[inflatableDodo]

Well, it is very often not theft. If they leave to a different juristiction, then local law applies.

This twitter thread from law professor Sarah Burnstien is related - https://twitter.com/design_law/status/1166326853952557059

Claiming continued ownership over something that is in somebody else's head after they have left your legal sphere is somewhat problematic.

Also, it is rather cheeky, as the US research community has relied massively on brain drain from poor or wartorn countries for quite a while now.

[rolph]

depending on the field of research there are considerations, that most universities dont have to worry about for the time being.

i think we could be nudging up against a born secret mentality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_secret

I would be concerned about this concept being widened beyond nuclear energy research.

as an example computer ubiquity and internet connectivity allow 4th/5th gen warfar to exist. If encryption or miniturization, or transmission media were considered subject to born secret doctrine that could make things very difficult and somewhat partisan.

[inflatableDodo]

Legally, until someone properly tests that in court, then it is not even really law yet. Also, as a legal conceit, it doesn't continue to apply to people after they emigrate from the US.

I feel also, that you can't really go around telling people that they are banned from emigrating due to what they know, unless you also have a labyrinth containing a minotaur, fed with captured foreign citizens.

Although, I have to say, it would not greatly surprise me by this point to learn that this was in fact the case.