Scientific conferences are leaving the US amid border fears

Historical context and what’s “new”

• Several commenters note visa/border barriers to scientific meetings are not new (e.g., HIV/AIDS conferences during earlier bans), but argue the scale and visibility have changed.
• Others emphasize a qualitative shift: normalization of “ethno‑fascist” rhetoric, indefinite detention, and deportations without due process are framed as a break from past practice, not just a continuation.

Logistics of moving conferences

• Organizers explain that large conferences are planned 1–3 years in advance; moving countries on short notice is often impossible without financial ruin.
• Because of this lag, some argue six conferences leaving the US already is “a huge deal” and that the real effects will only be visible in a few years of site-selection cycles.
• Canadian cities (Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, etc.) are frequently cited as practical alternatives for North American–adjacent events.

Border climate, risk, and personal decisions

• Many scientists and organizers report colleagues skipping US events or moving conferences abroad due to fear of arbitrary detention, device searches, or being turned back—especially for non‑white, non‑citizen, or trans attendees.
• Stories of students, researchers, and visitors detained, sent to third‑country facilities, or refused entry after reviewing phones/social media drive a perception of “qualitative” risk, even if absolute probabilities are low.
• Some non‑US commenters say they now avoid the US entirely for tourism and conferences, preferring Canada or Europe.

Skepticism and accusations of fear‑mongering

• Skeptical voices argue that:
  • Documented cases are rare relative to millions of entries.
  • Border agencies claim device searches are <0.01% of travelers and have been rising steadily since before the current administration.
  • Media and political opponents amplify isolated incidents into generalized fear.
• Others counter that for high‑value invitees (senior scientists, students with limited funds), even a small chance of catastrophic outcome (detention, deportation, visa black marks) is a rational deterrent.

Data, media, and Nature’s role

• Some criticize the Nature article as thinly sourced “political news” lacking baseline statistics (total conferences, percentage moved, longitudinal trends).
• Others respond that Nature has a long‑standing news function, that it did list specific conferences (behind the paywall), and that comprehensive data do not yet exist this early in the cycle.

Broader political and cultural backdrop

• Numerous comments tie conference flight to wider issues: anti‑immigrant and anti‑science policies, frozen grants, demonization of allies, and a sense of American instability from one administration to the next.
• Some US-based scientists note that this is already part of day‑to‑day planning: they are shifting conferences away from the US and say trust—even if politics change later—will take years to rebuild.