Washington scientists say ‘brain drain’ has begun as researchers consider moving abroad amid Trump cuts

As the Trump administration slashes federal support for biomedical research, centers and studies that rely on that money are stalled and aspiring scientists face uncertainty about the future of their careers.

While that might seem like another aspect of the “new normal” under President Donald Trump, for up-and-coming researchers like Kristin Weinstein, a PhD candidate in the Department of Immunology at the University of Washington, the cuts threaten her version of the American Dream.

“You’re supposed to work hard and have a good life here,” said Weinstein, who grew up an hour west of Chicago. “That’s part of being an American. If you can’t pursue your career here, then what are we doing?”

Weinstein is among thousands of the world’s frontline scientists whose careers in the U.S. have been thrown into question by an administration that has gutted research funding, imperiled science-related jobs, and stalled the grant-approval process for clinical studies and research centers.

RELATED: NIH scientists call on director to protect biomedical research

Now, Washington state and the rest of the nation face a “brain drain” with the potential exodus of scientists, which could impact domestic medical innovation for generations to come.

A survey of 1,200 U.S. scientists published in Nature at the end of March found three out of four are considering leaving the U.S. Among post-graduate researchers, the percentage was close to 80%.

For foreign governments and universities abroad, the trend presents a unique opportunity after decades struggling to compete with U.S. companies and universities subsidized by a government that in 2024 spent close to $1 trillion on research and development.

In May, the European Union announced a new €500 million “Choose Europe” initiative to encourage top scientific researchers to relocate to the EU. The European Research Council has doubled the start-up money (to €2 million) for foreign researchers who establish labs or set up research teams in EU countries.

Looking abroad

For her part, Weinstein is considering something she never thought would be in her future – leaving the U.S. to continue her research in Europe.

In March, she attended the World Immune Regulation Meeting in Davos, Switzerland. She signed up for the four-day conference as a training opportunity. But with the future of her U.S. research in doubt, she realized it could be a chance to continue her work abroad.

“I was going around trying to figure out how funding works in different European countries, what kind of positions are available, what the job markets are like, if any professors were hiring,” Weinstein said. “I actually had a really nice conversation with somebody in southern Germany. He gave me his business card on the way out and said we should stay in touch.”

Weinstein is considering such a move even though she has a 1-year-old son and family in the Midwest. An analysis by Nature found she’s not alone. During the first three months of 2025, the number of U.S. scientists applying for jobs abroad was up 32% compared to 2024.

When looking at U.S. scientists applying for positions in Canada, the numbers were even higher, up 41%. Weinstein said that includes one of her coworkers, a lab tech who was, until recently, planning to stay in the U.S.

“He's direct-admitting to a lab up in Canada, instead of searching for a position here,” she said. “That was directly motivated by the Trump administration.”

NIH lifeline severed

The National Institutes of Health, whose budget the administration plans to cut by 40%, has funded every step of Kristin Weinstein’s training, from her undergraduate work in biology and stint as a full-time research technician, to her graduate research on autoimmune diseases at the UW School of Medicine in Seattle.

“It’s absolutely central to our ability to raise the next generation of scientists and to continue to do research,” Weinstein said.

In addition to her NIH support, Weinstein is a recipient of a coveted National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. The future of that program is also in doubt after the administration cut the foundation’s budget from $9 billion to $4 billion, terminated 1,600 active grants, and cut the number of research fellowships in half.

RELATED: NIH announces new funding policy that rattles medical researchers

The federal cuts are especially challenging for scientists and researchers at the start of their careers, said Dr. Shelly Sakiyama-Elbert, vice dean of research and graduate education at UW Medicine.

“Grad students in particular are really concerned,” Sakiyama-Elbert said. “Will there be money for me to do a post-doc for multiple years? Will I be able to finish that research project and get the publications I need to move on to the next career stage? People are really concerned about what the future holds.”

UW impact

Funding cuts hit especially hard at the UW, which in 2023 received the most federal support of any public university at almost $1.2 billion. That includes money from the Department of Health and Human Services (which includes the NIH), the Department of Defense, and the National Science Foundation.

Sakiyama-Elbert said a large portion of federal funding at UW Medicine goes directly to more than 3,000 UW employees who are supported either in whole or in part by NIH grants.

The approval process for federal grants has slowed to a near halt. Part of that could be due to deep cuts to NIH staff. Delays could also be the result of additional scrutiny of grant proposals to make sure they align with Trump administration policies and priorities. Doctors and scientists at UW Medicine say they are left to speculate because they have received little to no information from the government.

“Our grant is listed as pending, but there’s no information about how long it may be pending, and we’re very aware that our sister centers in the same wave of renewal are all waiting,” said Dr. Thomas Grabowski, who heads the UW Alzheimer Disease Research Center.

RELATED: How far could Trump’s NIH funding cuts set medical innovation back? By decades, UW researchers warn

The Alzheimer center is part of a network of 35 centers across the country. Seattle is also home to the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center, where data from all the centers is collected and shared. The Coordinating Center is also awaiting word on its federal funding.

Grabowski said he and his colleagues are scrambling to fill in gaps and avoid staff cuts after operating for more than a month without NIH money, which accounts for 80-85% of the center’s budget.

“Our first priority is to keep the key staff,” he said. “The longer you wait, the more your capabilities degrade, because the staff have lives, too, and they need to be confident in their livelihoods.”

Alzheimer’s research requires studies that can last for decades. Those studies don’t end until a patient dies, and their brain is examined. Grabowski said NIH funding is what gives his center and others like it the ability to sustain that long-term research.

“I talk to a lot of lay people about Alzheimer’s disease, people across the political spectrum, and no one has animosity around research into Alzheimer’s disease. It’s truly a bipartisan disease,” he said. “So, it’s hard to understand why it’s problematic to fund it.”

Dr. Marion Pepper, professor and chair of the Department of Immunology, is responsible for grants that pay for all 15 people employed in her lab. She said having grants rejected is part of the process.

Only 10% of NIH grants she applies for are funded, which is actually considered a strong average. She said researchers are used to rejection, but until now, those denials have been based on the merits of the research and the strength of her proposals.

“For those grants to be vetted and to go through the review process, as they normally do, and then be terminated for unknown reasons is unconscionable,” she said. “We're left not really knowing how to respond.”

Capping ‘indirect costs’

Even if those non-competing NIH grants are finally renewed, Grabowski’s center and others could be squeezed by a proposed 15% cap on “indirect costs,” which cover facilities maintenance, utilities, equipment, IT, purchasing, accounting, and safety measures. The standard UW charge for indirect costs is more than three times the proposed cap, at 55.5%.

Pepper said the proposed cap would impact everything in her lab from invoicing, building costs, and internet fees to the daily disposal of biohazard waste.

“That would completely cut us off at the knees,” she said.

The proposed cap on indirect costs has been challenged in a lawsuit brought by 22 attorneys general, including Washington AG Nick Brown.

The states won a permanent injunction in April, but the government appealed to the First Circuit, where “this matter is on an expedited briefing schedule,” according to Mike Faulk, Brown’s deputy communications director. Briefs from both sides are being submitted and reviewed. A reply from the court is expected July 1.

Suicide prevention on hold

While Grabowski’s research center is one month into its NIH funding dilemma, the Suicide Care Research Center has been without support from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) since February.

The center was established two years ago by Dr. Kate Comtois to improve the design and delivery of suicide care for teenagers and young people in outpatient medical settings.

NIMH funding accounts for 80% of the center’s budget. When the money didn’t come in February, the center furloughed a portion of its staff. When it still hadn’t been renewed in March, those furloughs turned to reductions in force.

By the end of April, the center’s discretionary money had been exhausted. Comtois said she is frantically looking for other sources of income to keep the remaining staff and maintain the center’s signature project: Swift Outpatient Alternatives for Rapid Stabilization, or SOARS.

SOARS is a partnership with Seattle Children’s that, as the name implies, looks at outpatient alternatives (versus inpatient or emergency room care) for young people with acute suicide risk.

“They're scrambling over at Children's to make sure they have the resources so, at least for the patients who are in the trial, we see them through, but no new patients will come in,” Comtois said.

That means a study that has been funded for the past two years is suddenly stalled, and researchers’ ability to test their hypothesis is thrown into doubt.

“All of our work is with young people,” Comtois said. “There's the impact on them and their families, and then there's the impact on our research staff and our trainees and our other faculty. And then there's the impact on the clinic.”

Facing economic uncertainty and dim prospects, Comtois has seen researchers and trainees decide to leave the field to pursue other lines of work.

“Part of it was they were counting on this funding to keep their work going,” Comtois said. “And part of it, what they expressed to us was, 'If you senior people can't keep things going, then why would I? This just doesn't seem viable for me as a young person to go forward.'”

At the Alzheimer’s center, Grabowski expects to see a similar impact to what Comtois is facing if his $21-million NIH grant isn’t renewed soon.

“A lot of the issues she articulated are going to become acute issues for us as the next couple months go by,” he said.

Both Grabowski and Comtois said one of the most frustrating things about the process has been the lack of response to inquiries to the NIH and NIMH.

“It’s not even that I’m getting vague responses,” Comtois said. “They just literally are not responding at all.”

The NIH did not provide additional information about the grants to KUOW, even after the specific grant numbers were provided at the agency's request.

Comtois said the uncertainty is impacting morale among her colleagues and staff.

“The whole thing is very demoralizing,” she said. “We're moving forward, because what else can you do?”

Rally for science

One thing Kristin Weinstein has done is organize rallies in support of science and taken to the airways. She appeared on “60 Minutes” at the end of April and spoke on a panel with U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, in May.

Weinstein is one of the Northwest organizers of Stand Up for Science, which held a series of coordinated demonstrations across the U.S. to advocate for science and scientific research. The Seattle rally in March attracted almost 5,000 supporters.

Weinstein has also been part of a postcard-writing campaign that resulted in thousands of handwritten postcards being sent to elected representatives in Washington, D.C.

Beyond activism and advocacy, Weinstein encouraged people to find joy and embrace community.

“Part of what the current administration is trying to do is to create chaos and fear, and as an American public, we need to reject that fear,” she said. “Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, we're neighbors. We need to unite. We need to stand together, and we need to find the things in life that continue to bring us happiness and joy.”