New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Stand Up for Science protests spread to more than 50 cities

Speakers at the Stand Up for Science rally in Washington, D.C., criticized the politicization of science and cuts to research that serves the public

A man standing on a stage with the U.S. Capitol in the background.

Former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration head Steve Volz speaks on the National Mall on March 7, 2026, in Washington, D.C.


Brian Stukes/Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

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,” Jenna Norton, a scientist at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, who was one of the speakers at the Washington D.C. rally, told Scientific American. "It's important we speak out on how we are affected, and the future of our country."

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. There were almost as many signs in the crowd 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 than over the previous two decades. A further 10,000 or so Ph.D.-level experts in technical fields employed by the U.S. federal government have been lost to retirements, firings or buyouts, Science reported.

Speakers at the D.C. protest included Steve Volz, 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 it. Lawmakers and political figures, including Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and conservative-lawyer-turned-Trump critic George Conway, also filled the speakers’ lineup.

A man standing outside in a coat with the Washington monument in the background.

Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland backstage at a March 7, 2026, protest in Washington D.C.

Dan Vergano/Scientific American

Congress’s decision to pivot away from making the cataclysmic cuts to science funding that the Trump administration had proposed in 2025 is a “ray of sunshine,” said Van Hollen, speaking backstage to Scientific American. But he added that an upcoming presidential budget request focused on defense spending will almost certainly again call for those cuts. “The pushback has made a difference,” Van Hollen said, 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 said, 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 said.

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.

Dan Vergano was formerly senior editor, Washington, D.C., at Scientific American. He has previously written for Grid News, BuzzFeed News, National Geographic and USA Today. He is chair of the New Horizons committee for the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing and a journalism award judge for both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

More by Dan Vergano

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe