By Veronique de Rugy
Thursday, 30 July 2026 05:04 PM EDT
There are many ways to measure a nation’s health. Gross domestic product growth and economic productivity are common metrics, but one less conventional indicator deserves attention: Do the world’s most talented and ambitious individuals choose to immigrate here?
Throughout much of American history, the answer has been an emphatic yes. Scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, artists, and other dreamers from around the globe have come to the United States believing they could build something, discover something, or launch a business while improving their lives.
We should be concerned about the day when this is no longer true.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration appears determined to accelerate that day. Its protectionist approach extends beyond foreign goods and capital—it also targets in-demand skilled immigrants.
For example, a rule finalized in early July replaces “duration of status” for international students, exchange visitors, and journalists with fixed admission periods. This forces students to seek government approval to remain beyond four years, regardless of whether their studies conclude within that timeframe. Additionally, it complicates the ability of international graduates to stay and work in the U.S. through the Optional Practical Training program.
A recent analysis by Amy Nice, Michael Clemens, and Jeremy Neufeld from the Peterson Institute for International Economics underscores the implications. The study examines how international students—particularly those studying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—enter American universities and later contribute to the workforce.
This pipeline is invaluable. The research reveals that America’s science and technology sector relies heavily on foreign talent. Immigrants fill nearly one-third of advanced STEM positions and almost half of roles requiring a doctorate. Students who enter the country for studies account for about one-fifth of all degree-holding STEM workers and over one-third at the doctoral level.
Clemens notes that U.S.-educated STEM graduates who remain after graduation patent new inventions at four times the rate of typical college graduates and account for approximately 10 percent of all patents filed in the United States. They also launch high-growth startups at six times the rate of domestic graduates.
This means we cannot assume that if a foreign engineer secures a job, an American engineer loses one—because these individuals create new opportunities through innovation.
Protectionism targeting human capital relies on an economic fallacy similar to other forms: the belief that the economy is a single pie, so allowing foreign talent contributes to others at the table. In reality, talented people do not just fill existing jobs; they invent products, start companies, conduct research, and boost productivity around them.
In the process, they generate opportunities for others that would not exist without their contributions.
The irony is stark when considering Washington’s focus on competing with China. Politicians claim America faces an existential technological race, spending billions to subsidize semiconductors and other strategic industries while developing policies to dominate artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and advanced manufacturing.
Yet, when a brilliant young scientist from India, China, or elsewhere earns an advanced degree at an American university and wishes to stay and contribute, the government suggests they should leave.
It is possible to invest billions in a semiconductor facility in Arizona. But you cannot create genius through an appropriations bill.
The Peterson researchers estimate that discouraging one-third of international STEM graduates could reduce U.S. economic output by 0.7% to 1.3% over a decade—roughly $200 billion to $400 billion, equivalent to losing entire economies like Utah or South Carolina.
These figures are based on assumptions about future immigration and productivity, but the effect is clear: when productive individuals leave or never arrive, we lose their ideas, businesses, discoveries, and all related economic activity.
There is also a deeper concern. One of America’s greatest strengths is that people choose to live here with their feet—traveling thousands of miles for opportunities unavailable elsewhere. This is an extraordinary vote of confidence in American institutions: our markets, rule of law, and culture of entrepreneurship.
We must never take this confidence for granted.
Indeed, the prospect that the world’s brightest young people might decide America no longer warrants the effort should terrify us. Not only would we lose their economic contributions, but their decision would reveal what America has become.
Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Her primary research areas include U.S. economy, federal budget, homeland security, taxation, tax competition, and financial privacy. Ms. de Rugy has also served as a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a policy analyst at Cato Institute, and a research fellow at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation.
