities as full partners. Speed matters here: visible cooperation is urgently required and would carry symbolic weight.

But it shouldn¡¯t all be about EU-level schemes. Ultimately, we also need bilateral and multilateral funding schemes. Individual European countries could follow Ireland¡¯s example of redirecting tax windfalls into specialised research, extending eligibility to US researchers. Foundations and private donors on both sides of the Atlantic can also help buffer scientific work from political pressures.

Moreover, securing funding from US states or philanthropic bodies may sidestep the constraints on spending federal research funding outside the US that have recently intensified ¨C as well as avoiding the tighter rules on bringing international students and ECRs to the US. This underscores that the relationship is reciprocal: both sides gain when researchers circulate freely.

51³Ô¹Ï

Nor should our response only be about providing money. Even generous fellowships cannot replace mentorship networks. Hence, we propose transatlantic mentorship consortia linking European academics with newcomers from the US. These ready-made support systems would ensure cultural adjustment and facilitate joint projects and publications.

A further aspect of shoring up the Republic of Letters should be to counter populist narratives ¨C on both sides of the Atlantic ¨C with facts and empathy. Public distrust of science often stems from legitimate grievances over opaque procedures or perceived elitism. Universities can rebuild trust by highlighting concrete societal benefits of research and engaging in open dialogue with communities.

We are at a crossroads. The issue is not so much where US scientists might find their next grants: it is whether open enquiry and robust evidence will endure as cornerstones of democratic life. A transatlantic lifeline for?ECRs ¨C underpinned by significant investment, mutual alliances and a steadfast dedication to freedom of thought ¨C will preserve our collective capacity to imagine and create a better tomorrow.

51³Ô¹Ï

is managing director of the Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences at the University of Bremen.

is chair of the Doctoral Studies Policy Group of the League of European Research Universities. Before retirement in 2024, he was pro vice-provost of the doctoral school and early career researchers at UCL.

is professor emerita of higher education and founding director of the Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education at the University of Washington. Together with the co-authors of this article, in 2022 she edited the open-access publication Towards a 51³Ô¹Ï Core Value System in Doctoral Education, a comparative study featuring contributors from 25 countries.

Conor O¡¯Carroll is an independent consultant on research and higher education policy and funding. He is currently leading a European initiative to implement policy on research careers.

51³Ô¹Ï

Beate Scholz is a historian and founder and director of a consulting and coaching company focusing on higher education and research institutions, individual scholars and evidence-based science policy advice.