Last week, I took part in the WASP panel webinar on Diversity and Inclusion in Academia, where we discussed how global mobility shapes the competitiveness of Swedish research and innovation. Only days later, the U.S. announced new restrictions on its H-1B visa program: a $100,000 fee for all new petitions. For early-career researchers, that barrier is not small.

This matters for Sweden. For years, the U.S. has been the primary magnet for ambitious young scientists and engineers. If that door narrows, a major opportunity opens if we act strategically.

The good news is that we are not starting from zero. The Wallenberg Foundations have already launched some of the largest private research investments in Swedish history, from WASP (AI and autonomous systems) to WISE (materials science), programs explicitly designed to attract and nurture top international talent. The Swedish Research Council (VR) is also running schemes to bring outstanding researchers to Swedish universities.

At KTH, we see the value of international talent every day. We host international PhD candidates, postdocs, and faculty whose expertise is vital to Sweden’s research and innovation ecosystem.

But here is the real challenge: attraction is not the same as retention. Funding packages and recruitment programs bring people in, yet what keeps them here is a different story:

  • Predictable career paths and long-term contracts
  • Immigration and residence rules that support families and stability
  • Strong industry links and opportunities for collaboration
  • A sense of belonging and inclusion in our research culture

So the questions we face are:

  • How can Sweden convert this moment of opportunity into a lasting advantage?
  • What barriers still make us lose talent after a PhD or postdoc?
  • How do we ensure that the talent arriving through Wallenberg, VR, Vinnova, and other programs — and joining us at KTH and other Swedish universities — builds roots here rather than treating Sweden as a stepping stone?

The global competition for talent is intensifying. China, in particular, is stepping up its recruitment efforts through major funding and talent return programs. Other non-European countries are also scaling up their strategies. The U.S. decision may have made international talent more accessible for us, but accessibility is not the same as success. That will depend on how well we align national policy, university structures, and industry partnerships to turn attraction into retention. Beyond research investments, Sweden’s social system itself is a major advantage. Universal healthcare, affordable childcare, generous parental leave, and a strong emphasis on work–life balance offer international researchers a kind of stability that is rare in many competing countries. This is not just a social benefit; it is a competitive strength. We should be better at highlighting and advertising these qualities when attracting global talent.

Because in the end, talent is not just a resource to be imported. It is the foundation of our ability to innovate, grow, and respond to society’s biggest challenges.