institution

Bettina Aptheker was a 20-year-old sophomore at UC Berkeley when she climbed on top of a police car, barefoot so she wouldn’t damage it, and helped start the Free Speech Movement.

“Power concedes nothing without a demand,” she told a crowd gathered in Sproul Plaza on that October Thursday in 1964, quoting abolitionist Frederick Douglass.

She was blinded by the lights of the television cameras, but the students roared back approval, and “their energy just sort of went through my whole body,” she told me.

Berkeley, as Aptheker describes it, was still caught in the tail end of the McCarthyism of the 1950s, when the 1st Amendment was almost felled by fear of government reprisals. Days earlier, administrators had passed rules that cracked down on political speech on campus.

Aptheker and other students had planned a peaceful protest, only to have police roll up and arrest a graduate student named Jack Weinberg, a lanky guy with floppy hair and a mustache who had spent the summer working for the civil rights movement.

Well-versed in those non-violent methods that were finally winning a bit of equality for Black Americans, hundreds of students sat down around the cruiser, remaining there more than 30 hours — while hecklers threw eggs and cigarette butts and police massed at the periphery — before the protesters successfully negotiated with the university to restore free speech on campus.

History was made, and the Free Speech Movement born through the most American of traits — courage, passion and the invincibility of youth.

“You can’t imagine something like that happening today,” Aptheker said of their success. “It was a different time period, but it feels very similar to the kind of repression that’s going on now.”

Under the standards President Trump is pushing on the University of Southern California and eight other institutions, Aptheker would likely be arrested, using “lawful force if necessary,” as his 10-page “compact for academic excellence” requires. And the protest of the students would crushed by policies that would demand “civility” over freedom.

If you somehow missed his latest attack on higher education, the Trump administration sent this compact to USC and eight other institutions Thursday, asking them to acquiesce to a list of demands in return for the carrot of front-of-the-line access to federal grants and benefits.

While voluntary, the agreement threatens strongman-style, that institutions of higher education are “free to develop models and values other than those below, if the institution elects to forgo federal benefits.”

That’s the stick, the loss of federal funding. UCLA, Berkeley and California’s other public universities can tell you what it feels like to get thumped with it.

“It’s intended to roll back any of the gains we’ve made,” Aptheker said of Trump’s policies. “No university should make any kind of deal with him.”

The greatest problem with this nefarious pact is that much of it sounds on the surface to be reasonable, if not desirable. My favorite part: A demand that the sky-high tuition of signatory universities be frozen for five years.

USC tuition currently comes in at close to $70,000 a year without housing. What normal parent thinks that sounds doable?

Even the parts about protests sound, on the surface, no big deal.

“Truth-seeking is a core function of institutions of higher education. Fulfilling this mission requires maintaining a vibrant marketplace of ideas where different views can be explored, debated, and challenged,” the document reads. “Signatories acknowledge that the freedom to debate requires conditions of civility.”

Civility like taking your shoes off before climbing on a police car, right?

As with all things Trump, though, the devil isn’t even in the details. It’s right there in black and white. The agreement requires civility, Trump style. That includes abolishing anything that could “delay or disrupt class instruction,” which is pretty much every protest, with or without footwear.

Any university that signs on also would be agreeing to “transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.”

So no more talking bad about far-right ideas, folks. That’s belittling to our racists, misogynists, Christian nationalists and conservative snowflakes of all persuasions. Take, for example, the increasingly popular conservative idea that slavery was actually good for Black people, or at least not that bad.

Florida famously adopted educational standards in 2023 that argue slavery helped Black people learn useful skills. In another especially egregious example from the conservative educational nonprofit PragerU, a video for kids about Christoper Columbus has the explorer arguing, “Being taken as a slave is better than being killed, no? I don’t see the problem.”

And of course, Trump is busy purging the Smithsonian of any hints that slavery was a stain on our history.

Would it be violating Trump’s civility standards for a Black history professor to belittle such ideas as unserious and bonkers? What about debates in a feminism class that discuss Charlie Kirk’s comment that a good reason for women to go to college is to find a husband?

Or what about an environmental science class that teaches accurately that climate change denial is unscientific, and that it was at best anti-intellectual when Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently referred to efforts to save the planet as “crap”? Would that be uncivil and belittling to conservatives?

Belittle is a tiny word with big reach. I worry that entire academic departments could be felled by it, and certainly professors of certain persuasions.

Aptheker, now 81, went on to become just the sort of professor Trump would likely loathe, teaching about freedom and inclusivity at UC Santa Cruz for decades. It was there that I first heard her lecture. I was a mixed-race kid who had been the target of more than one racial slur growing up, but I had never heard my personal experiences put into the larger context of being a person of color or a woman.

Listening to Aptheker and professors like her, I learned not only how to see my life within the broader fabric of society, but learned how collective action has improved conditions for the most vulnerable among us, decade after decade.

It is ultimately this knowledge that Trump wants to crush — that while power concedes nothing without a demand, collective demands work because they are a power of their own.

Even more than silencing students or smashing protests, Trump’s compact seeks to purge this truth, and those who hold it, from the system. Signing this so-called deal isn’t just a betrayal of students, it’s a betrayal of the mission of every university worth its tuition, and a betrayal of the values that uphold our democracy.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has rightfully threatened to withhold state funding from any California university that signs, writing on social media that the Golden State “will not bankroll schools that sell out their students, professors, researchers, and surrender academic freedom.”

Of course, some universities will sign it willingly. University of Texas called it an “honor” to be asked. There will always be those who collaborate in their own demise.

But authoritarians live with the constant fear that people like Aptheker will teach a new generation their hard-won lessons, will open their minds to bold ideas and will question old realities that are not as unbreakable as they might appear. Universities, far from assuaging that constant fear, should fight to make it a reality.

Anything less belittles the very point of a university education.

Over the last several months, a deep sense of unease has settled over laboratories across the United States. Researchers at every stage — from graduate students to senior faculty — have been forced to shelve experiments, rework career plans, and quietly warn each other not to count on long-term funding. Some are even considering leaving the country altogether.

This growing anxiety stems from an abrupt shift in how research is funded — and who, if anyone, will receive support moving forward. As grants are being frozen or rescinded with little warning and layoffs begin to ripple through institutions, scientists have been left to confront a troubling question: Is it still possible to build a future in U.S. science?

On May 2, the White House released its Fiscal Year 2026 Discretionary Budget Request, proposing a nearly $18-billion cut from the National Institutes of Health. This cut, which represents approximately 40% of the NIH’s 2025 budget, is set to take effect on Oct. 1 if adopted by Congress.

“This proposal will have long-term and short-term consequences,” said Stephen Jameson, president of the American Assn. of Immunologists. “Many ongoing research projects will have to stop, clinical trials will have to be halted, and there’ll be the knock-on effects on the trainees who are the next generation of leaders in biomedical research. So I think there’s going to be varied and potentially catastrophic effects, especially on the next generation of our researchers, which in turn will lead to a loss of the status of the U.S. as a leader in biomedical research.“

In the request, the administration justified the move as part of its broader commitment to “restoring accountability, public trust, and transparency at the NIH.” It accused the NIH of engaging in “wasteful spending” and “risky research,” releasing “misleading information,” and promoting “dangerous ideologies that undermine public health.”

National Institutes of Health.

(NIH.gov)

To track the scope of NIH funding cuts, a group of scientists and data analysts launched Grant Watch, an independent project that monitors grant cancellations at the NIH and the National Science Foundation. This database compiles information from public government records, official databases, and direct submissions from affected researchers, grant administrators, and program directors.

As of July 3, Grant Watch reports 4,473 affected NIH grants, totaling more than $10.1 billion in lost or at-risk funding. These include research and training grants, fellowships, infrastructure support, and career development awards — and affect large and small institutions across the country. Research grants were the most heavily affected, accounting for 2,834 of the listed grants, followed by fellowships (473), career development awards (374) and training grants (289).

The NIH plays a foundational role in U.S. research. Its grants support the work of more than 300,000 scientists, technicians and research personnel, across some 2,500 institutions and comprising the vast majority of the nation’s biomedical research workforce. As an example, one study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that funding from the NIH contributed to research associated with every one of the 210 new drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between 2010 and 2016.

Jameson emphasized that these kinds of breakthroughs are made possible only by long-term federal investment in fundamental research. “It’s not just scientists sitting in ivory towers,” he said. “There are enough occasions where [basic research] produces something new and actionable — drugs that will save lives.”

That investment pays off in other ways too. In a 2025 analysis, United for Medical Research, a nonprofit coalition of academic research institutions, patient groups and members of the life sciences industry, found that every dollar the NIH spends generates $2.56 in economic activity.

A ‘brain drain’ on the horizon

Support from the NIH underpins not only research, but also the training pipeline for scientists, physicians and entrepreneurs — the workforce that fuels U.S. leadership in medicine, biotechnology and global health innovation. But continued American preeminence is not a given. Other countries are rapidly expanding their investments in science and research-intensive industries.

If current trends continue, the U.S. risks undergoing a severe “brain drain.” In a March survey conducted by Nature, 75% of U.S. scientists said they were considering looking for jobs abroad, most commonly in Europe and Canada.

This exodus would shrink domestic lab rosters, and could erode the collaborative power and downstream innovation that typically follows discovery. “It’s wonderful that scientists share everything as new discoveries come out,” Jameson said. “But, you tend to work with the people who are nearby. So if there’s a major discovery in another country, they will work with their pharmaceutical companies to develop it, not ours.”

At UCLA, Dr. Antoni Ribas has already started to see the ripple effects. “One of my senior scientists was on the job market,” Ribas said. “She had a couple of offers before the election, and those offers were higher than anything that she’s seen since. What’s being offered to people looking to start their own laboratories and independent research careers is going down — fast.”

In addition, Ribas, who directs the Tumor Immunology Program at the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, says that academia and industry are now closing their door to young talent. “The cuts in academia will lead to less positions being offered,” Ribas explained. “Institutions are becoming more reluctant to attract new faculty and provide startup packages.” At the same time, he said, the biotech industry is also struggling. “Even companies that were doing well are facing difficulties raising enough money to keep going, so we’re losing even more potential positions for researchers that are finishing their training.”

This comes at a particularly bitter moment. Scientific capabilities are soaring, with new tools allowing researchers to examine single cells in precise detail, probe every gene in the genome, and even trace diseases at the molecular level. “It’s a pity,” Ribas said, “Because we have made demonstrable progress in treating cancer and other diseases. But now we’re seeing this artificial attack being imposed on the whole enterprise.”

Without federal support, he warns, the system begins to collapse. “It’s as if you have a football team, but then you don’t have a football field. We have the people and the ideas, but without the infrastructure — the labs, the funding, the institutional support — we can’t do the research.”

For graduate students and postdoctoral fellows in particular, funding uncertainty has placed them in a precarious position.

“I think everyone is in this constant state of uncertainty,” said Julia Falo, a postdoctoral fellow at UC Berkeley and recording secretary of UAW 4811, the union for workers at the University of California. “We don’t know if our own grants are going to be funded, if our supervisor’s grants are going to be funded, or even if there will be faculty jobs in the next two years.”

She described colleagues who have had funding delayed or withdrawn without warning, sometimes for containing flagged words like “diverse” or “trans-” or even for having any international component.

The stakes are especially high for researchers on visas. As Falo points out for those researchers, “If the grant that is funding your work doesn’t exist anymore, you can be issued a layoff. Depending on your visa, you may have only a few months to find a new job — or leave the country.”

A graduate student at a California university, who requested anonymity due to the potential impact on their own position — which is funded by an NIH grant— echoed those concerns. “I think we’re all a little on edge. We’re all nervous,” they said. “We have to make sure that we’re planning only a year in advance, just so that we can be sure that we’re confident of where that funding is going to come from. In case it all of a sudden gets cut.”

The student said their decision to pursue research was rooted in a desire to study rare diseases often overlooked by industry. After transitioning from a more clinical setting, they were drawn to academia for its ability to fund smaller, higher-impact projects — the kind that might never turn a profit but could still change lives. They hope to one day become a principal investigator, or PI, and lead their own research lab.

Now, that path feels increasingly uncertain. “If things continue the way that they have been,” they said. “I’m concerned about getting or continuing to get NIH funding, especially as a new PI.”

Still, they are staying committed to academic research. “If we all shy off and back down, the people who want this defunded win.”

Rallying behind science

Already, researchers, universities and advocacy groups have been pushing back against the proposed budget cut.

On campuses across the country, students and researchers have organized rallies, marches and letter-writing campaigns to defend federal research funding. “Stand Up for Science” protests have occurred nationwide, and unions like UAW 4811 have mobilized across the UC system to pressure lawmakers and demand support for at-risk researchers. Their efforts have helped prevent additional state-level cuts in California: in June, the Legislature rejected Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed $129.7-million reduction to the UC budget.

Earlier this year, a coalition of public health groups, researchers and unions — led by the American Public Health Assn. — sued the NIH and Department of Health and Human Services over the termination of more than a thousand grants. On June 16, U.S. District Judge William Young ruled in their favor, ordering the NIH to reinstate over 900 canceled grants and calling the terminations unlawful and discriminatory. Although the ruling applies only to grants named in the lawsuit, it marks the first major legal setback to the administration’s research funding rollback.

Though much of the current spotlight (including that lawsuit) has focused on biomedical science, the proposed NIH cuts threaten research far beyond immunology or cancer. Fields ranging from mental health to environmental science stand to lose crucial support. And although some grants may be in the process of reinstatement, the damage already done — paused projects, lost jobs and upended career paths — can’t simply be undone with next year’s budget.

And yet, amid the fear and frustration, there’s still resolve. “I’m floored by the fact that the trainees are still devoted,” Jameson said. “They still come in and work hard. They’re still hopeful about the future.”

President Trump got his way Friday, just not on his terms.

Two weeks after Trump said he fired the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery director, Kim Sajet, she stepped down of her own accord.

“It has been the honor of a lifetime to lead the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. This was not an easy decision, but I believe it is the right one,” Sajet wrote in a note to staff shared in an email by the Smithsonian Institution’s leader, Lonnie Bunch. “From the very beginning, my guiding principle has been to put the museum first. Today, I believe that stepping aside is the best way to serve the institution I hold so deeply in my heart. The role of a museum director has never been about one individual — it is a shared mission, driven by the passion, creativity, and dedication of an extraordinary team.”

The news follows Trump’s May 30 post on Truth Social that he was firing Sajet, the first woman to hold her post at the National Portrait Gallery, for being “a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI.”

Trump’s authority to fire Sajet immediately came under question. The Smithsonian is not part of the executive branch, and the president does not choose its Board of Regents. Reports soon surfaced that Sajet continued to show up at work each day.

On Monday the Board of Regents held a lengthy meeting and then issued a statement that said Secretary Bunch had the board’s support “in his authority and management of the Smithsonian.” The statement declared the institution’s full independence, including in personnel decisions. The statement said Bunch had been directed to “articulate specific expectations to museum directors and staff regarding content in Smithsonian museums, give directors reasonable time to make any needed changes to ensure unbiased content, and to report back to the Board on progress and any needed personnel changes based on success or lack thereof in making the needed changes.”

It is unclear if Sajet, who served as the museum’s director for 12 years, made her decision prior to the Board of Regents meeting. The Smithsonian did not respond to a question about that.

“Once again, we thank Kim for her service. Her decision to put the museum first is to be applauded and appreciated,” Bunch wrote in his email to staff. “I know this was not an easy decision. She put the needs of the Institution above her own, and for that we thank her.”

Kevin Gover, the undersecretary for museums and culture, will serve as acting director, Bunch said.

The Smithsonian has a delicate task ahead as it moves forward following Trump’s March 27 executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” It directs Vice President JD Vance to remove “improper ideology” from the Smithsonian’s 21 museums and the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., and threatens to end federal funding for exhibitions and programs based on racial themes that “divide Americans.”

Bunch’s email to staff stressed that the organization has an imperative to remain nonpartisan.

The Smithsonian Institution asserted its independence Monday evening in a statement that could be read as a rejection of President Trump’s late-May firing of National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet.

The Smithsonian’s statement said the organization’s secretary, Lonnie G. Bunch, “has the support of the Board of Regents in his authority and management of the Smithsonian.” The statement suggested that all personnel decisions will be made by Bunch, not Trump.

The announcement came after a much-anticipated Board of Regents meeting to discuss the fate of Sajet. The Washington Post had reported that Sajet quietly continued to show up for work each day after Trump’s social media post, which said he was firing Sajet for being “a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI.”

The Smithsonian’s statement Monday did not explicitly state that Sajet would remain in her position, and the institution did not respond to a Times question on that subject. But the text of the statement is clear in its intent, beginning: “In 1846, the Smithsonian was established by Congress as an independent entity.”

It continues: “Throughout its history, the Smithsonian has been governed and administered by a Board of Regents and a Secretary. The board is entrusted with the governance and independence of the Institution, and the board appoints a Secretary to manage the Institution.”

The Smithsonian’s move comes shortly after the White House proposed a 12% reduction in funding to the Smithsonian in the 2026 budget — including the elimination of funding for the National Museum of the American Latino, which is in the development stages and aims to open on or near the National Mall; and the Anacostia Community Museum, which opened in 1967 and honors Black culture.

The Smithsonian became a target for Trump beginning March 27, when he issued an executive order titled “Restoring truth and sanity to American history.” That order demanded an end to federal funding for exhibitions and programs based on racial themes that “divide Americans.”

“Once widely respected as a symbol of American excellence and a global icon of cultural achievement, the Smithsonian Institution has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology,” the order read. It also instructed Vice President JD Vance to remove “improper ideology” from the Smithsonian’s 21 museums and the National Zoo in Washington.

The order followed Trump’s ongoing attempts to reshape federal cultural institutions, including his February takeover of the Kennedy Center.

One major difference between the Kennedy Center and the Smithsonian: The Kennedy Center’s board is appointed by the president, but the Smithsonian’s board consists of officials representing all three branches of government. Vance is on the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents, as is Chief Justice John G. Roberts.

“Since its inception, the Smithsonian has set out to be a nonpartisan institution,” the statement Monday read. “As the nation’s museum, the Smithsonian must be a welcoming place of knowledge and discovery for all Americans. The Board of Regents is committed to ensuring that the Smithsonian is a beacon of scholarship free from political or partisan influence, and we recognize that our institution can and must do more to further these foundational values.

“To reinforce our nonpartisan stature, the Board of Regents has directed the Secretary to articulate specific expectations to museum directors and staff regarding content in Smithsonian museums, give directors reasonable time to make any needed changes to ensure unbiased content, and to report back to the Board on progress and any needed personnel changes based on success or lack thereof in making the needed changes.”

Like many of his predecessors, President Trump has affirmed the importance of historically Black colleges and universities, hailing them as a pathway to careers and a better life for students in the U.S.

The schools have not faced cuts to federal grants of the kind that have rocked Ivy League schools Trump has blasted as hotbeds of “wokeness” and antisemitism, and the president has said HBCUs’ core federal funding is not at risk.

But that is not to say it’s a comfortable time for HBCUs’ leaders. As the Trump administration cracks down elsewhere on programs to support underrepresented students, the colleges have been expressing gratitude for the administration’s recognition while mostly keeping quiet on its sweeping attacks against diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

“HBCUs, in general, I don’t believe are in a position to be adamantly and vociferously opposed to these attacks, but deep down we all know what’s going on,” said Deron Snyder, an alumnus of and professor at Howard University. “It’s just how much can you actually say without fear of retribution.”

An executive order signed by Trump in April recognizes HBCUs and pledges his administration’s support. It calls for an annual White House conference, private-sector partnerships and an advisory board with the Education Department, but it does not guarantee any new federal funding.

The order won praise from some Black universities, including Howard University and Morgan State University, as well as organizations that work with HBCUs. Harry Williams, president of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, said the order should serve as a call to action for corporations, foundations and lawmakers to redouble support for HBCUs and their students.

But the colleges’ leaders have said little on other administration actions that are out of line with the mission of HBCUs, which were founded to educate formerly enslaved people.

The administration’s campaign against DEI has encouraged restrictions on classroom discussions around racism and led to cuts in federal research grants. As it threatens to cut federal funding from schools, some colleges have closed diversity offices and ended other programs to support students of color.

For HBCUs, the moment is reminiscent of the era decades ago when Black colleges were compelled to argue that school segregation was wrong but also needed to maintain government support for their institutions, said Marybeth Gasman, a Rutgers University professor who has studied the history of HBCUs.

Black college leaders “don’t want HBCUs to be under the umbrella of DEI, but I don’t know any HBCU president who would agree with the way that Donald Trump is dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion efforts,” she said.

The Trump administration has cut federal research grants for several universities, pressuring them to comply with his agenda. Since Harvard University refused the administration’s demands for changes to its policies and leadership, the government has slashed $2.6 billion in funding, which the Ivy League school has described as retaliation.

In an interview in April, Trump told NewsNation that Black colleges and universities should not be concerned about losing their funding.

U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), vice chair of the House HBCU caucus, said there has long been bipartisan support for the colleges. But she said there will be new vigilance of their federal support in light of the administration’s record on programs serving minorities.

Sewell said it is also alarming to see the administration move to dismantle the Education Department.

“We’ll be pushing back fiercely against that and do all that we can to make sure that our HBCUs get the money that they deserve,” Sewell said. She said the Congressional Black Caucus has been paying close attention to the Republicans’ funding plan for a program that supports 19 HBCUs through the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Williams, of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, said HBCUs have exceeded all expectations of the opportunities they have provided for underrepresented students. He said he is grateful for the administration’s support, but when asked about its actions toward diversity initiatives, he said the administration has challenges it is working through.

“Hard work pays off and education pays off. That’s why these institutions are so critical to this country,” he said. “The realities of those other challenges that we’re grappling with right now in terms of what the administration is dealing with as it relates to their priorities, we were just pleased to know that they recognize the importance of what these institutions have done for the country will continue to do in a very deliberate way.”

Mumphrey writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Collin Binkley and Matt Brown in Washington contributed to this report.