'What would Albert do?': Scientists from UCLA, USC protest Trump's policy changes
Pushing back against perceived threats to research and science, they bore on-theme signs, including one that read 'What would Albert do?' accompanying a photo of Einstein.
The rally outside the Wilshire Federal Building drew graduate students and professors from USC and UCLA and was held under the banner of the Stand Up for Science movement, which drew inspiration from the March for Science held in 2017 shortly after Trump began his first term.
Many scientists once again feel under attack. In a matter of weeks, the second Trump administration has slashed jobs at science agencies — including the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement (again), clawed back research papers under review at scientific journals to scrub terms that the political right has railed against, such as "transgender," and terminated funding for global health programs. The administration has also attempted to block grants and reduce funding for research institutions.
'We have seen incredible disarray and attempts to dismantle a very effective research infrastructure in this country. And we have to say, enough is enough,' Judith Currier, a professor of medicine at UCLA, said at the demonstration, that took place in the shadow of offices for agencies including Veterans Affairs.
At least 32 coordinated rallies were held across the country Friday, anchored by a march on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., attended by thousands.
Duke Han, a professor of psychiatry and family medicine at USC, said that although he wasn't as involved in the March for Science movement during Trump's first stint in the White House, he chose to participate in these protests because the level of interference has grown in significance. Science has historically been considered nonpartisan, but events in recent years have galvanized those in the field to speak out.
"A lot of us are trying to figure out what we can do," Han said. "A number of us are becoming more politically active, or politically active for the first time."
For Han, the impact isn't theoretical. He says his institution has become more cautious about giving offers to graduate students. A grant that was supposed to fund research he's involved with to identify early signs of Alzheimer's disease is five weeks late. He reached out to contacts at NIH but believes "it's something that's happening above them."
Several people at the protest said that the money used to fund scientific work pays dividends — and that losing it can have disastrous consequences for biomedical research, pharmaceutical development and more. Younger scientists shared the concern at the event. An international student at UCLA said the reason she came to the United States was for the "great opportunities" for research. "But look at the situation now," said the 21-year-old undergrad, originally from India, who declined to provide her name because of how it might affect her immigration status.
Katherine Karlsgodt, an associate professor at UCLA in the psychology and psychiatry departments, who helped organize the Los Angeles rally, said she was "very upset" by the barrage of changes and concerned about their ramifications.
Alterations to science agency funding "have the potential to just completely derail scientific research and medical research [and] have a huge impact on universities and university budgets and our ability to train students and do research and basically everything that we do."
Karlsgodt caught wind of the Stand Up for Science effort but was disappointed when she didn't see a local rally on the books. Then some people at UCLA and USC got to talking, she said. One of her students — Dylan Hughes, a PhD student in the clinical psychology program at UCLA — booked the site and they began trying to spread the word. By the evening before the event, 300 people had RSVP'd.
Expressions of anger and alarm intermingled with hope and solidarity at the rally. Sam Cooke's "A Change Is Gonna Come" played as scores of attendees mingled and flashed pithy signs to cars speeding down Wilshire Boulevard. Honks elicited cheers. A dog in the crowd sported a sign announcing, 'Dogs against DOGE,' around its neck, a reference to the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, headed by Elon Musk, who has led much of the Trump administration's cost-cutting efforts.
What's now a national movement began as a Bluesky post.
On. Feb. 8, Colette Delawalla, a graduate student in psychology at Emory University, announced online that she was planning a national protest for science, according to the New York Times. It hit a collective nerve, and other scientists quickly hopped on board, evolving into Stand Up for Science.
Behind the rallies are policy goals outlined on the group's website, including ending political interference and censorship; restoring and expanding research funding; and defending diversity and accessibility.
Back in L.A., Hughes, the UCLA PhD student, who helped spearheaded the local event, urged people to take in the moment.
"This is a really dark time for science and for humanity," Hughes said, "but there's an energy that we've created here that's really helpful and has the power to change the world."
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Voices: Why I've changed my mind about a state of Palestine
The tragic images of starvation emerging from Gaza have shocked and angered the world. Yet we've become dangerously desensitized to the daily toll of death and destruction, seemingly powerless to intervene. But when even President Trump is moved to acknowledge 'real starvation' in his press briefings, it signals a potential turning point. Israel's response to the barbaric attacks 21 long months ago is increasingly testing the international community. Every state has the right to defend itself – but also the responsibility to wield force judiciously. How retribution is carried out, how military power is applied, and how operations affect civilians in the invaded territories all matter deeply. It confirms our values and distinguishes us from those we must fight. The scale of continued suffering in Gaza cannot be justified solely by Israel's right to defeat Hamas. This is not to say Hamas should not be confronted – but rather Israel's absence of a discernible strategy to convert battlefield gains into lasting peace, or to separate Hamas from the broader Palestinian population. Two-thirds of Gaza lies in ruins. Two million people are displaced. And dozens die weekly, not in combat, but for inching forward in chaotic food lines, desperate for handouts. On the ground, Hamas forces have been severely weakened. Iran, its proxy backer, has also been constrained. And yet, famine now looms as the deadliest threat. Under international pressure, Israel has permitted food airdrops into Gaza. But, as UN aid chief Tom Fletcher has said, these are 'a drop in the ocean'. Airdrops are inefficient, especially while hundreds of aid trucks wait, fully loaded, at sealed border crossings. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has kept those crossings closed and removed food distribution from UN agencies, handing it to the Israeli Defence Forces, who lack the infrastructure or experience to manage it effectively. Let's be blunt. Beyond 'destroying Hamas', Netanyahu offers no credible endgame, no plan for post-conflict governance in Gaza, no roadmap toward the long-promised two-state solution. His actions suggest a strategy of perpetual conflict. Regional powers, including Egypt, Jordan and the UAE, along with much of the international community, are eager to help. Not only to address the humanitarian crisis but to support the establishment of a credible post-Hamas governance structure that's likely to require international supervision. But Netanyahu rejects such support, shielded by continued backing from the White House, which has so far extended understandable but seemingly unconditional support following the Hamas attacks. However, Netanyahu's tactical decisions, lacking any strategic vision, are beginning to test that support. Where is he taking this conflict – a conflict that, in a broader sense, has been ongoing since 1948. His devastating campaign in Gaza and continued illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank suggest an intent to make a two-state solution unviable. In 2014, when the UK Parliament last debated Palestinian recognition, I responded as a foreign minister, saying Britain would recognise Palestine only when it judged such a move would aid the peace process, not as a symbolic gesture. It's a card that can only be played once, so it must be used wisely. It's easy to argue that now is not the right time – that we must focus on the immediate crisis. But I would argue that now is exactly the right time, to deliver a jolt that might reverse a dangerous trajectory, one that risks closing the window on a two-state solution forever. This issue is on the agenda at the UN in New York. Recognition could help shift global focus, isolate Hamas politically, and undercut Iran's justification for arming proxies in the region. Waiting endlessly for the 'perfect moment' is not a strategy. The current status quo, or the pursuit of a one-state solution, will only entrench a perpetual insurgency, fuelled externally and leaving Israel in a state of permanent tensions with its neighbours. As Trump's support for Netanyahu grows more conditional - including calls for decisive action to prevent famine – let's leverage this to refocus attention on the broader strategic imperative: achieving a two-state solution. Without that, suffering, extremism, and endless war will continue. Tobias Ellwood is a former foreign minister

USA Today
16 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump's trade deal with the EU: What it means for your wallet
Tariffs, including the new 15% rate for most imports from the EU, would raise consumer prices by 1.8% in the short run, according to the Yale Budget Lab. Here's where shoppers could see higher prices. Imported cars, pharmaceuticals, apparel and more could grow more expensive in the months to come as the United States imposes a 15% tariff on most imports from the European Union. Analysts have labeled the agreement, announced July 27, as a win for President Donald Trump, whose administration had been working to complete deals by a self-imposed Aug. 1 deadline. U.S. stocks opened mostly higher on July 28, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq reaching record highs after Trump announced a tariff far below the 30% rate threatened earlier in the month. But for U.S. consumers, even the reduced tariff is expected to spur higher prices. The Yale Budget Lab estimates that Trump's tariffs, including the new rate for EU imports, would raise prices by 1.8% in the short run, the equivalent of an average household income loss of roughly $2,400. While the increase may sound insignificant, 'the Federal Reserve's inflation target is 2%. So we're talking about almost a year's worth of inflation above and beyond the inflation that we would've gotten anyways,' said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab. 'So that's meaningful.' Here are some of the sectors that could see higher prices in the months to come. European cars Automobiles, one of the EU's largest export sectors, will likely see some of the most noticeable price hikes, according to Gary Hufbauer, a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. While the 15% tariff is a relief from the current 27.5% rate, Hufbauer said the auto industry's margins are thin enough that EU companies won't want to absorb the higher cost. 'I suspect European auto prices sold in the U.S. will go up probably at least 10%,' he told USA TODAY. German Association of the Automotive Industry President Hildegard Müller warned the 15% tariff could cost the German automotive industry 'billions annually.' Already, Volkswagen has trimmed its full-year sales forecast after reporting a $1.5 billion hit from tariffs over the first half of the year. Automobile price hikes will likely vary across European makes and models, according to Tedeschi, since many already operate factories in North America. That means trade deals with Canada and Mexico could also influence pricing. 'Consumers should keep an eye out for rising prices for European car imports, but they should not assume that all European brands are going to go up in price because of how complicated the supply chain is,' he said, adding that he expects to see price increases tied to the new EU tariffs play out this summer and fall. What were the EU tariffs before? What to know after trade deal Furniture Furniture is another sector that could get hit by tariffs, according to Stephen Brown, Capital Economics' deputy chief North America economist. The Swedish company IKEA, for instance, relies on China, Poland, Italy, Germany and Sweden to supply 'the majority' of products, according to its website. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but Inter IKEA ‒ which produces IKEA furniture ‒ told Reuters in November that just 10% of the products it sells in the U.S. are made in the region. 'Unless they find somewhere else to import from or move around their supply chain, furniture prices ... could see some effects,' Brown said. Pharmaceuticals While certain sectors like wine and spirits appear to still be under negotiation, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said pharmaceuticals will be covered by the 15% tariff, with certain generic drugs not subject to tariffs. The EU is behind about 60% of pharmaceutical imports to the U.S., according to Reuters, making them the largest European export to the U.S. by value. But Brown noted that pharmaceutical companies may be able to more easily shift production to the U.S. compared to other industries. For instance, the Danish manufacturer behind the GLP-1s Wegovy and Ozempic, Novo Nordisk, already has a presence in North Carolina and has plans to expand. 'Although there could be some short-term price increases, those might not be as durable as they are for other products,' Brown said. Additionally, consumers may not pick up on the industry's price hikes if their insurance covers the imported drug. Luxury items Luxury items like imported designer handbags and apparel could also see higher prices, as well as imported food. 'The difference between China and Europe, in terms of tariffs, is that the tariffs on China increase what people buy in Walmart and Target. The tariffs on European imports will mainly hit what people buy at Whole Foods and high-end retail stores,' said Hufbauer of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He noted that the companies behind luxury goods tend to have higher margins, though, and may be more willing to absorb some of the higher costs tied to tariffs. Machinery Machinery and appliances are also major exports from the EU, accounting for roughly 20% of U.S. imports from the EU in 2021, according to the Commerce Department. While consumers won't buy machinery directly, experts warn the higher prices could eventually trickle down as manufacturers adjust to higher costs. 'These are not necessarily products that immediately or directly impact the consumers, but they can indirectly affect consumers, especially after many years,' Tedeschi said.


Boston Globe
16 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Top Chinese, US trade officials huddle in Sweden for second day of thorny talks over tariffs
The United States has struck deals over tariffs with some of its key trading partners — including Britain, Japan and the European Union — since President Donald Trump announced 'Liberation Day' tariffs against dozens of countries in April. China remains perhaps the biggest unresolved case. Advertisement 'The Chinese have been very pragmatic,' Greer said in comments posted on social media by his office late Monday. 'Obviously we've had a lot of tensions over the years. We have tensions now, but the fact that we are regularly meeting with them to address these issues gives us a good footing for these negotiations.' 'Whether there will be a deal or not, I can't say,' Greer added in the clip posted on X from MSNBC's 'Morning Joe'. 'Whether there's room for an extension, I can't say at this point. But the conversations are constructive and they're going in the right direction.' Many analysts expect that the Stockholm talks, at a minimum, will result in an extension of current tariff levels that are far lower than the triple-digit percentage rates as the U.S.-China tariff tiff crescendoed in April, sending world markets into a temporary tailspin. Advertisement The two sides backed off the brink during bilateral talks in Geneva in May and agreed to a 90-day pause — which is set to end on Aug. 12 — of those sky-high levels. They currently stand at U.S. tariffs of 30% on Chinese goods, and China's 10% tariff on U.S. products. Other issues on the agenda include access of American businesses to the Chinese market; Chinese investment in the U.S.; components of fentanyl made in China that reach U.S. consumers; Chinese purchases of Russian and Iranian oil; and American steps to limit exports of Western technology, like chips that help power artificial intelligence systems. Wendy Cutler, a former U.S. trade negotiator and now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said that Trump's team would face challenges from 'a large and confident partner that is more than willing to retaliate against U.S. interests.' Rollover of tariff rates 'should be the easy part,' she said, warning that Beijing has learned lessons since the first Trump administration and 'will not buy into a one-sided deal this time around.' On Monday, police have cordoned off a security zone along Stockholm's vast waterfront as rubbernecking tourists and locals sought a glimpse of the top-tier officials through a phalanx of TV news cameras lined up behind metal barriers. Flagpoles at the prime minister's office were festooned with the American and Chinese flags.