Scientists rallied in cities across the United States on Friday to denounce efforts by the administration of US President Donald Trump to eliminate key staff across multiple agencies and curb life-saving research.Since Trump returned to the White House, his government has cut federal research funding, withdrawn from the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Agreement, and sought to dismiss hundreds of federal workers working on health and climate research.In response, researchers, doctors, students, engineers and elected officials took to the streets in New York, Washington, Boston, Chicago and Madison, Wisconsin to vent their fury at what they see as an unprecedented attack on science.”I have never been so angry,” said Jesse Heitner, a researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who joined more than 1,000 people demonstrating in the US capital.”They’re lighting everything on fire,” Heitner told AFP at the Lincoln Memorial.He felt particularly incensed about the appointment of noted vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr as the head of the Department of Health and Human Services.”If you put someone in charge of NASA who’s a ‘Flat Earther,’ that’s not okay,” he said.- ‘Inexcusable’ -“Fund science, not billionaires” and “America was built on science,” read some of the signs brandished at the Washington protest.”What’s happening now is unprecedented,” said Grover, a university researcher in his 50s who declined to provide further personal details due to professional constraints. Dressed in a white lab coat and wielding a pink sign that read “Stand Up for Science,” he told AFP his employer had urged staff to keep a low profile, fearing financial retribution in the form of suspended or cancelled federal grants. “I’ve been around research over 30 years, and what’s going on has never happened,” he said, adding that the “inexcusable” actions by the federal government would have “long-term repercussions.”- Brain drain? -Many researchers told AFP about their fears about the future of their grants and other funding.The suspension of some grants has already led some universities to reduce the number of students accepted into doctoral programs or research positions. For those just getting started in their careers, the concern is palpable. “I should be at home studying, instead of having to be here defending my right to have a job,” said Rebecca Glisson, a 28-year-old doctoral student in neuroscience. Glisson is due to defend her thesis at her program in Maryland next week, but feels apprehensive about her future beyond that, as funding for the laboratory she had planned to work for has been cut.Chelsea Gray, a 34-year-old environmental scientist working on shark preservation, had dreamed of working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, one of the federal agencies under particular threat over its climate research. Instead, she has begun the process of obtaining an Irish passport. “I did everything right and set myself up for success, and I’ve watched my entire career path crumble before my eyes,” Gray told AFP. “I want to stay and serve the United States as a United States citizen,” she said.”But if that option is not available to me, I need to keep all doors open.”

The anti-abortion movement in the United States has set its sights on a new target: doctors sending pills across state lines to help women end unwanted pregnancies.Since the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the federal protection of the right to an abortion, states like Texas and Louisiana have adopted tough anti-abortion laws.Women seeking to end pregnancies, even victims of rape or incest, are now obliged to travel long distances or to seek the delivery of abortion pills from other jurisdictions.And that measure is now under attack.Texas and Louisiana are launching a legal case against a doctor in New York, a state which in turn has passed a “shield law” to protect its physicians from outside prosecutions.  “These are the first kind of cross-border fights that we’ve seen since Roe was overturned,” said California legal scholar Mary Ziegler, referring to the 2022 Supreme Court decision.”And those are just, I think in some ways, the tip of the iceberg. We’re likely to see a lot more of these cross-border fights.”From Texas or Louisiana’s standpoint, they’re saying: ‘Why is this doctor mailing pills into our state?'” explained Ziegler, a professor at the law school at the University of California, Davis.”And from New York’s standpoint, they’re saying: ‘Our doctor wasn’t doing anything wrong. Why are you trying to prosecute her?'”- ‘Chilling effect’ -In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton declared that “out-of-state doctors may not illegally and dangerously prescribe abortion-inducing drugs to Texas residents.”Margaret Carpenter, a New York doctor and a co-founder of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, was ordered to stop sending pills to Texas and fined $100,000.  In Louisiana, she faces criminal charges and the state has demanded her extradition, to which New York Governor Kathy Hochul responded: “Not now, not ever.”Hochul said the state’s shield law was designed to “anticipate this very situation.”According to #WeCount, an initiative that collates abortion statistics nationwide, 10 percent of abortions in the second quarter of 2024 were conducted under the protection of shield laws.This accounts for approximately 10,000 women each month. In Louisiana, this was the solution chosen by 60 percent of women — about 2,500 — to terminate pregnancies in the second half of 2023, #WeCount estimates.Now, abortion rights activists fear that individual doctors will be targeted.”The tactic of going after providers, patients and helpers through the courts is definitely something that we are going to see them try more of,” Amy Friedrich-Karnik, of the Guttmacher Institute, told AFP.”And I think the goal is both to, you know, scare those individuals… and there’s a chilling effect from that,” said Friedrich-Karnik, a policy director at the pro-abortion rights think tank.The legal battles will be long, and the results are far from certain. Some cases may get to the Supreme Court, and it is not clear whether President Donald Trump’s administration will attempt to intervene. “This is a long-lasting debate, even if it goes to the Supreme Court,” Ziegler said.”Because then what would happen is the next case that comes along will be different enough that whatever the Supreme Court has to say about these cases won’t give us the answer necessarily,” she said. “There’s not… going to be one clean solution that the Supreme Court reaches that resolves this once and for all.”- Procedure rejected -Meanwhile, the attorneys general of Idaho, Kansas and Missouri have demanded that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) end prescriptions of the pill via online medical visits — effectively restricting access nationwide.A similar request was nevertheless rejected by the Supreme Court in 2024.”There’s uncertainty about what Trump is going to do. There’s uncertainty about what power states have to project power outside of state lines. There’s uncertainty about what the FDA is going to do,” Ziegler said. “Simply not knowing can impact patients and doctors. But that’s the scenario right now — there’s a big question mark around a lot of it.”

US President Donald Trump imposed vast tariffs this week on key partners Canada and Mexico, roiling cross-border ties before offering temporary relief to manufacturers — but with more levies kicking in next week, the respite may be fleeting.US companies faced a series of duties starting Monday, with Trump doubling an additional levy on Chinese goods before allowing 25 percent tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports to take effect Tuesday.The moves rattled markets, sending major Wall Street indexes down, and the president on Thursday announced exemptions for Canadian and Mexican goods entering the United States under a North American trade pact.But some 62 percent of Canadian imports are still hit by the new levies, even as much of them are energy resources covered by a lower 10 percent tariff.For Mexican goods, this proportion is around half, the White House estimates.”It’s surprising because it’s such a self-destructive policy,” said Philip Luck, director of the economics program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).Referring to the initial imposition of 25 percent Canada and Mexico tariffs, Luck called it “economic kryptonite.”Although Trump partially rolled back levies — taking into consideration heavily integrated North American auto supply chains — the fact that tariffs came on has lingering effects, Luck said.”The damage was done for the week they were on, and the damage continues to be done in terms of the fact that we just have a much more uncertain trade environment,” he told AFP.- Steel, aluminum hit -Looking ahead, Trump’s 25 percent tariffs across steel and aluminum imports are due to take effect next Wednesday.Trump has said he would not modify the levies.These tariffs will also affect Canada and Mexico, both of whom export steel to the United States, alongside other trading partners like Brazil, South Korea and European countries.But even as Washington seeks to help domestic steel producers, experts warn that targeting the metals harms various other industries.Steel and aluminum are inputs to construction, data centers and automobiles, said Luck of CSIS.And it is unclear if such tariffs do more good than harm.In 2002, the George W. Bush administration placed tariffs on imports of certain steel products to guard the domestic sector.But Luck noted that more jobs were lost in steel-consuming industries than the total number employed by the American steel industry itself.Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM), estimates that existing steel and aluminum tariffs currently cover less than half of all such US imports.But Trump’s moves next week are “essentially a reset” of levies to 25 percent. – Cost concerns -To guard against volatility from upcoming tariffs, some manufacturers will look to source more products domestically or renegotiate their import contracts, said Paul of AAM.Businesses may also delay orders, and others are likely stocking up on inventory, he told AFP.No matter what, there will be an “adjustment period” for firms, he said.The speed of policy rollout now, Paul added, means a “rapid reset” of trade ties — a sharp contrast to the slow spread of deindustrialization over decades previously.This week alone, he said, the additional 20 percent tariff targeting China raises the effective average rate on Chinese products to about 30 percent.”When you look at what’s actually been put into place so far, from a tariff point of view, the focus has certainly been China,” he said.”I don’t think they’re done yet,” he added, referring to the world’s second biggest economy.Industries are on edge as they eye the possibility of more levies to come — with Trump promising “reciprocal tariffs” as soon as April 2.On Friday, trade association the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) expressed concern that “the continued threat of tariffs will make it harder for builders and their customers to move ahead with new construction projects.””With the nation facing a housing affordability crisis, we continue to believe that critical construction materials should be exempt from any future tariffs,” said NAHB chairman Buddy Hughes.

A measles outbreak in the southwestern United States has killed two people and infected more than 200, prompting a top health agency to issue a travel warning.As of Friday, Texas had reported 198 cases and New Mexico 30, bringing the total to 228. Each state confirmed one death, and both were unvaccinated.The Texas patient was a child while the New Mexico patient was an adult who tested positive for measles after death. Although the official cause of the adult’s death has not been released by the New Mexico Office of the Medical Investigator, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has classified it as a measles-related fatality.”More cases are expected as this outbreak continues to expand rapidly,” the CDC warned in a Health Alert Network advisory to healthcare workers, public health officials, and potential travelers.”With spring and summer travel season approaching in the United States, CDC emphasizes the important role that clinicians and public health officials play in preventing the spread of measles,” the agency said.”They should be vigilant for cases of febrile rash illness that meet the measles case definition and share effective measles prevention strategies, including vaccination guidance for international travelers.”Measles is highly contagious, spreading through respiratory droplets and lingering in the air for up to two hours after an infected person leaves an area. The disease causes fever, respiratory symptoms, and a rash — but can also lead to severe complications, including pneumonia, brain inflammation, and death.Vaccination remains the best protection. The measles vaccine, required for children 12 months and older, confers 93 percent lifetime immunity after one dose, rising to 97 percent after two.But immunization rates have been declining in the US, particularly since the Covid-19 pandemic fueled a surge in vaccine misinformation. The CDC recommends a 95 percent vaccination rate for herd immunity, but nationwide coverage among kindergartners had slumped to 92.7 percent by 2023-2024.Religious exemptions are on the rise and the epicenter of the oubtreak is a west Texas county with a large Mennonite religious community that has historically shown vaccine hesitancy.Current Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spent decades falsely linking the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism — a claim thoroughly debunked by scientific research. Since the outbreak expanded, he has softened his stance, recommending vaccination while simultaneously promoting treatments such as vitamin A and steroids.While these treatments are medically valid, experts warn that emphasizing them may divert attention from the urgent need to boost immunization rates.Before this outbreak, the last US measles-related death was in 2015, when a Washington state woman died from virus-induced pneumonia while on immunosuppressive medication. The previous fatality was in 2003.