Hamas says that it has responded to a ceasefire plan put forward by President Trump’s envoy on Gaza, but did not make clear what its exact response was.

In a statement Saturday, Hamas said that its “proposal” to the mediators – Qatar and Egypt — “aims to achieve a permanent ceasefire, a comprehensive withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, and ensure the flow of aid to our people and our families in the Gaza Strip.”

“As part of this agreement, ten living Israeli prisoners held by the resistance will be released, in addition to the return of eighteen bodies, in exchange for an agreed-upon number of Palestinian prisoners,” the statement said.

Negotiations toward a permanent ceasefire would begin immediately on the first day of the 60-day truce, according to the proposal. The terms of the agreement would also allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza “immediately” and be distributed “through agreed upon channels,” including the United Nations and the Red Crescent, according to the proposal.

But the draft agreement contained no intrinsic guarantee of a permanent end to the war, a key Hamas demand, nor assurances that the ceasefire will be extended as long as negotiations continue. Instead, it said that US President Donald Trump is “committed to working to ensure that good faith negotiations continue until a final agreement is reached.”

Hamas had initially signaled reluctance to accept the terms of the deal. Bassem Naim, a member of the Hamas political bureau, said on Facebook Thursday that the framework did “not respond to any of our people’s demands” but that discussions were underway, nonetheless.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Turkish authorities escalated their crackdown on the opposition-run Istanbul municipality Saturday over alleged corruption charges, detaining 30 people.

Those held include a former MP of the main opposition Republican People’s Party, or CHP, and the mayors of three CHP-run districts of Istanbul.

State-run Anadolu Agency reported that the detentions were part of four separate corruption investigations involving the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality.

Saturday’s detentions are the fifth wave of a legal crackdown against the Istanbul administration since March 19, when Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu was arrested on corruption charges.

The arrest of Imamoglu, who is seen as the most viable challenger to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s 22-year rule, sparked widespread demonstrations calling for his release and an end to Turkey’s democratic backsliding under Erdogan.

The opposition and its supporters claim his arrest, and the subsequent arrest of dozens more from the CHP, are politically motivated.

“This time the coup didn’t come with boots and tanks, but with prosecutor’s robes,” said CHP chairman Ozgur Ozel on Saturday before a crowd of supporters in the northwestern city of Duzce.

However, the government insists Turkey’s judiciary is independent and free of political influence.

The second crackdown on CHP-run municipalities and districts occurred in late April, and the third and fourth waves were in late May, resulting in dozens of detentions.

The popular Mexican regional music band Grupo Firme announced on Friday that it was canceling a performance in a music festival in California over the weekend after the United States government suspended the musicians’ visas.

It comes after the US State Department has revoked visas of a number of Mexican musicians for playing a genre of music that it says glorifies cartel violence.

The group, which has soared to international fame playing Mexican regional music, said in a statement posted on its Instagram account that the visas of them and their team are currently under “administrative review by the US Embassy” and that it would make it “impossible” for them to perform in the La Onda Fest to be held in the city of Napa Valley, California on June 1.

But the post didn’t detail what it would mean in the long term for the musical group.

The US Embassy in Mexico and the State Department said that visa cases are confidential according to US law and couldn’t provide more information on the case.

The suspension is just the latest in a series of moves the administration of US President Donald Trump has taken targeting Mexican artists in the genre, who in some cases have glorified the leaders of cartels as sort of Robin Hood figures.

While the genre of “narco-corridos” has stirred controversy, much of the music also speaks to the harsh realities facing Mexican youth caught in cartel violence.

Two months ago, the Mexican musical group Los Alegres del Barranco was sanctioned after it projected images of the leader of the feared Jalisco New Generation Cartel at a concert in the western state of Jalisco.

“I’m a firm believer in freedom of expression, but that doesn’t mean that expression should be free of consequences,” US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said at the time.

“The last thing we need is a welcome mat for people who extol criminals and terrorists.”

But Grupo Firme has taken steps in recent months to distance itself from the facet of the musical genre glorifying criminal groups, announcing in April shortly after the controversy that it would not sing such music in concerts.

Every president thinks they can change the world – and Donald Trump has an even greater sense of personal omnipotence than his recent predecessors.

But it’s not working out too well for the 47th president. Trump might intimidate tech titans to toe the line and use government power to try to bend institutions like Harvard University and judges, but some world leaders are harder to bully.

He keeps being ignored and humiliated by Russian President Vladimir Putin who is defying the US effort to end the war in Ukraine. Russian media is now portraying Trump as the tough talker who always blinks and never imposes consequences.

The president also thought that he could shape China to his will by facing down leader Xi Jinping in a trade war. But he misunderstood Chinese politics. The one thing an authoritarian in Beijing can never do is bow down to a US president. US officials say now they’re frustrated that China hasn’t followed through on commitments meant to deescalate the trade conflict.

As with China, Trump backed down in his tariff war with the European Union. Then Financial Times commentator Robert Armstrong enraged the president by coining the term TACO trade — “Trump Always Chickens Out.”

Everyone thought that Trump would be on the same page as Benjamin Netanyahu. After all, in his first term he offered the Israeli prime minister pretty much everything he wanted. But now that he’s trying to broker peace in the Middle East, Trump is finding that prolonging the Gaza conflict is existential for Netanyahu’s political career, much like Ukraine for Putin. And Trump’s ambition for an Iranian nuclear deal is frustrating Israeli plans to use a moment of strategic weakness for the Islamic Republic to try to take out its reactors militarily.

Powerful leaders are pursuing their own versions of the national interest that exist in a parallel reality and on different historical and actual timelines to shorter, more transactional, aspirations of American presidents. Most aren’t susceptible to personal appeals with no payback. And after Trump’s attempts to humiliate Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office, the lure of the White House is waning.

Trump spent months on the campaign trail last year boasting that his “very good relationship” with Putin or Xi would magically solve deep geopolitical and economic problems between global powers that might be unsolvable.

He’s far from the first US leader to suffer from such delusions. President George W. Bush famously looked into the Kremlin tyrant’s eyes and “got a sense of his soul.” President Barack Obama disdained Russia as a decaying regional power and once dismissed Putin as the “bored kid in the back of the classroom.” That didn’t work out so well when the bored kid annexed Crimea.

More broadly, the 21st century presidents have all acted as though they’re men of destiny. Bush came to office determined not to act as the global policeman. But the September 11 attacks in 2001 made him exactly that. He started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — which the US won, then lost the peace. And his failed second term goal to democratize the Arab world never went anywhere.

Obama tried to make amends for the global war on terror and travelled to Egypt to tell Muslims it was time for “a new beginning.” His early presidency pulsated with a sense that his charisma and unique background would in itself be a global elixir.

Joe Biden traveled the globe telling everyone that “America is back” after ejecting Trump from the White House. But four years later, partly due to his own disastrous decision to run for a second term, America — or at least the internationalist post-World War II version – was gone again. And Trump was back.

Trump’s “America First” populism relies on the premise that the US has been ripped off for decades, never mind that its alliances and shaping of global capitalism made it the most powerful nation in the planet’s history. Now playing at being a strongman who everyone must obey, he is busily squandering this legacy and shattering US soft power — ie. the power to persuade — with his belligerence.

The first four months of the Trump presidency, with its tariff threats, warnings of US territorial expansion in Canada and Greenland and evisceration of global humanitarian aid programs show that the rest of the world gets a say in what happens too. So far, leaders in China, Russia, Israel, Europe and Canada appear to have calculated that Trump is not as powerful as he thinks he is, that there’s no price for defying him or that their own internal politics make resistance mandatory.

After half a year of political turmoil, uncertainty and division, South Korea will vote for a new president to succeed Yoon Suk Yeol, the disgraced former leader who plunged the democratic nation into chaos by declaring martial law in December.

This election feels particularly significant; the country, a US ally and Asian economic and cultural powerhouse, has floundered for months with a revolving door of interim leaders while navigating Yoon’s impeachment trial and a multipronged investigation into the fateful night of his short-lived power grab.

All the while, South Korea’s economy has suffered, with US President Donald Trump’s trade war and a potential global recession looming in the background. Two men are each promising to help the country recover if elected – a lawyer turned politician dogged by legal cases who survived an assassination attempt, and a former anti-establishment activist turned conservative minister.

Polls open on Tuesday morning and a winner could be declared by Wednesday.

Here’s what you need to know.

Who are the main candidates?

The frontrunner is Lee Jae-myung, 60, of the liberal opposition Democratic Party.

A former underage factory worker from a poor family, Lee became a human rights lawyer before entering politics. He is a former mayor and governor, and most recently served as a lawmaker after narrowly losing to Yoon in the 2022 presidential election.

He survived an assassination attempt in January 2024 when a man stabbed him in the neck during a public event.

He again made headlines on December 3, 2024 – the night Yoon declared martial law and sent troops to parliament. Lee was among the lawmakers who rushed to the legislature and pushed past soldiers to hold an emergency vote to lift martial law. He live streamed himself jumping over a fence to enter the building, in a viral video viewed tens of millions of times.

On the campaign trail, Lee promised political and economic reforms, including more controls on a president’s ability to declare martial law, and revising the constitution to allow two four-year presidential terms instead of the current single five-year term.

He has emphasized easing tensions on the Korean Peninsula while holding on to the longtime goal of denuclearizing North Korea; he also supports boosting small businesses and growing the AI industry.

But Lee has also been dogged by legal cases, including several ongoing trials for alleged bribery and charges related to a property development scandal.

Separately, he was convicted of violating election law in another ongoing case that has been sent to an appeals court.

Lee’s main rival is Kim Moon-soo of the conservative People Power Party (PPP).

When Yoon left the party in May, he urged supporters to back Kim – a 73-year-old former labor minister, who had been a prominent labor activist at university, even being expelled and imprisoned for his protests. He eventually joined a conservative party, and stepped into the nomination after several rounds of party infighting.

The PPP initially selected Kim as its candidate; then dropped him, eyeing former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo instead. The party finally chose Kim after he filed legal challenges.

But the PPP remains deeply divided and its candidate trailed Lee in pre-election polling. In a statement after his nomination, Kim vowed to seek unity and build a “big tent” coalition to take on Lee, according to Reuters.

Kim has also promised to reform the country’s politics, judiciary and election management systems to rebuild public trust. His campaign emphasized making South Korea business-friendly through tax cuts and eased restrictions, and by promoting new technologies and nuclear energy.

Several third-party and independent candidates are also running for the presidency. They include Lee Jun-seok, a former PPP leader who founded his own conservative New Reform Party last year.

What are the issues on the table?

At the forefront of voters’ minds is the country’s flailing economy and rising cost of living. Youth unemployment has surged and consumption has declined, with the economy unexpectedly contracting in the first quarter of this year.

Part of that is due to Trump’s trade war – which has hit South Korea’s export-reliant economy hard. South Korea’s exports to the US fell sharply in the first few weeks of April after US tariffs kicked in, and the nation’s largest airline has warned the downturn could cost it up to $100 million a year.

Though officials from both nations have met for tariff talks, the political turmoil at home is likely slowing progress and hampering a possible trade deal until a new South Korean president is elected.

That’s why both main candidates have focused on the economy, promising to stabilize the cost of goods and improve opportunities in housing, education and jobs.

But there’s a host of other problems the next president will have to tackle, too – such as the country’s rapidly aging society and plummeting birth rates, which represent an urgent demographic crisis also seen in other countries in the region like Japan and China. Among the common complaints of young couples and singles are the high cost of childcare, gender inequality and discrimination against working parents.

Then there are regional tensions. There’s the ever-present threat from North Korea, which has rapidly modernized its armed forces, developing new weapons and testing intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach almost anywhere in the United States. Experts have warned in recent years that the country may also be preparing to resume nuclear tests, which it paused in 2018.

Across the Yellow Sea lies China, which South Korea has a strong trade relationship with – but historically fraught diplomatic relations.

South Korea also maintains a close security alliance with the US, and hosts nearly 30,000 American troops in the country. In recent years, South Korea, Japan and the US have drawn closer together, working to counter Chinese influence in the strategically important Asia-Pacific region.

What happened to Yoon?

Yoon was removed from office in April following months of legal wrangling, after parliament voted to impeach him late last year.

It was a remarkable fall from grace for the former prosecutor turned politician, who rose to prominence for his role in the impeachment of another president – only to eventually meet the same fate.

Soon after, Yoon moved out from the presidential residency and into an apartment in the capital Seoul. But his legal battles are ongoing; he faces charges including insurrection, an offense punishable by life imprisonment or death (though South Korea has not executed anyone in decades). Yoon denies all charges against him.

At least seven people were killed when a road bridge collapsed onto a passenger train in western Russia late Saturday, with railway authorities blaming “illegal interference.”

The bridge came down in Russia’s Bryansk region, close to the Ukrainian border, crushing the moving train and injuring at least 30 people, Russian authorities reported.

The train was traveling from the town of Klimov to the capital Moscow when it was hit by the debris from the bridge and derailed, according to Russian state media outlet RIA Novosti.

Images from the Moscow interregional transport prosecutor’s office show fallen earth, debris and concrete on top of what appears to be the passenger train, and derailed carriages as emergency services attend the scene.

Moscow Railway cited the cause of the collapse as “illegal interference in transport operations,” without providing further details.

An investigation has been launched, and a team is inspecting the site, state news agency TASS reported.

The train’s engineer was among those killed in the incident, RIA Novosti reported. An infant remains in serious condition, according to the Russian emergencies ministry.

Passengers were evacuated from the wreckage and were taken to a temporary accommodation center at a nearby station, according to TASS.

Bryansk’s regional governor Alexander Bogomaz said on Telegram that emergency services and government officials were working at the scene.

“Everything necessary is being done to provide assistance to the victims,” he said, according to TASS.

Nayib Bukele, the self-declared “world’s coolest dictator,” will mark six years as El Salvador’s president on Sunday, a period defined by contentious reforms, which critics say have brought peace to the streets at an incredibly high price.

His iron-fisted crackdown on crime in the country, that was once the most violent nation in the western hemisphere, led to the arrest and detention of around 87,000 people, often with little due process.

The government has defended the move, pointing to significant reductions in gang violence nationwide, but opponents say it has come at the cost of mass incarceration and the erosion of civil liberties.

The dragnet expanded as time wore on to include civil society groups and journalists investigating official collusion with the country’s gangs, critics say.

On May 19, Ruth López, an anti-corruption lawyer for the human rights group Cristosal, who is also a prominent critic of Bukele, was detained by Salvadoran authorities for allegedly stealing “funds from state coffers.” However, López still has not been charged with a crime despite remaining in detention.

Soon after Lopez was arrested, Bukele’s government passed a law taxing foreign donations to NGOs like Cristosal at 30%, which rights groups have described as an existential threat.

“What we have seen is a massive concentration of power in (Bukele’s) hands,” Juan Pappier, deputy director for Latin America at Human Rights Watch, said of Bukele’s six years in power. Bukele’s rule has been “based on demolition of the checks and balances of democracy and increasing efforts to silence and intimidate critics.”

The reduction of gang-related crime in El Salvador has made Bukele popular in the Central American nation, so much so that he was reelected in a landslide victory last year, even though the country’s constitution had barred anyone standing for a second term. (Bukele’s allies in Congress eventually replaced the Supreme Court’s top justices with judges willing to interpret the constitution in his favor.)

Since March 2022, the country has been under a “state of exception,” allowing the suspension of numerous constitutional rights. In the capital San Salvador, many people say they now feel safe walking through neighborhoods once considered dangerous. Though they acknowledge the country has seen a massive increase in incarcerations and a suspension of rights, Bukele’s supporters believe the resulting peace and security has been worth the tradeoff.

Not everyone agrees.

Samuel Ramírez, founder of the Movement of Victims of the Regime (MOVIR), a human rights group that works with families of people believed to have been detained without due process, says thousands have been arrested over unfounded suspicions of being linked to gangs.

Bukele has previously admitted that some innocent people have been detained by mistake but said that several thousand have already been released.

Ramírez and other activists believe that many are too afraid to speak publicly.

“Here we see soldiers armed to the teeth in the streets, the police, even armored trucks in the streets — tanks. That’s synonymous with a country at war,” he said. “The gangs, for me, have already been neutralized. And now the war is against the people, so they don’t demonstrate, don’t speak out.”

Alleged back door dealings

Though he presents himself as a law-and-order leader, Bukele has long faced allegations that he negotiated the peaceful security situation in El Salvador through back-door dealings with the gangs.

In 2021, the Biden administration accused Bukele’s regime of bribing MS-13 and Barrio 18, two of the most notorious gangs in El Salvador, to “ensure that incidents of gang violence and the number of confirmed homicides remained low.” Alleged payoffs included cash, cell phones and prostitutes for imprisoned capos.

Bukele promptly denied the allegations, calling them an “obvious lie.”

But four years later, independent newsroom El Faro published an explosive interview with two self-styled gang leaders from Barrio 18 who claimed that, in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, they had intimidated voters into casting their ballots for Bukele during his 2015 bid for mayor of San Salvador.

The two men gang leaders also claimed that when he became president in 2019, Bukele had arranged that the most powerful gangs in El Salvador refrain from wanton murder and extortion, lest they make him look bad, El Faro reported.

Bukele has not yet responded publicly to their allegations, but obliquely referenced the reporting from El Faro in a post on May 10, sarcastically implying the only “pact” he made with the gang leaders involved putting them in prison.

The journalists from El Faro who broke the story fled the country before it was published, anticipating arrest.

He said seven of the publication’s journalists are facing arrest warrants for reporting on the alleged deals. Even so, he said the newspaper would continue its journalistic work. For the past two years, the publication has been running most of its operations in exile from Costa Rica.

“If there was any semblance of democracy left in El Salvador, it was in independent journalism,” said Noah Bullock, executive director of Cristosal.

‘We are under a dictatorship’

Last week, Bukele’s government passed a law taxing foreign donations to NGOs at 30%.

He had proposed a similar law in 2021, but it didn’t pass. In any case, Bullock says that it’s irrelevant whether any law is proposed, passed or tabled in El Salvador: after six years of virtually unfettered power, Bukele is a law in and of himself.

She said the law will make it impossible for them to continue working. It gives them three months to renew their registration as an NGO, but they don’t know how the process will work.

Grande’s assessment of the situation is unambiguous: “Right now, we can say very openly that we are under a dictatorship.”

Despite the growing outrage from rights groups, Bukele’s punishing penal system has won him fans.

US President Donald Trump has praised the crackdown and cut a deal with Bukele, who agreed to hold hundreds of Venezuelan deportees in El Salvador’s Center for Terrorism Confinement, alongside thousands of detained Salvadorans.

Known as Cecot, the mega-prison is considered the largest penitentiary in the Americas and is notorious for the spartan conditions, which rights organizations have denounced as inhumane.

“I think what is happening here is a kind of laboratory for what could happen in other countries,” NGO worker Grande warned. “Even the United States.”

During Trump’s April meeting with Bukele at the White House, Bukele suggested the US president follow his lead when it comes to mass detentions.

“Mr. President, you have 350 million people to liberate, you know,” Bukele said of the US population. “But to liberate 350 million people, you have to imprison some. You know, that’s the way it works, right?”

At least 26 Palestinians have been killed after Israeli forces opened fire on Sunday near a southern Gaza aid distribution center run by a controversial US-backed foundation, according to the Palestine Red Crescent Society.

“Crowds of citizens headed to receive food aid” from a site in the Rafah area, when Israeli forces opened fire, said a paramedic from the PRCS, the only medical professionals present in the area.

The GHF is a private organization backed by Israel and the United States. It was set up amid Israeli accusations that Hamas is stealing aid in Gaza and selling it for profit. Humanitarian organizations say there is no evidence of this, and Israel hasn’t presented any evidence publicly.

United Nations aid agencies have criticized the GHF’s aid mechanism, saying it violates humanitarian principles and raises the risks for Palestinians.

UN aid groups, such as UNRWA, typically check identification and rely on a database of registered families when distributing aid.

But the GHF is not screening Palestinians at aid distribution sites, despite Israeli officials saying that additional security measures were a core reason for the creation of the new program.

Criticism has been mounting against both Israel and the GHF after chaos broke out last week when tens of thousands of starving Palestinians arrived at two new food distribution sites.

According to Palestinian Ministry of Health figures from before Sunday’s incident, 11 people have been killed and dozens injured since the aid distribution sites have opened. The GHF said on Thursday that no one has been killed or injured since the distribution of aid began last week.

The statement added that it has provided more than 4.7 million meals in six days, including delivering 16 truckloads of food on Sunday morning, providing over 887,000 meals.

In a statement issued Sunday, the GHF said it will “continue scaling, with plans to build additional sites across Gaza, including in the northern region, in the weeks ahead.”

Aid was distributed “without incident,” read the statement, with the group adding it was “aware of rumors being actively fomented by Hamas suggesting deaths and injuries today.”

However, a mixed picture appears on the ground with claims of the aid distributed believed to be inaccurate.

The GHF also claims the reports of “deaths, mass injuries and chaos” at its sites are “false.”

“They are untrue and fabricated,” the statement continued.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Growing up in Brazil, neuroscientist Danielle Beckman always dreamed of moving to the US for work. So, in 2017, when Beckman got the opportunity to work at the California National Primate Research Center at UC Davis, she jumped on it.

“I was so excited,” she recalled. “Coming to the US was always the dream. It was always the place to be, where there’s the biggest investment in science.”

But months into President Donald Trump’s second term, as his administration wages an unprecedented war on the country’s top universities and research institutions, Beckman no longer sees the US as a welcome home for her or her research, which focuses on how viral infections like Covid-19 affect the brain.

Beckman is part of a growing wave of academics, scientists and researchers leaving the US in what many are warning could be the biggest brain drain the country has seen in decades.

But America’s loss could be the rest of the world’s gain.

As the Trump administration freezes and slashes billions of dollars in research funding, meddles with curricula, and threatens international students’ ability to study in the US, governments, universities and research institutions in Canada, Europe and Asia are racing to attract fleeing talent.

The European Union pledged €500 million ($562 million) over the next three years “to make Europe a magnet for researchers.”

A university in Marseille, France, is wooing persecuted academics under a new program called a “Safe Place for Science.” Canada’s largest health research organization is investing 30 million Canadian dollars ($21.8 million) to attract 100 scientists early in their careers from the US and elsewhere. The Research Council of Norway launched a 100 million kroner ($9.8 million) fund to lure new researchers. The president of Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University recently told a crowd at a higher education summit the school is identifying “superstar” US researchers and making them offers as soon as the next day.

The Australian Academy of Science also launched a new talent program to recruit disillusioned US-based scientists and lure Australians back home.

“We know these individuals are highly trained, talented, and have much to offer,” said Anna-Maria Arabia, chief executive of the academy, noting the program has received “encouraging interest” so far.

“It’s vitally important that science can continue without ideological interference,” Arabia said.

The US could lose its scientific edge

The US has long been a powerhouse when it comes to research and development, attracting talent from far afield with its big budgets, high salaries and swanky labs.

Since the 1960s, US government expenditure in research and development (R&D) has more than doubled from $58 billion in 1961 to almost $160 billion in 2024 (in inflation-adjusted dollars), according to federal data. When incorporating R&D funding from the private sector, that number balloons to more than an estimated $900 billion in 2023.

The US’s enormous investment in R&D has led to an outsized influence on the world stage. The US has racked up more than 400 Nobel Prizes, more than double the amount of the next country, the United Kingdom. More than a third of the US’s prizes were won by immigrants.

“We have been respected worldwide for decades because we have trained succeeding generations of researchers who are pushing into new territories,” said Kenneth Wong, a professor of education policy at Brown University.

But Trump’s second term has upended the relationship between higher education and the federal government.

Trump’s gutting of federal health and science agencies has led to sweeping job losses and funding cuts, including at the National Institutes of Health, which funds nearly $50 billion in medical research each year at universities, hospitals and scientific institutions.

Between the end of February and the beginning of April, the administration cancelled almost 700 NIH grants totaling $1.8 billion, according to an analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The Trump administration has proposed reducing the NIH’s budget in 2026 by 40%.

The National Science Foundation has also slashed nearly $1.4 billion worth of grants. On Wednesday, 16 US states sued the Trump administration over the NSF cuts, which they argue will impede “groundbreaking scientific research” and “(jeopardize) national security, the economy and public health.”

Trump has also targeted elite universities and is in the middle of a legal battle with Harvard University over its refusal to bow to his administration’s directives to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs, resulting in billions in frozen federal funding. That battle significantly escalated this month when Trump banned Harvard’s ability to enroll international students – a decision swiftly halted by a federal judge hours after Harvard filed suit.

This week, the White House directed federal agencies to cancel all remaining contracts with Harvard.

“The president is more interested in giving that taxpayer money to trade schools and programs and state schools where they are promoting American values, but most importantly, educating the next generation based on skills that we need in our economy and our society: apprenticeships, electricians, plumbers,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Fox News this week.

“We need more of those in our country, and less LGBTQ graduate majors from Harvard University.”

‘I don’t feel so welcome’

Foreign institutions have already jumped on the chance to welcome Harvard students now caught in legal limbo. On Monday, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology said it will accept any Harvard students that wish to transfer, as well as prospective students with a current offer from Harvard.

“I see this as the most significant crisis that universities are facing since World War Two,” Wong said. “We are seeing a complete reset of this collaborative relationship between the federal government and leading research institutions.”

Once the beacon of scientific research, the US has now become an increasingly hostile place to study, teach, and do research. Three quarters of US scientists surveyed by the journal Nature in March said they were considering leaving because of the Trump administration’s policies.

Some have already jumped ship. Yale professors Jason Stanley, Marci Shore and Timothy Snyder, preeminent fascism scholars, announced in March they were leaving for the University of Toronto across the border in Canada because of Trump’s affronts to academic freedom.

Beckman, the Brazilian neuroscientist, said her lab has seen $2.5 million in grant funding cancelled in recent months. On top of these funding woes, Beckman said the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigrants, and shifting attitudes towards foreigners in the US, has also pushed her to look for work elsewhere.

“It’s the first time since I moved here that I don’t feel so welcome anymore,” she said.

As the US research ecosystem responds to shrinking budgets and intrusions on academic freedom, early-career scientists are going to be hardest hit, Wong said. But younger researchers are also more mobile, and institutions around the world are welcoming them with open arms.

“What we are losing is this whole cadre of highly productive, young, energetic, well-trained, knowledgeable, advanced researchers who are primed to take off,” Wong said.

Other countries have long deprioritized investment in scientific research as the US absorbed the R&D needs of the world, Wong said. But that trend is shifting.

R&D spending in China has surged in recent decades, and the country is close to narrowing the gap with the US. China spent more than $780 billion on R&D in 2023, according to OECD data. The European Union is also spending more on R&D. R&D investment in the bloc has increased from about $336 billion in 2007 to $504 billion in 2023, according to the OECD.

For a couple of months, Beckman said she considered stepping away from her Covid-19 research, which has become increasingly politicized under the Trump administration.

But then she started getting interviews at institutions in other countries.

“There is interest in virology everywhere in the world except the US right now.”