Morning! Today’s lead story is by Kate Zernike, who mostly writes about abortion for the New York Times. Today, she’s covered the brain drain.

It’s hard to be a fascist. You hate immigrants. And yet Steve Jobs’s father was a refugee from Syria, and most of our best scientists are immigrants from elsewhere. Your hate makes this country poorer.

My favorite mind-twisting quote in the whole article is where Dr. Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences declines to mention the, er, Nazism of the immigrants involved. But after World War II, “we brought the rocket scientists here,” she said. “That’s what got us to the moon.”

I mean, yes. I guess what this all illustrates is that life is complicated and that the simplicity of Fascist sloganeering tends to do us all down. What’s the story?

Well. The Trump administration’s sweeping reductions in federal funding for scientific research, combined with strict immigration rules, are prompting fears of a mass exodus of scientists from the United States. Top scientists and academic leaders warn that these policies could jeopardize the innovative infrastructure of American science — built over decades of substantial investment — while rival nations like China and European countries aggressively recruit talent and offer unprecedented support.

Dr. Ardem Patapoutian, a Nobel laureate in neuroscience, is one of the many researchers grappling with the fallout. Having migrated to the U.S. from Lebanon decades ago, he epitomizes success in the American scientific ecosystem — starting his career at the University of California, earning a postdoctoral fellowship, and eventually leading studies funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Patapoutian’s research into human touch mechanisms earned him the Nobel Prize in 2021. But his current federal grant supporting pain treatment research has been frozen.

Shortly after lamenting the administration’s stance on social media, Dr. Patapoutian received an enticing offer from China to relocate his lab to any university in any city of his choice, with guaranteed funding for 20 years. He declined because he loves America. But he acknowledged that younger scientists may not have the same attachment, and could choose to leave.

Similarly, Mathias Unberath, a computer scientist at Johns Hopkins University, is witnessing the erosion of international interest in U.S.-based research. His team, composed largely of students from abroad, has seen waning enthusiasm for American positions.

According to a Nature analysis, applications for U.S. graduate and postdoctoral positions from China and Europe have plummeted since President Trump took office, while inquiries from American scientists seeking opportunities abroad have surged. A scientific institute in Portugal reported a tenfold increase in job inquiries from U.S.-based junior faculty members within just two months.

You realize they hate us in Portugal, right, guys?

The Trump administration’s policies have created significant barriers for foreign-born researchers, who constitute a substantial portion of doctoral-level scientists in fields like biotechnology, engineering, computer science, and life sciences.

At Johns Hopkins University, Richard Huganir, chairman of neuroscience, highlighted the devastating effects of losing international students.

Dr. Huganir canceled plans to host an international research conference at Johns Hopkins after foreign scientists declined to attend due to visa concerns. While organizers suggested moving the conference to Oxford, participants feared they would not be allowed back into the U.S. if they left.

The American scientific ecosystem, largely built on federal grants and public-private partnerships, is now shifting toward reliance on private philanthropy and industry investment. While industrial funding may support development work, it does not prioritize basic research — the foundation of many major discoveries. Industry research also comes with higher costs due to the need for competitive wages.

At Johns Hopkins, philanthropy from figures like Michael Bloomberg has supported some initiatives, but it is far from sufficient to compensate for reduced federal funding. Moreover, scientific leaders fear that the shift to private sector dominance risks undermining the broader vision of scientific advancement envisioned in the mid-20th century.

As competing nations expand their budgets and hire aggressively, the U.S. risks losing both its scientific edge and the collaborative ethos that has historically marked its research output. Dr. McNutt is under no illusions about the stakes:

Speaking of the best and brightest, I hope you’ve been reading details of Ukraine’s "Operation Spider’s Web," a daring operation three days ago involving drones to strike Russian airfields, destroy strategic bombers and cause (checks notes) $7 billion in damages.

Ukraine demonstrated ingenuity by smuggling drones inside sheds into Russian territory, even using unsuspecting Russian truck drivers for the deliveries. It is like something out of a World War II war movie from the 1950s. “The Great Escape!”

The drones bypassed Russia's air defenses, showcasing how technological innovation is reshaping warfare. Dubbed a modern "Russian Pearl Harbor," the strike revealed vulnerabilities amid Russia’s ongoing aggression since 2014. The escalation shifts the calculus of the war, exposing Russia's fragility while forcing Moscow to rethink its strategies. President Trump’s controversial policies remain mired in accusations of collusion with Putin while stalling U.S. sanctions against Russia, further heightening international tensions around Ukraine’s resilience. The Times covered the story yesterday, but has yet to give it front-page coverage. My sense is they don’t want to be seen to be cheering too hard for Ukraine. But who am I cheering hard for?

Say, is there a story that might cheer me up a bit?

Yes: Late night TV hosts have a field day with Trump and Musk fighting:

Senator Elizabeth Warren also released a report yesterday showing that Musk’s net worth has increased by more than $100 billion since Election Day. It might not cheer you up, exactly. But at least she’s trying. You know? Although seriously, guys, get a better designer for your cover page. You put in all that work and then flubbed the launch and marketing. Typical.

Matt Davis lives in Manhattan with his wife and kid.

Standard disclaimer: I read the top story in the New York Times every morning so that you don’t have to. If you were forwarded this, you can subscribe here. I also do an occasional five-minute video version of this on weekday mornings at around 9 a.m. (depending on how long it takes me to read the newspaper). If you’d like to follow me on LinkedIn (you can always watch the recording later). Or if you subscribe to my Youtube channel it’ll send you a notification when I’m “going live.”