Protesters rally against move to remove gender identity from Iowa Civil Rights Act
Hundreds gathered at the Iowa State Capitol Feb. 24, 2025 to protest legislation that would remove protections for gender identity under the Iowa Civil Rights Act. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
Hundreds protested in the halls of the Iowa State Capitol Monday as a subcommittee advanced legislation to remove gender identity as a protected class from the Iowa Civil Rights Act.
House Study Bill 242 would remove 'gender identity' as a class protected through the Iowa Civil Rights Act against discrimination in employment, wages, public accommodations, housing and education. The state civil rights act offers similar protections on the basis of race, creed, sex and physical disability. In 2007, the Iowa Legislature added gender identity and sexuality to the ICRA.
The committee room was full, with a large group protesting outside. Chants of 'trans rights are human rights' and 'we won't go quiet' were heard outside the meeting as supporters of the bill spoke; protesters shouted 'shame' at Reps. Steven Holt and Samantha Fett as they entered the meeting.
Critics called the bill unnecessary and discriminatory, calling for lawmakers to focus on issues like housing, child care and environmental protections instead of passing legislation that would allow for discrimination against a minority group. Diane Crookham-Johnson of Oskaloosa, the former finance chair for the Iowa Republican Party and former State Board of Education member under Govs. Terry Branstad and Kim Reynolds, said this bill will have a larger impact on Iowa communities than some may realize.
'I stand before you as a local attorney who has assisted in 2024 more than eight Mahaska County residents on legal processes and documents so that they can confirm their gender identity — folks who work in our businesses, attend our schools, attend our churches, folks who shop in our stores, rent our apartments and buy our homes, folks who pay property taxes to support all of our communities,' Crookham-Johnson said. 'This bill doesn't impact some unknown person over there. This bill impacts people in your districts, people in your states, and even your most conservative counties of Iowa.'
But multiple speakers supporting the measure said removing 'gender identity' from ICRA would 'protect women,' by preventing transgender women from entering women's spaces like restrooms. Evelyn Nikkel with the PELLA PAC, a conservative Pella-based organization that supports removing both gender identity and sexual orientation from the state civil rights code, told lawmakers that the measure provides elevated protections for transgender Iowans at the expense of others' rights.
'Because these terms are codified in our law, gender identity is magically elevated to a protected class with preferential and unfair advantage,' Nikkel said. '… Biological males with gender dysphoria steal biological women's sports achievements, trespass on their privacy and accost them in women's prisons, restrooms and locker rooms. We are being robbed of our dignity and respect, which is morally indefensible.'
Amber Williams with Inspired Life, a conservative religious organization, shared a story of encountering a person she identified as transgender in a women's bathroom as an example for the need for sex-segregated spaces that can only be accessed by people designated as 'female' at birth.
'Just two weeks ago, I walked into a women's restroom in a public place and immediately felt uneasy when I saw a biological man coming out of a stall,' Williams said. 'I couldn't shake the sensation of discomfort and heightened awareness that many women would feel in these situation. I quickly left without using the restroom, because in that moment, my sense of safety and privacy had been compromised. This isn't about hatred or exclusion. It's about acknowledging that women have a right to feel secure in spaces meant for them.'
The bill contains language that 'equal' accommodations do not mean 'same' or 'identical,' and that 'separate accommodations are not inherently unequal.'
Rep. Ross Wilburn, D-Ames, said this provision in the bill 'takes us back' to the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld 'separate but equal' accommodations on the basis of race.
Paden Sheumaker, a Black queer Iowan with the LGBTQ+ advocacy group with One Iowa, said her ancestors had to fight for civil rights in the country and in Iowa — and that steps to strip civil rights from a group of people 'would be to spit in the face of everyone who has fought tooth and nail for these rights.
'Have you ever been discriminated against just for being who you are, just for existing as yourself?' Sheumaker said. 'I have, and I can tell you, it is dehumanizing. It is demeaning, it is disheartening and it is terrifying. Many queer and transgender and gender nonconforming Iowans have felt this — and that is while our rights are protected, that's with the laws and the power of the state behind us to protect us. I cannot imagine how much worse that discrimination would be if the state would then choose to abandon that protection. I do not want to live in a state where that is something you're working toward.'
Similar legislation was introduced during the 2024 legislative session but failed to advance. In discussions on that bill, speakers said the measure may not hold up to legal challenges. Pete McRoberts with the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa said Thursday said that Iowa, under Democratic control, chose to add gender identity and sexuality to ICRA in 2007 — and the fact that these rights were voluntarily extended 'triggers an obligation on the state to preserve those rights.'
McRoberts pointed to U.S. Supreme Court precedent that found when a legislature grants protected status to a group when not constitutionally required to, removing those protections is a violation of the Equal Protections Clause.
There are currently 23 states that have protections against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation in state law, according to the Human Rights Campaign. McRoberts said none of the states that have established these protections have repealed them.
'We should not be the first, not just on moral grounds, but on on legal grounds,' he said. 'And that's something which we hope legislators will think very thoroughly and thoughtfully about. Whether they would have voted to expand the Civil Rights Act or not, that's a separate question. But that's not the question in front of us. The question in front of us is, do you remove a specific person who is part of a group of identifiable people who've been protected under the Civil Rights Act?'
Fett, R-Carlisle, said the measure was the 'right move' for Iowans, and is a necessary step to allow Iowa to enact measures passed in previous years related to transgender people on issues like transgender women competing in women's sports and preventing transgender people from using restrooms or locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity.
'Those protections are at risk, which is why this bill is important,' Fett said. 'This bill is not about discrimination and was carefully crafted, and I want to make sure people understand that. But we're going to have activists that try to use subterfuge to create false narratives.'
The legislation is on the list of bills to be considered by the House Judiciary Committee, scheduled to begin meeting at 1:30 p.m. Monday. A public hearing on the measure was scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Thursday, Feb. 24.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
No Supreme Court win, but Mexico pressures U.S. on southbound guns
MEXICO CITY — More than a decade ago, Mexican authorities erected a billboard along the border in Ciudad Juárez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso. 'No More Weapons,' was the stark message, written in English and crafted from 3 tons of firearms that had been seized and crushed. It was a desperate entreaty to U.S. officials to stanch the so-called Iron River, the southbound flow of arms that was fueling record levels of carnage in Mexico. But the guns kept coming — and the bloodletting and mayhem grew. Finally, with homicides soaring to record levels, exasperated authorities pivoted to a novel strategy: Mexico filed a $10-billion suit in U.S. federal court seeking to have Smith & Wesson and other signature manufacturers held accountable for the country's epidemic of shooting deaths. The uphill battle against the powerful gun lobby survived an appeals court challenge, but last week the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Mexico's lawsuit, ruling unanimously that federal law shields gunmakers from nearly all liability. Although the litigation stalled, advocates say the high-profile gambit did notch a significant achievement: Dramatizing the role of Made-in-U.S.A. arms in Mexico's daily drumbeat of assassinations, massacres and disappearances. 'Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, Mexico's lawsuit has accomplished a great deal,' said Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, a Washington-based advocacy group. 'It has put the issue of gun trafficking — and the industry's role in facilitating the gun pipeline — on the bilateral and international agenda,' said Lowy, who was co-counsel in Mexico's lawsuit. A few hours after the high court decision, Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, wrote on X that the White House was intent on working with Mexico 'to stop southbound arms trafficking and dismantle networks fueling cartel violence.' The comments mark the first time that Washington — which has strong-armed Mexico to cut down on the northbound traffic of fentanyl and other illicit drugs — has acknowledged a reciprocal responsibility to clamp down on southbound guns, said President Claudia Sheinbaum. She hailed it as a breakthrough, years in the making. 'This is not just about the passage of narcotics from Mexico to the United States,' Sheinbaum said Friday. 'But that there [must] also be no passage of arms from the United States to Mexico.' Mexico is mulling options after the Supreme Court rebuff, Sheinbaum said. Still pending is a separate lawsuit by Mexico in U.S. federal court accusing five gun dealers in Arizona of trafficking weapons and ammunition to the cartels. Meanwhile, U.S. officials say that the Trump administration's recent designation of six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations means that weapons traffickers may face terrorism-related charges. 'In essence, the cartels that operate within Mexico and threaten the state are armed from weapons that are bought in the United States and shipped there,' U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a congressional panel last month. 'We want to help stop that flow.' On Monday, federal agents gathered at an international bridge in Laredo, Texas, before an array of seized arms — from snub-nosed revolvers to mounted machine guns — to demonstrate what they insist is a newfound resolve to stop the illicit gun commerce. 'This isn't a weapon just going to Mexico,' Craig Larrabee, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Antonio, told reporters. 'It's going to arm the cartels. It's going to fight police officers and create terror throughout Mexico.' In documents submitted to the Supreme Court, Mexican authorities charged that it defied credibility that U.S. gunmakers were unaware that their products were destined for Mexican cartels — a charge denied by manufacturers. The gun industry also disputed Mexico's argument that manufacturers deliberately produce military-style assault rifles and other weapons that, for both practical and aesthetic reasons, appeal to mobsters. Mexico cited several .38-caliber Colt offerings, including a gold-plated, Jefe de Jefes ('Boss of Bosses') pistol; and a handgun dubbed the 'Emiliano Zapata,' emblazoned with an image of the revered Mexican revolutionary hero and his celebrated motto: 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.' Compared with the United States, Mexico has a much more stringent approach to firearms. Like the 2nd Amendment, Mexico's Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But it also stipulates that federal law 'will determine the cases, conditions, requirements and places' of gun ownership. There are just two stores nationwide, both run by the military, where people can legally purchase guns. At the bigger store, in Mexico City, fewer than 50 guns are sold on average each day. Buyers are required to provide names, addresses and fingerprints in a process that can drag on for months. And unlike the United States, Mexico maintains a national registry. But the vast availability of U.S.-origin, black-market weapons undermines Mexico's strict guidelines. According to Mexican officials, an estimated 200,000 to half a million guns are smuggled annually into Mexico. Data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives illustrate where criminals in Mexico are obtaining their firepower. Of the 132,823 guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico from 2009 to 2018, fully 70% were found to have originated in the U.S. — mostly in Texas and other Southwest border states. In their lawsuit, Mexican authorities cited even higher numbers: Almost 90% of guns seized at crime scenes came from north of the border. Experts say most firearms in Mexico are bought legally at U.S. gun shows or retail outlets by so-called straw purchasers,who smuggle the weapons across the border. It's a surprisingly easy task: More than a million people and about $1.8 billion in goods cross the border legally each day, and Mexico rarely inspects vehicles heading south. In recent years, the flood of weapons from the United States has accelerated, fueling record levels of violence. Mexican organized crime groups have expanded their turf and moved into rackets beyond drug trafficking, including extortion, fuel-smuggling and the exploitation of timber, minerals and other natural resources. In 2004, guns accounted for one-quarter of Mexico's homicides. Today, guns are used in roughly three-quarters of killings. Mexican leaders have long been sounding alarms. Former President Felipe Calderón, who, with U.S. backing, launched what is now widely viewed as a catastrophic 'war' on Mexican drug traffickers in late 2006, personally pleaded with U.S. lawmakers to reinstate a congressional prohibition on purchases of high-powered assault rifles. The expiration of the ban in 2004 meant that any adult with a clean record could enter a store in most states and walk out with weapons that, in much of the world, are legally reserved for military use. 'Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands,' Calderon said in a 2010 address to the U.S. Congress. 'Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals.' It was Calderón who, near the end of his term, ventured to the northern border to unveil the massive billboard urging U.S. authorities to stop the weapons flow. His appeals, and those of subsequent Mexican leaders, went largely unheeded. The verdict is still out on whether Washington will follow up on its latest vows to throttle the gun traffic. 'The Trump administration has said very clearly that it wants to go after Mexican organized crime groups,' said David Shirk, a political scientist at San Diego University who studies violence in Mexico. 'And, if you're going to get serious about Mexican cartels, you have to take away their guns.' Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report.
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
Small Michigan auto suppliers face a tariff crisis with thousands of jobs at risk
Small Michigan auto suppliers face a tariff crisis with thousands of jobs at risk Show Caption Hide Caption Appeals court allows Trump tariffs while appeal plays out An appeals court ruled the Trump administration will be allowed to levy tariffs while an appeal on previous court rulings plays out. Michigan auto parts suppliers are struggling with the 25% tariffs imposed by President Trump on imported vehicles and parts. Smaller suppliers are especially vulnerable, facing potential job losses and business closures due to increased costs. Industry experts warn that tariffs could lead to supplier consolidation, potentially driving up prices for consumers. Michigan-based auto parts suppliers are getting creative in their attempts to mitigate President Donald Trump's 25% tariffs on imported vehicles and auto parts. They must, because many industry experts worry the tariffs could put smaller players — which constitute the bulk of auto suppliers — out of business and result in widespread job losses. Take Michigan-based Lucerne International in Auburn Hills, which is looking for the U.S. government to grant it foreign trade zone status to help it delay its tariff bills and free up its cash flow. Another supplier, Team 1 Plastics Inc., is reassessing its business model, including what to do about a much-needed factory expansion that may no longer be affordable. Still others are asking automakers to help foot the bill. 'We've had a lot to think about when you take an industry that is as far-flung as the supply base is in automotive, and then throw in tariffs.' said Gary Grigowski, vice president of Team 1 Plastics, Inc. Adds Lucerne CEO Mary Buchzeiger, "I wake up in the morning and I deal with tariffs. I go to bed and I deal with tariffs. Then the policy keeps changing and when that playbook continuously keeps changing and we don't know what is going to happen two weeks from now … that's a challenge for any industry.' In Michigan, auto parts suppliers are huge employers and contributors to the economy. While experts believe the big suppliers will adapt to tariffs, it's all those smaller companies, such as Team 1 Plastics, which has just 80 employees, that industry observers worry about. In case you missed it: Economists estimate new tariff costs to range between $2,000 to $12,000 per vehicle "University of Michigan economists said tariffs on the auto industry, along with steel and aluminum, can be expected to reduce employment by roughly 13,000 jobs over the next several years. That's a lot of jobs," said Glenn Stevens, executive director of MichAuto. "This is what we've been concerned about because our industry is so tied to Mexico and Canada and the global auto supply chain. We were concerned that the tariff situation would cause an outsized impact on Michigan's economy.' Industry consolidation could drive up prices On May 28, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the president had overstepped his authority in imposing 'reciprocal' tariffs globally, as well as duties on Canada and Mexico. Some in the auto industry said they were encouraged by the ruling, until they realized that the tariffs Trump put on autos still apply, providing no relief from the worry over possible supplier consolidation and job losses. The next day, an appeals court ruled Trump can continue to levy tariffs — which are taxes an importer pays on goods when they cross borders — while challenging the court order that had blocked them. Stevens said there are 'absolutely conversations going on' between suppliers and their customers, including automakers, about ways to shoulder the extra tariff costs together. 'When you have a tremendous increase in costs … that has to either be absorbed by the company, which is very difficult for small suppliers, or passed along to the customer,' Stevens said. 'What we don't want is it passed to the consumer, because that means repressed demand and lower sales, which leads to job losses. It's a fine balancing act.' Other industry experts report that the topic of the day among suppliers is how to remain solvent when faced with the tariffs potentially eating up their operating cash. "We are actively speaking with the tiered supplier community about this topic," said Joe McCabe, CEO of AutoForecast Solutions. "Everyone is taking the tariff talks seriously and looking at ways to improve efficiencies internally and investigate secondary supply strategies. The further down the supply chain you go, the more exposed the supplier will be." McCabe said the Tier 1 suppliers are in the strongest position to adapt to tariffs. They are bigger suppliers that sell directly to automakers. They have a diverse product portfolio to either relocate production and/or pressure the lower-tier suppliers — those companies that sell parts to the Tier 1 supplier — with price-reduction demands while investigating new suppliers in low-to-zero tariff regions. But in times of volatility, there has always been concern that the smaller suppliers will not be able to weather the storm, allowing larger suppliers to buy the distressed suppliers on the cheap and strengthen their product portfolio, McCabe said. As the number of suppliers dwindles, it could allow those that remain to strong-arm carmakers on the prices they pay for the parts, he said. The number of suppliers According to U.S. Census data in 2022, 3,814 firms operated at least one plant classified as producing auto parts in the United States, with a total of 4,846 plants in this industry. Those plants shipped $278.24 billion in parts and employed 575,338 people, said Jason Miller, a supply chain management professor at Michigan State University. Even the small suppliers shoulder big economic muscle. Miller said 3,045 companies with fewer than 100 employees operated 3,111 manufacturing plants that shipped $17.66 billion in parts and employed 54,561 people. In Michigan alone, data from the Upjohn Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center in Michigan, calculates that the state has 117,675 auto supplier jobs. Team 1: A typical small supplier On an afternoon in mid-May, Grigowski drives down the highway, going from meeting to meeting as he talks on the phone to the Free Press about his ever-growing to-do list to mitigate the impact tariffs will have on his company. The company, Team 1 Plastics in Albion, Michigan, is a small supplier, bringing in about $20 million in annual revenue. Its size represents the bulk of companies that make up the auto parts supplier base, Grigowski said. "We're little companies in little towns," Grigowski said. "We employ 80 people, so it's a big deal in a town of 7,000. And we have one location, so we're making decisions that impact everything." Team 1 makes the plastic vehicle parts such as covers, switch components or underhood components. Its business is "almost 100% automotive with a little bit of plumbing," Grigowski said. It provides parts to suppliers that eventually end up on vehicles made by General Motors, Ford Motor Co., Stellantis, Toyota, Honda and Subaru, he said. The parts they make are links in the complex supply chain that weaves across North America. The good news for Team 1 is that some of the materials it uses to make plastic parts are made in the United States, so the company dodges paying tariffs there. But dies used to make other parts will face tariffs and have "a very big impact" on the company's books, Grigowski said. Team 1's troubles Grigowski said the dies, which are used to shape or form plastic into the parts, are made from suppliers in Canada and India. India is subject to a 10% tariff, but Canada and Mexico got 25%. "That was a big surprise for us — 25% is a lot," Grigowski said. "A typical die cost might be $70,000, so that's going to be $17,500 more. So it's a lot of money. We typically get 10 dies a year from Canada, so that's $175,000 more. That's real money were I come from.' Grigowski said it is unclear whether the dies will be exempt from the Canada tariffs for being compliant with the U.S-Mexico-Canada Agreement because it is not a part, but rather a piece of capital equipment. "It's unclear if that will be covered or not" under the exemption, Grigowski said. "We will have to figure it out in the next week or so" before putting in new orders. If the dies are not exempt, he said the extra cost for the tariff will be passed onto Team 1's customers. As for the dies Team 1 already ordered before the tariffs were applied, it already had quoted its prices to its customers so it will not raise those prices to offset the added expense. He said some companies in Michigan make dies, but they don't have enough capacity to meet all the suppliers' needs. And, as those companies get busier, they will raise their prices too. On top of that problem, Team 1 also needs a new injection molding machine, which is made in Japan. Grigowski ordered a new one even though the 24% tariff on goods coming from Japan tacks on $72,000 to its price tag. He is hoping the tariff on Japan will be lowered to 10%, bring down the bill to $30,000. It would be less of an impact, "but it's still painful," he said. Finally, because Team 1 has added new clients in recent years, it has outgrown its facilities and needs to make a 50% expansion to its plant. It got a construction quote six months ago and had hoped to break ground this summer. But Grigowski said he has to get a new quote now because of the recently imposed 25% tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. "We're using an American company and an American building supplier and they will use as many American parts as they can, but they will probably import some of the steel and even if they didn't, the domestics will raise their price because they can," Grigowski said. "So it's a lot of things for a company our size to keep track of." He said it's a tough situation that feeds his bigger fear, which is "nothing we hear sounds like it's going to lower the price of the car.' "Cars are already super pricey for most customers," Grigowski said. According to Cox Automotive, in April the average transaction price for a new car was $48,699. "Which means, it could lead to lower volumes for us. Lower volume is never good.' A bigger supplier's strategies Across the state in Auburn Hills, Lucerne International, which makes chassis, powertrains and body structural components for passenger cars and commercial vehicles, is a bigger supplier at the tier one and tier two levels. CEO Buchzeiger declined to provide Lucerne's annual revenue or employee count, but she has been grappling with Trump tariffs since 2018 because of Lucerne's scale and reach into Asia. Trump was threatening to boost tariffs on China to 25% back then too. So she has learned a thing or two about mitigating tariffs that she's willing to pass on to smaller suppliers to help them. "The biggest issue with the supply base, especially with paying more cash up front, is cash flow and liquidity," Buchzeiger said. "The smaller suppliers can't pay that up front … it sucks cash flow out of your organization." Buchzeiger said her company has been working to get more of its supplies from domestic providers. She shares other strategies, such as what to do when the goods clear a port, as duties are due within seven to 10 days. Sometimes, the goods "aren't even at our door yet and the tariffs are due," Buchzeiger said. To offset that problem, Lucerne signed up for a U.S. Customs and Border Protection program called Periodic Monthly Statement, Buchzeiger said. That program allows a company to pay all the tariffs on the 15th of the month. So if the parts clear the border on the 16th, the company has a full month to pay it, she said. Buchzeiger said the company is also applying to be a foreign trade zone. "That allows us to bring the goods in and sit on them and not pay duties until they clear our door because we're considered a foreign trade zone," Buchzeiger said. "It's just to save millions of dollars in our cash flow because the longer we hold onto our money, the better." Buchzeiger agrees with the president's goal that more goods should be made in America. But she said to make that happen, tariffs have to be executed strategically. The U.S. aluminum manufacturers, for example, can produce only 15% of the aluminum her company requires, she said. So Lurcerne has to import 85% of it. With the 25% tariffs on aluminum now, "you just made me uncompetitive to manufacture here. To help me manufacture here, you have to understand where raw materials come from.' Find 'a path out' Like Grigowski, Buchzeiger believes tariffs will raise new vehicle prices. Buchzeiger is on the board for MEMA and MichAuto and she said the expectation is tariffs will drive up the average price of a new car by $5,000 to $7,000. As for the impact on jobs, MEMA, the group that represents the auto parts supplier industry, told the Free Press it did not have a precise estimate for supplier job losses so far due to tariffs. But it referred to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' April report that noted a national net decline of 5,800 U.S. jobs in motor vehicle and parts production since February. The bureau does not distinguish between parts and vehicle manufacturing. In March, steelmaker Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. said it would idle some operations at its Dearborn plant this summer, tied to tariffs. It said it will lay off about 600 employees. In a statement at the time, the company said, 'We believe that, once President Trump's policies take full effect and automotive production is re-shored, we should be able to resume steel production at Dearborn Works.' But MEMA spokesperson Megan Gardner said that based on its internal surveys, a growing number of MEMA's 1,000 members have reported reducing U.S. employment — both production and nonproduction — and investment since the tariffs went into effect. She said many indicated they expect to make further cuts if tariffs remain in place over the next year. Still, Grigowski said he is sticking to his plan to hire a couple people this fall to work on that new machine from Japan. He even sees a potential upside to tariffs if some work that is currently done in Mexico shifts over to Team 1. 'That's a very real possibility," Grigowski said. "We've had some additional inquiries from a Canadian company." He also believes the Trump administration will negotiate tariffs country by country and come up with something workable for the auto industry, creating a "path out" of his problems. "It's like COVID. When it first happened, we thought we'd have to shut our plant down. Then we saw a path out," Grigowski said. "Ultimately, if these tariffs were to stay in place and they drove volumes down dramatically, then yeah, we'd have to make adjustments. We have to hope cooler heads will prevail. We're in a good financial position that we can wait for a solution. I feel like it's a significant problem, but a problem we can start to work.' Jamie L. LaReau is the senior autos writer who covers Ford Motor Co. for the Detroit Free Press. Contact Jamie at jlareau@ Follow her on Twitter @jlareauan. To sign up for our autos newsletter. Become a subscriber.
Boston Globe
5 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Will Trump's policies kill Massachusetts' life sciences leadership?
Advertisement Although the industry is centered in eastern Massachusetts, there's a statewide benefit from all the tax dollars those businesses and workers pay. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up In all, Massachusetts organizations — including universities, research institutes, and hospitals — received $3.5 billion in funding from the National Institutes of Health. Massachusetts-headquartered companies raised $3.26 billion in venture capital funding. Among all drugs in the development pipeline in the United States, 15 percent were being made by companies headquartered in Massachusetts. But actions taken by President Trump and his administration — cutting funding for scientific research and universities, flirting with tariffs, fanning skepticism about vaccines — threaten to devastate the ecosystem. Today, the industry is at a precipice, and uncertainty abounds. Some companies are already feeling the pinch of terminated federal grants, while others are anxious about what might come. Taken together, Trump's policies could force some companies and scientists to take their money, talents, and products overseas. Advertisement Christopher Locher, CEO of Lowell-based Versatope Therapeutics, which develops a platform to deliver vaccines and therapeutics, said he worries the Greater Boston life sciences ecosystem is 'being flushed down the toilet.' For example, Trump is Trump's funding cuts are already having a large impact on some local companies. Part of the problem is the Trump administration isn't only cutting funding, but it's picking which technologies to fund — in some cases apparently based on politics more than science. Take flu vaccines. The Trump administration recently announced a $500 million campaign to fund the development of a universal flu vaccine, which doesn't require annual updates, using technology being worked on But simultaneously, he cut funding for other work on a universal flu vaccine. Versatope Therapeutics got $14 million in NIH funding and spent five years developing a universal flu vaccine. It had approval from the US Food and Drug Administration to begin clinical trials when Trump terminated the contract's remaining $8 million, with the reason given being 'convenience,' Locher said. Trump also Advertisement Company executives say decisions by Trump officials to disinvest in vaccine-related technology — and concerns about whether government will approve new technology — means it's nearly impossible to find private investment funding to replace lost federal dollars. 'We're faced with bankruptcy in the very near future,' Locher said. Ironically, given Trump's stated commitment to bringing businesses back to the United States, one potential option Locher is eyeing is opening a subsidiary abroad. Conducting clinical trials would be cheaper in another country, whether in Europe, Australia, or China, Locher said, and some countries are offering financial incentives to American companies to relocate. Companies also face a potential workforce brain drain. There have been MassBio officials said China has less rigorous — but faster — safety and research protocols than the US. Australia allows a faster timeline for clinical trials. If regulatory approval of medicines is held up because the FDA is understaffed, companies may seek European regulatory approval instead. The loss of talent to foreign countries will be compounded if the pipeline of local university graduates dries up. One draw for life sciences companies to Boston/Cambridge is the presence of elite schools like Harvard and MIT, with their potential for faculty collaboration and skilled graduates. Advertisement Trump is trying to Chip Clark, CEO at Vibrant Biomedicines in Cambridge, said cuts to university research funding both 'shrink the pipeline of great ideas' that form the basis for many biotech startups and translate to fewer available scientists. Clark said the administration's policies 'seem like a deliberate attempt to try to cede scientific leadership to Europe and Japan and Korea and China. ... They will be delighted to capitalize on our talent, technology, and investment capital to make their robust biotech sectors grow and ultimately compete successfully against the US industry,' he said. Don Ingber, founding director of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University, said he has postdocs with US visas applying for jobs in Europe, and others who were accepted to work at Harvard but are going elsewhere. 'The fact that places like Harvard and MIT and American universities are magnets for the best and brightest from around the world is what's driven our technology economy and certainly the Boston/Cambridge ecosystem,' Ingber said. 'With this uncertainty, I fear we'll lose a generation.' Ingber, who was forced to stop work on two government-funded projects on drugs designed to prevent injury from radiation exposure, compared administration policies to 'eating seed corn' needed to grow crops. Advertisement Trump's vendetta will undermine one of the most vibrant state economies in the country and set back American science by years. And it's not just eastern Massachusetts that will pay a price; the entire country will. As Ingber noted, it might take years to see the impact of medicines or technologies that aren't developed because of these shortsighted cuts. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
