Stand Up for Science will hold second rally against the Trump administration

Stand Up for Science is planning a second rally on March 7

By Meghan Bartels edited by Claire Cameron

On March 7, scientists and advocates will take to the streets to support science – the nationwide demonstration will mark the second Stand Up for Science rally since US President Donald Trump took office in 2025.

On Saturday, Stand Up for Science is leading demonstrations in 25 locations, including Washington, DC, New York City, Boston, Chicago, Nashville, Atlanta, Oklahoma City, Pittsburgh, Seattle and Albuquerque; smaller events will take place in approximately 25 additional cities. There will also be a virtual rally.

“Last year we warned people,” says Colette Delawalla, founder and CEO of the anonymous nonprofit organization that has organized the conventions. “We were concerned about the politicization of science, we were concerned about political interference and censorship, we were concerned about vaccines and public health,” says Delawalla, who is also a Ph.D. candidate in clinical psychology at Emory University. “Pretty much everything we warned about has happened, which is extraordinarily unfortunate.”

On supporting science journalism

If you like this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribes. By purchasing a subscription, you help secure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape our world today.

Since the first Stand Up for Science rally took place on March 7, 2025, the Trump administration has moved to cut government research funding and grants, reduce staffing at federal science agencies, overhaul the nation’s public health policy, roll back regulations designed to combat climate change and more. The effects of these and other science policy changes have been consequential, Delawalla says, and have even changed the way scientists write their grant funding proposals to better “fit” with the Trump administration’s position.

Critics of the administration such as Delawalla point to Trump officials such as U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., as emblematic of the problems eroding American science. Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic, has led government efforts to reduce the number of recommended childhood vaccines — a move that has abandoned established science.

(In response to this criticism, White House spokesman Kush Desai said Scientific American“Under President Trump, the United States remains the largest funder of scientific research and home to the largest public-private innovation ecosystem in the world.” In the same way, press secretary Emily Hilliard at the Department of Health and Human Services told Scientific American that “Secretary Kennedy’s longtime advocacy has focused on ensuring that vaccines and all medical interventions meet the highest standards of safety for the American people.”)

“For the first time in modern history, the appointed officials who lead our federal health agencies do not see vaccines as a first line of defense to protect the health of the American people,” said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota. “It’s remarkable.”

The rally comes amid an explosion in measles cases, with more than 1,000 confirmed infections reported in just the first two months of the year, despite the disease being eliminated from the country in 2000. How the administration communicates to the public about vaccines — and about science in general — will have ramifications for years to come, Osterholm says.

Delawalla agrees. “Our big concern this year is: we’re worried that science is going to be used as a weapon against the public,” she says. “We want to make sure that science is not only well-funded, but also used appropriately for the good of the public and to improve the human experience around the world. That’s what publicly funded science should do.”

It’s time to stand up for science

If you liked this article, I would 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 its two-century history.

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

If you subscribe to Scientific Americanyou help ensure our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten laboratories across the United States; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself is too often not recognised.

In return, you receive important news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can’t-miss newsletters, must-see videos, challenging games, and the world of science’s best writing and reporting. You can even give someone a subscription.

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