Hey! Thanks for the good question. A few thoughts in response:
I’d recommend checking out our guide on Working in US Policy as a Foreign National. It discusses different US immigration pathways and what foreign nationals can (and can’t) do in US policy. In brief, foreign nationals face a variety of challenges in the near- to medium-term (e.g., limited or no ability to work for the government and get a security clearance, etc.), but moving to the US can pay off long-term, particularly if you manage to eventually become a citizen (especially if you can do valuable work in the meantime in think tanks, nonprofits, or elsewhere).
Generally, citizenship seems like a bigger barrier than the ability to get a security clearance. If you’re not (yet) a citizen, you typically can’t work directly for the US government, regardless of whether the role has a security focus. Foreign nationals who become US citizens can usually get a security clearance (especially if their home country is a US ally or at least not an adversary), though they might face additional delays as they likely have many foreign contacts. This suggests there isn’t a strong reason for foreign nationals to avoid US security policy relative to other policy areas.
Degree titles don’t matter very much in practice. A “security studies” degree is effectively an IR degree with a security angle, which doesn’t necessarily limit your options for policy work outside the security field. That said, if you’re confident you don’t want to work on security policy and/or wouldn’t be interested in learning about the security angle, then yes, this is an argument in favor of broader IR/MPP degrees over security studies degrees. This is an important but not necessarily a decisive consideration, given the other factors outlined in this post.
Generally, US policy debates around emerging technology (and many other areas) seem more “securitized” than in many other countries, particularly in Europe. For example, US discussions of AI often use national security framings, whereas the European framings are more commonly about consumer protection, privacy, etc. (though these are prominent in the US too). So, understanding (or adopting) the security angle regarding emerging tech policy can be particularly helpful in a US context.
Hey! Thanks for the good question. A few thoughts in response:
I’d recommend checking out our guide on Working in US Policy as a Foreign National. It discusses different US immigration pathways and what foreign nationals can (and can’t) do in US policy. In brief, foreign nationals face a variety of challenges in the near- to medium-term (e.g., limited or no ability to work for the government and get a security clearance, etc.), but moving to the US can pay off long-term, particularly if you manage to eventually become a citizen (especially if you can do valuable work in the meantime in think tanks, nonprofits, or elsewhere).
Generally, citizenship seems like a bigger barrier than the ability to get a security clearance. If you’re not (yet) a citizen, you typically can’t work directly for the US government, regardless of whether the role has a security focus. Foreign nationals who become US citizens can usually get a security clearance (especially if their home country is a US ally or at least not an adversary), though they might face additional delays as they likely have many foreign contacts. This suggests there isn’t a strong reason for foreign nationals to avoid US security policy relative to other policy areas.
Degree titles don’t matter very much in practice. A “security studies” degree is effectively an IR degree with a security angle, which doesn’t necessarily limit your options for policy work outside the security field. That said, if you’re confident you don’t want to work on security policy and/or wouldn’t be interested in learning about the security angle, then yes, this is an argument in favor of broader IR/MPP degrees over security studies degrees. This is an important but not necessarily a decisive consideration, given the other factors outlined in this post.
Generally, US policy debates around emerging technology (and many other areas) seem more “securitized” than in many other countries, particularly in Europe. For example, US discussions of AI often use national security framings, whereas the European framings are more commonly about consumer protection, privacy, etc. (though these are prominent in the US too). So, understanding (or adopting) the security angle regarding emerging tech policy can be particularly helpful in a US context.