In May 2025, the U.S. government revoked Harvard University's qualification to enroll international students, citing "tolerance of campus violence and anti-Semitism" and froze $2.65 billion in federal research grants, impacting nearly 6,800 international students. This incident symbolizes a significant shift in U.S. research policy and has sparked discussions about academic freedom and national security.

The Harvard incident is just the tip of the iceberg. Starting from 2025, the Trump administration has drastically adjusted research budgets, cutting the National Science Foundation's (NSF) funding by over 50% and reducing the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) funding by 37% compared to the previous year. Data from the journal Nature shows a 32% increase in U.S. scientists applying for overseas positions in the first three months of 2025, indicating a noticeable acceleration in talent outflow.

In response to the tightening of U.S. research budgets, countries like Canada, Australia, and European nations are rapidly launching initiatives to attract research talent. Canada initiated the "Canada Leads" project in April, aiming to recruit top scholars with high salaries. French Aix-Marseille University has launched the "Safe Place for Science" initiative, providing funding and positions to attract affected U.S. scientists; Australia is actively luring high-level talent with the Global Talent Independent program (GTI). In the first three months of 2025 alone, applications for research positions in Canada grew by 41%, with over 40% of these coming from the U.S. This migration involves not only senior scholars but also a large number of young researchers, indicating a diversification trend in global research talent distribution.

The tightening of international student policies and research budgets in the U.S. reflects its technological strategy and national security concerns. The restrictions on international students, particularly Chinese scholars, serve both to prevent technological leakage and to respond to domestic conservative dissatisfaction with alleged "elitism" in elite institutions. These measures align with the Trump's administration's tough stance in industrial policy and trade negotiations, shaping a comprehensive strategy to contain China.

Experts believe that this shift in U.S. policy will accelerate global research talent mobility and reshape the international technology competition landscape. For Taiwan, this brings unprecedented opportunities and exposes long-standing structural issues. As the U.S. tightens its international student and high-level talent policies, countries like Europe, Canada, and Australia actively seek to recruit talent. If Taiwan wants to participate in this global talent competition, it must accelerate reform efforts.

Learning from Europe's recent experience of simplifying foreign talent visa processes and actively seeking high-level research talent can serve as a strategy for Taiwan. While Japan and South Korea have yet to launch similar national-level initiatives, some scholars and research institutions have reached out to affected scientists in the U.S. to explore work opportunities. This indicates that Taiwan should not only follow Europe's proactive strategies but also closely monitor developments in neighboring countries, contemplating how to integrate national-level initiatives to enhance its own appeal and international competitiveness.

In conclusion, institutional reform and international connections are both essential. In the fiercely competitive landscape of U.S.-China technology and talent dynamics, Taiwan must deepen its reforms in technology and talent policies, moving away from dependence on a single national system and actively expanding multi-faceted international cooperation. Only through collaborative efforts from the government, industry, and academia can Taiwan seize the opportunities arising from global talent migration and strengthen its technological and economic development foundation, thereby enhancing national competitiveness.