Iranian scientists in the United States face major upheaval

The upheaval is both professional and personal. Iranian scientists in the United States face travel bans, delayed immigration decisions and uncertainty about work authorization. At the same time, violence in Iran has placed their families at risk. The combined pressure makes ordinary academic work difficult.

Babak, a doctoral student who hopes to graduate in 2028, says he checks the news while reading papers and coding to learn whether Iran has been bombarded. Other researchers worry about family members displaced by attacks. Iran’s Internet shutdown also cut communication with relatives for nearly three months.

The immigration problems lasted until June, while the conflict and family fears continued. Researchers told Nature that even anonymous interviews felt risky because they feared repercussions from both governments. Their experiences show how international research depends on safety, stable immigration rules and reliable communication.

Nearly 12,000 Iranian postgraduate students were training in the United States during the 2024–25 academic year. The figure comes from Open Doors, an annual report published by the Institute of International Education in New York City. It measures Iranian postgraduate students in US training programmes during that academic year.

This number matters because the immigration restrictions did not affect only a few individuals. The later US policy memos covered applications from 39 countries, including applications for student visas, permanent residency and work authorization. Iranian students and researchers therefore formed part of a much larger group facing administrative uncertainty.

The article does not provide a newer count or say how many of the nearly 12,000 were directly affected. It does show the potential scale of the disruption. A frozen application can affect students’ ability to plan research, employment and long-term academic careers.

A travel ban can prevent a researcher who leaves the United States from returning, even if that person has an ongoing programme or job. A frozen application creates a different problem: the government neither approves nor denies a request. The researcher remains unable to plan with confidence.

For example, the memos froze applications for work authorization and changes in legal status. Without work authorization, a researcher may be unable to begin or continue a job legally. Without a status decision, they may also struggle to move from student training into employment or permanent residency. The article describes this situation as bureaucratic limbo.

The practical effects include disrupted research, delayed career steps and uncertainty about future employment. The article does not document every individual outcome, but researchers reported a profound lack of agency over their futures. Their education and careers become vulnerable to decisions they cannot control.

Several events intensified researchers’ worries. In June 2025, Israel bombed nuclear and military facilities in Iran, and Iran responded with missile and drone attacks. The United States later joined that conflict with strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. In December and January, an economic crisis and protests brought further violence inside Iran.

In February, the United States and Israel attacked Iran over its nuclear-weapons programme. The article reports an ongoing conflict, with an estimated 20,000 deaths across the countries involved. The Iranian government also shut down the country’s Internet for nearly three months, from February to May, making contact with relatives unreliable.

These events affected travel as well as communication. One student said family members had fled their bombarded home for a village. In June 2025, the United States imposed a travel ban covering Iran, adding immigration barriers to the dangers created by war and unrest.

The June 2025 presidential proclamation barred people from Iran and 11 other countries from entering the United States, subject to limited exceptions and case-by-case waivers. It justified Iran’s inclusion by calling the country a state sponsor of terrorism. Researchers already inside the United States could still face serious consequences if they travelled abroad.

Two agency memos issued in December 2025 and January 2026 expanded the travel ban to 39 countries. They also effectively froze applications from those countries, including requests for student visas, permanent residency and work authorization. The government would neither approve nor deny applications during the period described.

For Iranian researchers living in the United States, this created employment and career uncertainty. Their immigration status could not progress, while returning to Iran risked making re-entry difficult. The situation continued until June, leaving researchers with little control over their academic and professional futures.

The article does not describe a standard alternative for students who cannot return, renew a visa or obtain work authorization. That omission matters because the affected researchers’ options are likely to depend on their university, programme, funding and immigration situation. No single substitute is established in the source.

More generally, an international student might ask a university to continue some research remotely, defer enrolment, transfer to another institution or move the programme to another country. A person awaiting work authorization might also seek advice about activities that do not require employment permission. These are possibilities, not solutions confirmed by the article.

The researchers’ accounts show why alternatives may be difficult. Health-care research can require laboratories, supervisors or clinical settings, and family emergencies may require travel. Students would need university and qualified immigration advice before acting. The article’s central reality remains uncertainty, rather than a clearly available backup path.

A visa is generally a travel document or entry permission used to request admission to the United States. Legal immigration status is the category and conditions governing a person’s stay after entry, such as student status. Work authorization is separate permission to perform employment legally. These distinctions come from established US immigration practice; the article names all three but does not define them.

The difference explains why one immigration problem can have several effects. A researcher might be physically in the United States but waiting for a status change or employment authorization. Another researcher might have an academic programme but be unable to return after travelling because of an entry restriction. The article describes applications for student visas, permanent residency and work authorization separately.

For Iranian researchers, the 2025 ban mainly affected entry, while the later memos froze applications involving status and employment. These systems overlap, but they are not interchangeable. Exact consequences depend on the person’s case, so qualified immigration advice is essential.