Stand Up for Science protests spread to more than 50 cities

Stand Up for Science protests spread to more than 50 cities

By Dan Vergano edited by Claire Cameron

Washington D.C.—Scientists, advocates and lawmakers gathered in front of the U.S. Capitol Saturday for the second annual Stand Up for Science rally. Addressing the crowd, government scientists spoke out against the Trump administration’s moves to cut or censor their work.

“Science needs integrity. And scientists have an obligation to speak out,” says Jenna Norton, a scientist and the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases who was one of the speakers at the Washington D.C. rally.

Norton, who filed a whistleblower complaint after the National Institutes of Health placed her on administrative leave in November, told demonstrators on Saturday that the Trump administration is, “opposed to science itself. Eventually they will come for your science, too.”

On supporting science journalism

If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

More than 2,000 people turned out for the protest on the National Mall; similar rallies took place in more than 50 cities around the country, according to the organizers—up from about a dozen a year ago. The crowd was holding almost as many signs as there were people, as well as a large inflatable duck standing next to the stage as a visual protest against “quack” medicine, a nod to how federal vaccine and nutrition recommendations have changed under the Trump administration’s vaccine-skeptic health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Since the new Trump administration took office in 2025, U.S. science agencies have lost more employees in that time than over the last two decades. A further 10,000 or so PhD students in technical fields employed by the U.S. federal government have been lost to retirements, firings or buyouts, Science magazine reported.

Speakers at the D.C. protest included Steve Volz, the former head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s satellite division, who said the Trump administration had sidelined him in order to privatize federal weather reports (the agency did not respond to a request for a comment). Also addressing the protest were young researchers at the National Institutes of Health whose union in March received a letter from the agency saying the government would no longer recognize them. Lawmakers and political figures, including Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and conservative-lawyer-turned-Trump critic George Conway, also filled the speaker’s line-up.

Congress’s decision to pivot away from making the cataclysmic cuts to science funding the Trump administration had proposed in 2025, is a “ray of sunshine,” Van Hollen says. But he adds that an upcoming presidential budget request focused on defense spending will almost certainly again call for those cuts. “The pushback has made a difference,” says Van Hollen, speaking backstage to Scientific American, adding that Congress has written into law requirements that science funding be spent on the research purpose it has been earmarked for. The administration could ignore those laws, he says, triggering lawsuits and, ultimately, putting science on hold. “That’s why I say a ray of sunshine, not that the sun has come out,” he says.

In the last year “we have seen scientists mobilize for various days of action defending science, [which] has become a rallying cry for the broader resistance movement,” says sociologist Dana Fisher of American University, who studies and surveys protests. Scientists fit squarely into the demographics of expected Trump administration protestors: white, highly educated and middle-aged or older, she says.

“I expect we’ll continue to see science as a focus and mobilizer of action,” she adds.

Editor’s Note: This story is in development and may be updated.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can’t-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world’s best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.