Will the US experience a brain drain? It is too early to tell. Could the brain drain become a brain gain for Europe?

The number of people seeking to leave the US has exploded, either because they are personally affected by the cuts in jobs or funding, or because they simply do not like to live in the current political climate.

US universities have to fear for their academic freedoms amid concerns over funding in universities and other research institutions as well as the financing of research jobs. Other countries hope to benefit from this exodus.

Universities in Canada and Europe already launched or are considering to launch initiatives for US researchers. It comes with a hubris of hope. The president of the Berlin-based Max Planck institute describes the US as a new talent pool for the institute. The society will use additional funds to create more positions with the prospect that it would benefit the institute in the future. There are already warnings in the US that it could use its leadership role in certain scientific fields like biopharmaceutical innovations. Young scientists saw their research grant cancelled with no other option than to look elsewhere for a job.

There are also people considering leaving jobs in various other industries. Services that specialise in helping US citizens to relocate to Europe have seen demand rising ever since Donald Trump was elected. In their dealings with customers, countries like Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, and Germany emerged as a popular choice for digital nomads, venture capitalists, and those planning their retirement, Euronews reports.

But the biggest obstacle are salaries. Salaries in Paris, for example, are a third of what they may get in LA. It can also be complicated for US citizens to move abroad as the US tax structure makes it complicated for the banks to work with them. For example, if an American wants to save with a non-US pension, there are often punitive US tax implications that need to be taken into account.

Those plans are also not likely to be implemented over night. On Reddit, people discuss their exit plans with destinations including Australia, Europe, and Latin America. They plan to relocate within the coming years. A lot can happen within the next couple of years. Will the urge still be so strong for people to act on their wish to leave the US? Some have no choice but those who do?

It also does not mean that European universities will be at the frontier of breakthrough science any time soon. Lab facilities and working conditions need to be in place for those researchers to be able to succeed. These are long term investments and need financing, usually with long administrative hurdles attached. This scientist exodus, if it does happen, would challenge what Europe can offer. We may only see how this exodus affects science itself in ten years’ time.

Marine Le Pen did not get the public support she was hoping for against the first court ruling that bans her from running for public office. Neither the polls nor the rally on the streets match her outrage over a ruling that takes her of out the presidential election. The news cycle also quickly turned towards Donald Trump’s tariffs, unfortunate timing for her and the case.

The party now has to decide how to proceed without knowing the final verdict in this court case. This is a strategic decision that has consequences for the party itself and the presidential elections. If their assumption is that the ban will most likely be confirmed, then it makes sense for them to insist that courts are politicised and trying to block her. If their assumption is that the ban is eventually overturned or suspended, then by attacking the courts the RN would itself risk politicising the courts.

Le Pen promised to use the all legal options available to her through which she could challenge the ruling. L’Express explains the time line and scenarios, including several that would allow her to run in the presidential elections in 2027:

• The Court of Appeals is to decide next whether to confirm the verdict of the court of first instance or not. The court promised to deliver a verdict in the summer of 2026. Usually it takes two years to get through the appeals process. If she is acquitted in this verdict, or if the court decides to reduce the ban of ineligibility, she could run as presidential candidate in 2027. If the appeals court confirms the verdict, the ban would no longer be provisional.
• At a next stage Le Pen could call on the Supreme court, the so-called Cour de Cassation. If her case is accepted, the judges will rule on whether to apply the presumption of innocence. In other words, Le Pen may still be able to run under the assumption of innocence if the verdict were to be expected after the 2027 elections. The court could also choose to confirm the previous verdict or acquit Le Pen. It is the last instance for an appeal and thus the legal recourse for Le Pen.

So in four out of five scenarios Le Pen could still be allowed to run in the 2027 presidential elections. How this plays out politically is a different matter. It seems that Le Pen’s role as a political victim is not credible enough to mobilise at this stage, however.

It also comes in a decisive moment for courts judging those in power. Shortly before Le Pen’s verdict, Nicolas Sarkozy became the first French president to have to actually serve a prison sentence as the courts found him guilty of corruption and misuse of influence. Jacques Chirac had been condemned too, but his sentence was suspended. In the eyes of the people, Le Pen is less of a victim, but a representative of the powerful elites. Polls suggest that a majority of voters believe the provisional ban on Le Pen is justified. And her supporters would be happy with Jordan Bardella as an alternative candidate. Bardella and Le Pen both poll at the same rates of 34% for first-round voting preference. In reality, however, the presidential elections will be a completely different game, where history and personality count. Le Pen knows this, but do her voters?

Emmanuel Macron is in Egypt for talks about Gaza, and to conclude business deals. He arrived on Sunday with a large delegation, including six ministers and CEOs from the energy, transport, food and defence sectors. France and Egypt both have an interest in intensifying their cooperation to strengthen their position in the region.

Macron is throwing his weight behind the Egyptian reconstruction plan for Gaza, endorsed by the Arab league, as a counter-proposal to Donald Trump’s Gaza plan, which would displace Palestinians off their land. Macron shows his support for Egypt and Jordan, both countries listed as destinations to host displaced Palestinians under Trump’s plan in the form of a tripartite summit meeting yesterday between Macron, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and Jordan’s King Abdullah II. The three leaders also had a joint call with Trump yesterday, urging the US president to secure an end of the war in Gaza ahead of his meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu later that day. They also stressed the need to resume full delivery of humanitarian aid and the release of all hostages and detainees. They also insist that the Palestinian Authority must lead Gaza after the war.

Macron also hopes to facilitate business deals for French companies in Egypt. Travelling with the delegation is the CEO of Alstom, the French railway manufacturer, which is hoping to win a contract to supply trains for a new metro line in Cairo, partly financed by France. Other businesses represented in the delegation include the transport company Concessions Vinci, dairy producer Lactalis,the energy company EDF, defence company Dassault and Airbus. Egypt has been the second largest customer of French arms industry for the past 10 years, spending more than €12bn between 2014 and 2023. This is primarily for the purchases of Rafale fighter jets, partly financed by French loans. Without defence their bilateral trade was nearly €3bn. French companies have around 200 subsidiaries in Egypt employing some 50,000 people in a large market with 108m customers.

In the US, another meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump took place in the oval office. Trump told the press he thinks the war will stop soon, though first they have to get the hostages released. He revisited his plan for Gaza and the idea for the US to own territory there, which he insists is an incredible piece of important real estate. With respect to the bigger game plan for the region, Trump announced that the US is now in direct talks with Iran about a nuclear deal. The supreme leader had excluded direct talks under pressure only a week ago. The bombardment of the Houthis, a militia in Yemen supported by Iran, and the mobilisation of US troops towards the region, however, are a message to Iran’s leaders not to overplay their cards.

Israel, meanwhile, is working on implementing Trump's plan. We read this morning on The New Arab website that Israel is already evacuating Palestinians from Gaza. According to Israel's interior minister the first 16 flights departed with Palestinians on board. There is a strong desire amongst Palestinians to emigrate to Europe, said the minister. European countries are reportedly to take over the air transportation, though it is not clear yet what that involves. In the past weeks Israel has been discussing with various countries to take in Palestinians, including countries like Sudan, Somalia and Somaliland.

When politicians get unjustifiably sentenced, it may later help them once they return back to politics. It happened to Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi, who both had been imprisoned several times before leading their country into a new direction. It also seem to work for less severe cases that the public hardly understands. Take Donald Trump, who benefited from the media attention over the judicial cases brought against him to win those US elections. But their fate depends on how the story unfolds and what they do with it.

Marine Le Pen’s conviction a week ago has been dividing politics, but it has yet to mobilise the masses. Perhaps it is too early, and this is why the number that showed up for a support rally for Le Pen in Paris was not the expected 20,000. Place Vauban, in front of the Les Invalides dome, where the rally happened, was sparsely filled. More realistic figures are around 6000. If it comes down to crowds, the Greens and La France Insoumise appeared to have attracted more people with their counter-protest.

Can Le Pen convince the people that she is the victim worth fighting for? She even dares to quote Martin Luther King Jr, comparing her battle to his struggle for human rights. And she also attacked Olaf Scholz and described the EU’s anti-fraud unit, Olaf as a totalitarian institution.

It may well be that her supporters do not realise the significance of the verdict. She is still leading the polls and would get 32-36% in the first round well ahead of other competitors as if nothing happened. This will eventually change, if the ruling gets confirmed by the appeals court next year.

Her supporters may also just not care as much about the verdict as she does. Polls last week suggest that there is a majority of RN voters who are perfectly happy with Jordan Bardella, her protégé, running for her instead. For her the crucial question is if she can convince her voters that there is no other choice but her.

It also did not help that she attacked the judiciary over the ruling last week, as if she is ready to radicalise the party’s political positioning after all those years of normalisation.

Attacking the judiciary is unlikely to work for her. An Elabe suggests that 68% find it normal that her ban from running for office start immediately. Another poll from Odexa finds that 54% believe the ruling shows that French democracy is working will because there is a separation of power. The tone over the weekend has thus markedly changed compared with the initial response, as Le Pen turned the attacks away from the judiciary towards politics.

Gabriel Attal on another rally near Paris insisted that his bloc would never disqualify a court decision, a swipe against prime minister Francois Bayrou, who said last week he was troubled by the ruling. Edouard Philippe, who is the closest to challenge Le Pen in the polls prefers a clear project rather than to focus on the opponent’s attack. It seems that French politicians are more engaged on this matter than the people. With all what is going on in this world, people may have other priorities as well at the moment. But clearly, so far we are not seeing signs that the democracy of the people is rising against democracy by law.

Victor Orbán and Benjamin Netanyahu are pushing boundaries together. Netanyahu demonstrated that he can travel abroad when he wants to despite the ICC arrest warrant against him. And Orbán welcomed him by announcing that Hungary would withdraw from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. Both had a phone call with Donald Trump yesterday to talk about the ICC and next steps. This is first and foremost a posturing in defiance against international law. How far will they take and how the rest of the EU will react it is another matter.

In principle, Hungary is still bound by the ICC ruling. Once approved by the Hungarian parliament, it will only come into effect one year later. Hungary will ignore the ICC ruling, however. Its government had argued before that they never promulgated the law and thus that an ICC measure cannot be carried out in Hungary.

What next? Orbán pushed the door open to new divisions inside the EU. The ICC is an integral part of the EU’s legal framework. What happens to its legal integrity if a member state is poking holes into it?

As for the arrest warrant against Netanyahu itself, there are several EU member states that said they would implement the ICC arrest warrant if he were to set foot on their soil. Then there are the leaders in Germany and Poland suggesting that they would find ways to welcome him, though how can they guarantee that the courts and the police, over which they have no control, will follow their wishes? France simply declared that the ICC does not bind Netanyahu since Israel is not member of the ICC, though the occupied Palestinian territories are.

If Hungary were to exit alone, what does it mean for the coherence on foreign policy in the EU? Or could there be more countries deciding to leave? If the big EU countries were to, this would be the end of the ICC as we know it. What role does the EU then play as the defender of the multilateral world based on rules and international law? There is a risk that the EU gets drawn into those new power games, rather than defending its rules-based foundations.

Once the CDU won the elections, Friedrich Merz invited Netanyahu for a visit in Germany. This is still more risky for Netanyahu than Hungary. Despite Merz’s assurances, the German chancellor has no power over the judiciary and the police, which is organised at state level. Being at the wrong place in the wrong time could still get him arrested.

But the state of Israel is under the protection of the German Staatsräson, an abstract term coined by Angela Merkel’s that sits somewhat above the law. The protection of the Israeli state in words and deeds is linked to the existence  of the German state and its antisemitism laws. Historically, this link goes back to the beginnings of the Federal Republic in 1949, just after the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948.

Since the 7 October attacks, Staatsräson has been used in Germany to limit freedom of speech and rights to protest for pro-Palestinian activists, even if they were Jews. It was cited as a reason to cancel events, exhibitions and awards. In its latest incarnation, Staatsräson was used to deport three EU citizens and one US citizen for their involvement in demonstrations against Israel’s war in Gaza without any crime conviction. That has so far been excluded, as it is against EU laws. If the mayor of Berlin can use the Staatsräson to move beyond EU law, could Merz use the same notion to put himself above international law and suspend Germany's obligations under the ICC if Netanyahu were to decide to come to Germany? These are troubling questions.

In functioning democracies, no politician is irreplaceable. Not even in France. Marine Le Pen is counting on her voters to share her outrage and indignation about the court ruling and mobilise for her. But what if they do not show up? Polls conducted since the verdict on Monday suggest that RN voters are not really shaken by the verdict. They see her protégé Jordan Bardella as a worthy alternative to run in the presidential elections.

Le Pen insists on being the only presidential candidate for the RN despite the verdict. There is no plan B, she says, if plan A has not even been tried. Le Pen uses the argument that the courts have violated the rule of law, and that voters must mobilise. But what if the RN can produce another candidate? Her defence case depends crucially on the uniqueness of her relationship with the voters. That is why there can be no talk about plan B.

Presidential elections are not about a party, the are more about the person. Le Pen told Le Parisien that she forged a special bond with the French people over 25 years and advanced to become their favourite candidate. After this verdict, first polls though suggest that this special bond may not be so reliable after all.

According to an Elabe poll for BFMTV and an Oxoxa-Backbone poll for Le Figaro, 57% and 65% of respondents respectively were not shocked by the verdict. A majority of right-wing voters approve of Le Pen’s conviction, even if 90% of RN voters see a political motive in the verdict. Some 25% of RN voters even see the verdict as an asset to turn the page on Le Pen. A Harris poll suggests that vote intentions in favour of the RN do not change depending on whether the candidate is Le Pen or Barella. An Ifop poll confirms this, having both similar at around 36% of vote intentions. 

There are also no signs of anger or mobilisation. In areas with a large presence of RN voters there were no disturbances noted since Monday. Will the earthquake still happen? Do Le Pen voters, mostly from a working class background, really care enough about the decision of the criminal court in Paris?

For Le Pen to keep insisting on being the candidate despite the verdict has its risks. If her outrage is not matched by that of her voters, her defence collapses, and perhaps with that the special bond she had forged with her voters. By radicalising the party against the courts, she also seems ready to undo all the normalisation efforts that she put into the party over the past decade.

Would she accept the verdict if it were to be confirmed by the court of appeals next summer?  This would then leave only nine months until the presidential elections, very little time to prep a new candidate for the task. A candidate Bardella would also have to face down competition on his turf from Marion Marechal and Sandra Knaufo, or even Bruno Retailleau. If it were to be Le Pen, with her experience and presence, she would not leave much space for them. Then again, the RN is the bigger party on the far-right spectrum. Those polls now suggest that the fate of the party could eventually disentangle from Le Pen's.

Eelco Heinen might be one of the last frugals in town. Despite Germany’s own loosening of its borrowing rules, and the extra flexibility from the EU’s stability pact on defence spending, the Netherlands plans to keep relatively strict debt and deficit targets. It wants Dutch public debt to remain below 60% of GDP, and the budget deficit below 3%, except for a one-off in 2026 due to military pensions costings. The Dutch government is projecting that this year’s deficit will come in at 2.8%, and overall public debt at 46.6%.

The Netherlands has quite a significant fiscal buffer, and doesn’t face German-style constitutional constraints on deficit spending. It could spend more, and there is not much to stop the government from doing so, aside from normal legislative procedures. Whether to keep to frugality is therefore also a question of politics. Heinen, from the liberal-conservative VVD, wants to keep it that way.

But ahead of the Dutch spring memorandum, he might face some pressure to loosen the purse-strings. The memorandum should come out in the next several weeks, with an absolute deadline of the beginning of June for submission to parliament. It is a key waypoint in the budgetary process, both as a look ahead to next year’s budget and an occasion for supplementary bills.

The VVD’s coalition partners, Geert Wilders’ PVV, the pro-farmer BBB, and Pieter Omtzigt’s NSC, all want there to be extra spending. The BBB, for example, has pushed to make use of the extra fiscal headroom in EU rules for defence spending, as well as more infrastructure spending. Omtzigt has suggested spending should consider a track record of pessimistic budget forecasts. Heinen is not a big fan of either of these ideas.

But defence and infrastructure are part of a litany of issues that parties could push for extra spending on. These include housing, social support, and payouts to farmers to help resolve the country’s ongoing nitrogen crisis. In a four-party coalition, it’s hard enough to find an agreement. It’s even tougher when you decide there’s no extra money to be spent.

An interesting factor in all of this too is that the VVD, the party keenest on frugality, is the only party in the coalition government that’s doing relatively well in the polls. The PVV is still the most popular party, but has been fading. Both the BBB and NSC are in the basement, so it’s little surprise that they are agitating.

The media is often running lead stories based on tweets or interviews by Donald Trump. The US president is getting attention from all over the world when he says that he is angry with Vladimir Putin, or with the big problems he has with Volodymyr Zelensky if the Ukrainian president were not to accept the US proposal for rare earths. Every day, there is something else happening in the world of Trump that monopolises our attention.

What if we were to mute this for a while and look at our own strategic choices? What are our choices now that our peaceful multilateral world is no more? How does Europe live up to its principles and international law in a conflictual world? What if the media were to cover the stories that used to be big until Trump came to the White House? The war in Ukraine and in Gaza still continue, yet these stories have disappeared from the front pages. You can find them if you look for it. But this is now backpage material. 

We see a loss of perspective as the media are scrambling to decipher the meaning of this or that sentence from Trump. Few covered the killing of 15 Red Crescent and rescue workers by Israeli forces. Even the US administration came out to say that humanitarian law should be respected by all sides in Gaza. Where is the condemnation by European governments or newspapers that such an act would normally give rise to? We have seen no sign of this story online in the FAZ or Le Monde, for example, though we saw it in the BBC and the Guardian websites.  

Trump came to power with a promise to bring peace. This is not going well. Trump’s negotiations with Putin and Zelensky are going back and forth, with no breakthrough in sight. Benjamin Netanyahu counts on the US to pursue its maximum pressure strategy against Hamas and Iran. More than a thousand of deaths have been recorded in Gaza since war restarted on 18 March, amongst them many children, medics, and journalists.

Where are the Arab nations with their two-state reconstruction plan? Where are the European leaders, who were so keen to support them? Trump seems to paralyse them all. He is powerful because he can deliver what he threatens or promises through arms deliveries and security guarantees. We, on the other hand, have made ourselves dependent to the point that we cannot focus any longer on the issues of concern to us, and that will come back to haunt us as unsolved moral conflicts.

The Trump’s administration is pursuing a maximum pressure strategy on Iran. They re-introduced sanctions, including on its oil sector, with the aim of crippling the Iranian economy and forcing its diplomacy into submission.

Donald Trump also sent a letter, the contents of which were not revealed, other than that Iran should negotiate a nuclear deal with the US within three months. Yesterday Trump topped this up with a threat in an interview with NBC, warning that if Iran does not sign a nuclear deal, there will be bombings like they have never seen before.

Threats are part of Trump’s negotiation tactic to demonstrate that he is ready to exert his power to get results. A peace deal over Ukraine and a nuclear deal in Iran are goals on his agenda. Will he get what he wants?

Iran’s response so far has been an indignant no to US pressure. Last week the Iranian foreign minister said they will not enter direct talks with the US as long as the US continues with its maximum pressure and threats. In their response letter sent via Oman to the US administration yesterday, they suggested an openness to indirect talks with the US. Iran could have an interest to maintain this dual diplomacy and play for time, while seeking to improve relations with Arab nations and Turkey and renegotiate its position in the region.

We do not expect Trump to take the pressure off Iran, especially when Benjamin Netanyahu is at the same time pursuing its own maximum pressure campaign to force Hamas out of Gaza. Both leaders believe that this tactic will works It still has to produce results and, most important, if successful, it will have to hold. The open question is how far will they go to prove their point.

Since Donald Trump came to power, his administration touched on the freedom and integrity of research by freezing funding, restricting transatlantic data transfers, and imposing censorship on climate change, gender and infectious diseases research.

Europe sees this now as an opportunity to attract some of the best scientists to the continent. European universities and research funding bodies are looking into ways to welcome US scientists and European expatriates. At a national level, there are discussions of repatriation awards and expanding programmes to attract US scientists.

France is one of the countries actively preparing for this exodus of researchers. The government is working on a programme to accommodate researchers with a programme worth around €100m, which could be part of a wider European initiative. Universities and the National Research agency submitted their concrete proposals at the beginning of this week. Several French universities and grant institutions already announced their plans. Aix Marseille launched its Safe Place for Science programme with €15m in funding from the university and local authorities. PSL University wants to create 15 research fellow positions and fund postdoctoral fellowships for young researchers. CentraleSupélec announced €3m to attract high level teacher/reseachers. Paris-Saclay will finance thesis contracts for doctoral students and flexible length stays for US researchers. The Atip-Avenir programme for young, high-level researchers is about to be extended. They mention junior professorships with fixed term contracts for 3-5 years and a €200,000 research welcome package.

The French example shows a fast reaction from universities and research grant bodies even without the government’s own proposal. There are still lots of questions, like for example about whether these open positions are tailored for the US market, or need to be open to other nationalities. What seems to be apparent is that most of those programmes aim at researchers who are not yet tenured in their positions.

At the European level, grant organisations are preparing for this event too. The European Research Council and the European Federation of Academics of Sciences and Humanities see it a European responsibility to uphold academic freedom and to provide a values-based safe haven for science. Their money is important, but the initiatives still depend on the universities’ capacities to offer young researchers an attractive package. It will also depend on how US researchers see their chances of returning to the US later for a job.