Michael Clemens

@mclem.org

Economist and professor at School of Government & Policy, Johns Hopkins University. Fellow at Peterson Institute for International Economics, IZA, CReAM, CGD. Assoc. Editor JEP. Personal views only. Web: http://mclem.org ORCID: 0000-0003-1354-0965

“For nearly half a century, the outdated 'duration of status' system has compromised national security and created an environment ripe for immigration fraud,” said DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin. “For decades, foreign students have been admitted into the U.S. indefinitely, allowing thousands to abuse our immigration system by perpetually enrolling in courses to avoid having to leave the U.S. By implementing clear, finite limits on these visas, the United States is reclaiming its ability to properly screen, vet, and monitor individuals within our borders. This final rule ensures that foreign students remain focused on their primary purpose: completing their studies and returning home.”

We study how employment changes when firms adopt generative AI using observed AI spending from Ramp card and bill pay data linked to Revelio Labs workforce records for 21,559 firms in the United States. We find that companies that adopt
AI tend to grow faster following adoption, but the relationship is driven almost entirely by high-intensity adopters. Firms making the largest AI investments grow employment by roughly 10% following adoption, while low-intensity adopters see no
statistically significant change. Entry-level headcount rises 12% for high-intensity
adopters. Gains emerge gradually and are broad across roles, including engineering, sales, administration, and customer service. They are also uneven: adopters are
already larger, more technical, faster-growing firms, and sector-level gains are concentrated in Information. The results counter predictions that AI adoption will lead
to broad job loss.

Graph: Eﬀect of a 10% increase in foreign (H-2B) hires on US hires

$Shortly after major policy changes to US science funding began in early 2025, we surveyed 916 young biomedical scientists – PhD students and postdoctoral researchers – about their career intentions and expectations. The results document a dramatic shift in sentiment. Barely half of respondents now say they are likely to remain in academia, down 22 percentage points from how they felt six months earlier. The fraction likely to stay in the United States fell by 21 percentage points. Even satisfaction with having pursued a PhD in science declined by 16 percentage points. These are not the complaints of established scientists defending their budgets, but rather the stated intentions of the next generation – the scientists who would, in ordinary times, become the principal investigators of the future.$