The Brief

Ten years ago, it seemed everyone was talking about women in science.

As the economy improved in the years after the Great Recession, women were slower to return to the workforce, causing alarm, especially in vital fields like computing. State and federal leaders turned their attention to women in science, technology, engineering, and math, known by the acronym STEM.

Over the next few years, they poured millions of dollars into increasing the number of women pursuing STEM degrees. But the rate of women who attain those degrees hardly has improved, according to an analysis of colleges’ data by the Public Policy Institute of California on behalf of CalMatters.

“The unfortunate news is that the numbers haven’t changed much at all,” said Hans Johnson, a senior fellow at the institute who conducted the analysis of California’s four-year colleges using data from the 2009-10 school year and comparing it to the most recent numbers from 2022-23. The share of women who received a bachelor’s degree increased from roughly 19% to about 25% in engineering and from nearly 16% to about 23% in computer science. In math and statistics, the percentage of women who graduate with a degree has gone down in the last five years.

“It’s not nothing, but at this pace, it would take a very long time to reach parity,” Johnson said.

Girls are also underrepresented in certain high school classes, such as AP computer science, and while women make up about 42% of California’s workforce, they comprise just a quarter of those working in STEM careers, according to a study by Mount Saint Mary’s University. Fewer women were working in math careers in 2023 than in the five or 10 years before that, the study found.

“It’s a cultural phenomenon, not a biological phenomenon,” said Mayya Tokman, a professor of applied mathematics at UC Merced. She said underrepresentation is a result of perceptions about women, the quality of their education, and a lack of role models in a given field.

Science and technology spur innovation and economic growth while promoting national security, and these jobs are often lucrative and stable. Gender parity is critical, especially as U.S. science and technology industries struggle to find qualified workers, said Sue Rosser, provost emerita at San Francisco State and a longtime advocate for women in science. “We need more people in STEM. More people means immigrants, women, people of color, as well as white men. There’s no point in excluding anyone.”

Chloe Lynn, 20, a UC Berkeley undergraduate student, points to a poster she presented summarizing her mathematics research in Berkeley on Aug. 5, 2025.

(

Florence Middleton

/

CalMatters

)

She said recent cuts by the Trump administration to California’s research and education programs will stymie progress in science, technology, and engineering — and hurt countless careers, including the women who aspire to join these fields.

Over the past eight months, the federal government has made extensive cuts to scientific research at California’s universities, affecting work on dementia, vaccines, women’s issues, and health problems affecting the LGBTQ+ community. The administration also ended programs that support undergraduate students in science. In June, a federal judge ruled that the administration needs to restore some of those grants, but a Supreme Court decision could reverse that ruling.

More recently, the administration halted hundreds of grants to UCLA — representing hundreds of millions in research funding — in response to a U.S. Justice Department investigation into allegations of antisemitism. Now, the Trump administration is asking for a $1 billion settlement in return for the grants. A California district judge ruled Tuesday that at least some of those grants need to be restored.

‘The cultural conversation has changed’

In the past five years, attention has shifted away from women in science. Nonprofit leaders and researchers across the state say many lawmakers and philanthropists turned away from women in STEM during the COVID-19 pandemic and focused more on racial justice following the police killing of George Floyd.

Since 1995, women have been outpacing men in college, and women are now much more likely to attain a bachelor's degree. The unemployment rate for men is higher, too, and men without college degrees are opting out of the labor force at unprecedented rates.

On July 30, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order, saying the state needs to do more to address the “growing crisis of connection and opportunity for men and boys.” It’s not a “zero-sum” game, he wrote: The state can, and should, support everyone.

But some state investments for women’s education are lagging.

In 2018, the Legislature agreed to put $10 million each year into a new initiative, the California Education Learning Lab, to “close equity and achievement gaps,” including the underrepresentation of girls and women in science and technology. But two years later, the state imposed large-scale cuts to the initiative due to the pandemic. As the state faced more fiscal challenges in 2024, lawmakers cut its budget to about half its former size.

This year, Newsom proposed cutting the Learning Lab altogether. After negotiations with the Legislature, Newsom agreed to fund the initiative through next year, at which point, it’s set to close unless new funding is secured.

Gov. Gavin Newsom addresses the media during a press conference unveiling his 2024-25 January budget proposal at the Secretary of State Auditorium in Sacramento on Jan. 10, 2024.

(

Miguel Gutierrez Jr.

/

CalMatters

)

“While I think women are faring better in college generally, I would be skeptical that we can say ‘mission accomplished’ in terms of achieving parity for women in STEM undergraduate degrees,” said Lark Park, the director of the Learning Lab, which uses public money to provide grants to schools and nonprofits. “I think we’ve just gotten distracted, and the cultural conversation has changed.”

Private and corporate foundations fund numerous nonprofit organizations that support girls and women in STEM, but grant recipients say some money has moved toward other, more popular topics or less controversial ones.

“Funders focus on trends, and they’re very trendy in how they give,” said Dawn L. Brown, president of the EmpowHer Institute, which offers education programs to girls and women across Los Angeles County.

One of her programs provides a free, five-week summer camp to girls, including a trip to Catalina Island, where they learn about environmental science and climate change. Since Trump took office, some corporate funders have pulled back support for the organization’s programs, which may be perceived as supporting “DEI,” she said. “The words ‘women,’ ‘girls,’ ‘climate change’ — those are banned words.”

Supporting women in math

When Chloe Lynn, a rising junior at UC Berkeley and a double major in applied math and management science, started taking higher-level courses, she noticed a trend in her math classes: fewer women.

“I’ll be one of three girls in a 30-, 40-person class,” she said during an interview at the university’s division of equity and inclusion.

UC Berkeley has a center dedicated to promoting diversity in STEM, known as Cal NERDS, which features cozy study spots, a high-tech makerspace and various multi-purpose meeting rooms. The center receives much of its funding from the state but has a few grants from the federal government, some of which currently are on hold.

On a Thursday last month, Lynn was one of 10 students who came to present their summer research in one of the multipurpose rooms. More than half of the presenters were women or non-binary, and the rest were part of other underrepresented groups in STEM, including Hispanic, Black, and LGBTQ+ students. She stood in front of a large poster, waiting for people to stop by and ask about her work.

“Say you’re at an auction, and say there’s 'n' bidders and 'k' identical items,” she said as another student approached. Over the next two hours, fellow mathematicians, classmates, friends, and family stopped by, listening as she explained her formula for allocating resources in an optimal way. Some understood her work and asked questions about her variables, formulas, or 3-D models. The rest nodded in admiration.

Chloe Lynn at her home in Berkeley on Aug. 5, 2025.

(

Florence Middleton

/

CalMatters

)

By the end of the event, many students had abandoned their own posters in order to learn about their friends’ research. In her free time, as the vice president of UC Berkeley’s undergraduate math association, Lynn has been trying to build this kind of community among other female math majors by organizing events where students can meet each other. Her end goal is graduate school, either in applied math or industrial engineering. Women also are underrepresented in those graduate programs.

“Creating an inclusive and uplifting community is so important for anyone that’s underrepresented,” she said after finishing her presentation.

How STEM helps people

The lack of women in STEM has nothing to do with ability. In fact, women who major in STEM at California State University campuses are more likely than men to graduate, according to data from the college system, and in biology, women are overrepresented. Over 64% of biology bachelor’s degrees awarded in California during the 2022-23 school year went to women, according to analysis from the Public Policy Institute of California.

Brown said some female alumni of EmpowHer have said that college advisers push biology over other science, engineering, or math courses, claiming it’s “easier.” Better advising could create more parity, she said.

Rosser, who trained as a zoologist before becoming a college administrator, said women’s shift toward biology was a slow process, beginning in the 1970s.

“Women are particularly attracted to STEM when they can see its usefulness, particularly to help people,” she said.

Biology is often “an entryway to the health care professions,” she added, many of which are predominately female. She recommends that professors promote the application of their research as a way to increase the percentage of women in these fields.

In her studies at UC Berkeley, Lynn said she’s struggled with the relevance of her research.

“There’s a lot going on in the world right now, and I feel called to help,” she said. “Even though I did theory research this summer, I’ve been thinking about ways to apply this theory to real-world applications I care about.”

In particular, she wants her research to help her community in the Bay Area, where she grew up.

“Say you’re an architect and you’re in charge of reinforcing San Francisco’s concrete structures in the event of an earthquake,” she said. “You want to minimize cost in San Francisco, and that’s going to help you choose which building you’re going to reinforce.”

It’s just another resource allocation problem, she said, so it could be solved with a similar formula.

“It does hit close to home,” she said. In fact, the UC Berkeley campus lies on a fault line.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

SEATTLE — This time was supposed to be different.

The U.S. men's national team came into this FIFA World Cup with a lineup full of players with key roles in Europe's top leagues. They had the name-brand coach — Mauricio Pochettino, of Tottenham, PSG and Chelsea fame. And they had homefield advantage, with every game on U.S. soil for the first time in three decades.

For weeks, the hype seemed like it might be real: The team's three wins over Paraguay, Australia and Bosnia-Herzegovina were the most ever by a U.S. men's squad in a World Cup. A new generation of American fans filled stadiums by the tens of thousands and tuned in on TV by the tens of millions.

But in the end, the Americans' exit was the same as it ever was: Eliminated yet again in the Round of 16 at the hands of a European team — this time, Belgium, by a score of 4-1.

From the moment they stepped onto the Seattle field, the U.S. was outclassed by their opponent, No. 9-ranked Belgium. Countless turnovers and defensive lapses were seized on by the Belgians, who needed only nine minutes to take a 1-0 lead.

Then, once the Americans equalized on a free kick by midfielder Malik Tillman, Belgium scored yet again in barely a minute of play. Belgian forward Charles De Ketelaere scored both his team's first-half goals.

After halftime, came an embarrassing nail in the coffin that silenced the Seattle sellout crowd for good — a 57th minute roll-in by Hans Vanaken after a slip-up by goalkeeper Matt Freese outside of the penalty area left the goal unguarded. Belgian forward Romelu Lukaku added a stoppage-time goal to seal the final score at 4-1.

Malik Tillman #17 of the United States celebrates scoring his team's only goal during their World Cup match against Belgium. In what was one of the few bright spots of the game, the U.S. pulled even with Belgium at 1-1. The tie lasted less than two minutes before Belgium scored again.

(

Luke Hales

/

Getty Images

)

The U.S. had entered Monday's game under a cloud of controversy around their striker Folarin Balogun, who was shown a red card in last week's Round of 32 match against Bosnia-Herzegovina. An automatic one-game suspension was set to sideline Balogun, the Americans' leading scorer at the World Cup, for Monday's game.

Then, the day before the game, a FIFA disciplinary panel took the highly unusual step of delaying Balogun's suspension by a year to allow him to participate. Then, news broke that President Trump had personally called FIFA president Gianni Infantino to encourage him to review the red card.

The Royal Belgian Football Association said it would protest Balogun's inclusion in the lineup. But even at full strength, the U.S. were never real contenders in Monday's game.

Belgium will advance to the quarterfinals for the third time in the past four World Cups, where it will face Spain on Friday in Los Angeles.
Copyright 2026 NPR

California could begin testing students as early as kindergarten in math.

Proponents of Senate Bill 1067, including state Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson, say the goal is to identify students who are falling behind in math early so they can get help. More than 60% of California students perform below the benchmark on the state’s standardized math test.

“Math learning is cumulative, and when students fall behind in the early grades it becomes much harder to catch up,” Weber Pierson wrote in support of the bill. “At its core, this bill is about making sure every child builds a strong foundation in math, opening the door to lasting academic achievement, meaningful career pathways, and lifelong success in California’s innovation economy.”

How the law would work

By January 2028, schools would have to choose a math test for kindergarten, first and second grades from a list created by the state’s education department.

The State Board of Education would set the criteria for the test and consider multiple factors, including learning standards for math and how students’ demographic information, including their primary language, may affect their performance.

The state must also provide guidance for educators on how to interpret and explain test results to families. The results could not be used in teacher evaluations, student grades or to identify a disability.

The Senate Appropriations Committee found it would cost more than $100 million to develop and select the test, train educators and provide ongoing support as the policy is implemented.

What are the possible challenges?

Megan Franke, professor of education and vice chair of professional programs at UCLA, said one challenge is that many standardized assessments do not reflect all students' understanding of mathematical concepts.

“Young children solve problems differently than adults do, and they don't all solve problems in the same way at the same time,” Franke said.

For example, a student who doesn't remember the word for “11” may not lack an understanding of the number system, they just may be struggling with the vocabulary.

“Our number system is a little bit wonky, [in] that we don't count ten-one, ten-two, ten-three,” Franke said. “We made up words — eleven, twelve and thirteen.”

Franke said there may also be other reasons why students struggle with standardized assessments, including difficulty using technology or anxiety.

Franke said a single test, or intervention, is not a long-term solution.

“Really, we should be thinking about schools and how we help schools be these places…where they're creating these rich opportunities for each and every student to learn mathematics,” Franke said.

What's next 

The bill passed the state Senate unanimously in May and is now moving through the Assembly. You can sign up to track the bill's progress through the California Legislative Information website.

As Mexico took on England in the World Cup’s Round of 16 on Sunday, fans had one thing to say: “¿Y si sí?”

The chant translates to “What if, yes?” It refers to the swirling hope of: what if the Mexican national team wins the World Cup? What if Mexico breaks (more) historic records? What if?

The saying grew louder after Mexico ended a 40-year curse with a 2-0 win against Ecuador last week. The national team had not won a World Cup knockout game since 1986. Not only did the team advance to the Round of 16 knockout stage, but it did so without conceding a single goal.

Despite Mexico’s 3-2 loss against England on Sunday, “¿Y si sí?” took on a new kind of power for Mexico fans during the team’s World Cup run, especially in Southern California.

What does the phrase mean for fans? 

Jorge Leal, an assistant professor of history at UC Riverside, told LAist the term has grown in popularity in the last couple of weeks.

“It's a way of saying maybe it can happen this time. It gives people a new chant, and it's hopeful,” Leal said. “From being ‘Si se puede,’ which is a great phrase, but it's very tentative, to the ‘¿Y si, sí?’ I think it's a little more affirmative.”

“¿Y si sí?” is more empowering, whereas “Si se puede” is more aspirational, Leal added.

Sebastian Garcia said the phrase started off as more of a joke at the top of the tournament.

“Everyone kind of knew Mexico's history, and it was like it'd be cool, but it wouldn't happen,” Garcia said. “And then, as they started playing and they started winning … you start believing it, and then it kind of takes you over.”

What makes this team different? 

There are many reasons why this Mexican national team differs from previous years.

“We cannot discount that they're playing at home, and that home advantage is huge,” Leal said. “This national team came together with really low expectations. People were very skeptical, myself included. There's a couple really great players, but most of them are young or improving.”

Throughout the global tournament, however, that skepticism turned into optimism.

“This national team has beaten the odds,” Leal said. “We were not expecting much of them, but now we can dream that they're going to beat expectations.”

Nevertheless, Sunday’s loss was heartbreaking, Leal said.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DaPQ-RyA7jA/

Why it matters 

Mari Garcia said Mexican Americans, and Latinos overall, have been feeling so much uncertainty in the last year, especially following last summer’s ICE raids.

“Another soccer player, when asked about that phrase, he said ‘¿Por que no?’ (Why not?), and I think that's simply the answer,” Mari said. “(It’s) reaffirming that we are capable of doing anything.”

Mexico’s run was more than 20 days of euphoria that show how unifying global events can be, Leal added.

“We have been in an era that ethnic Mexicans, Mexican Americans, Chicanos, people of Mexican descent - we have been under persecution,” Leal said.

As the World Cup continues on, Leal said, what keeps us from continuing the watch parties and collectivity?

“Obviously, the ones for the Mexican team are much more fun, but … I think in L.A., in a region that sorely needs this type of collective event, we can see how they can bring people together,” Leal said. “It's very bittersweet, but I think that we can … rejoice that it happened, that we lived through this very special three-and-a-half weeks.”

Federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations tried to track down Rochester, N.Y. resident David Streever last month and give him a warning notice alleging that he had potentially violated the law when he wrote a harsh email months earlier to the former head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Now a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression on Monday in federal court in Washington, D.C. argues Streever's January email was protected speech and the federal agents' and their superiors violated Streever's First Amendment rights.

NPR reported last week about HSI agents trying to contact Streever first at his home and later at a hotel over an email that Streever wrote to Todd Lyons, who stepped down as the acting director of ICE at the end of May.

FIRE's lawsuit says the First Amendment protects Americans' rights to speak out against police but says the "Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is actively threatening that freedom, tracking down and retaliating against speakers like Plaintiff David Streever because he exercised his fundamental right to criticize one of the highest-ranking law enforcement officers in the United States."

The suit goes on to say, "Our Constitution does not tolerate such a brazen abuse of authority."

Streever wrote to Lyons' government email address on Jan. 26 after federal immigration officers in Minneapolis fatally shot two U.S. citizen observers during the immigration enforcement surge there.

The three-paragraph note compared Lyons to a Nazi and predicted that Lyons would be tormented by his own conscience. It has the subject line, "What's next."

Five months later, on June 23, two HSI agents rang the doorbell of Streever's Rochester home and then left a document with Streever's wife for him to sign. It was labeled "WARNING NOTICE" and "YOU MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW," and described federal laws that make it a crime to threaten federal officials. The notice said ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility had identified an email to Lyons that may violate federal law and the office "is requesting that you promptly remove and/or discontinue the aforementioned behavior."

The bottom of the form reads, "Receipt of this Notice will be taken into consideration, should you continue to be involved in any criminal activities described above."

Streever was taking his 7-year-old daughter on a vacation to a Finnish theme park when the agents visited his home. He and his daughter landed at New York City's John F. Kennedy International Airport two days later and made their way to a nearby airport hotel to sleep.

That evening, Streever was told by the hotel front desk that a federal agent from the Department of Homeland Security had come to see him and had left a business card. His wife had not told the agents which hotel he would be staying at, raising questions about how Streever had been tracked to that location.

"Like many Americans, I was deeply upset after the shootings in Minnesota and I felt compelled to do something," Streever said in a statement. "Writing an email to the head of ICE seemed like the least I could do to express my sense of outrage. I never dreamed it would lead to a knock on my door by federal officers or descending on my hotel in the dark of night."

The lawsuit names three federal agents who tried to contact Streever as defendants along with Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin and ICE officials.

The suit argues the federal agents' actions have caused Streever to self-censor his views, and alleges they violated a First Amendment bar on the government threatening people over protected speech.

The lawsuit asks for the court to find that Streever's email was protected by the First Amendment, and to bar defendants "from taking any further actions, formal or informal, to coerce, threaten, retaliate against, or intimate repercussions directly or indirectly to Plaintiff Streever for his protected speech and petitioning activity."

The suit also asks the court to declare the warning notices federal agents are issuing people are "sufficient" to chill free expression protected by the First Amendment.

"ICE's issuance of formal "WARNING NOTICE" documents to critics who engage in protected speech—and its decision to have federal agents deliver those warnings in person—can have only one purpose: to systemically chill ICE's critics and coerce them into silence," the suit reads.

DHS initially responded with the same statement that it provided last week when NPR first asked about Streever's case. "ICE investigates all credible threats towards its employees and officers, including threats to the ICE Director. As a matter of policy, we do not comment on any ongoing investigations."

Later on Monday DHS sent an additional statement. "Any allegation DHS and its components are attempting to 'squash' free speech is categorically FALSE," it reads.

"Our law enforcement officers are on the frontlines arresting terrorists, gang members, murderers, child sex abusers, and rapists. They are experiencing coordinated campaigns of violence against them and facing a 1,300% increase in assaults against them, a 3,300% increase in vehicular attacks, and an 8,000% increase in death threats."

NPR has not verified the statistics shared by DHS.

"Anyone who assaults or threatens our law enforcement officers will face the consequences," the statement concludes.

Adam Steinbaugh, senior attorney at FIRE, said in a statement the government's delayed response to Streever's January email undermines its investigation.

"If someone is really threatening a government official, you don't wait five months to act on it," Steinbaugh said in the statement. "The fact that authorities didn't respond immediately shows that David presented no threat. This pursuit is designed to intimidate lawful speech, pure and simple."

Poll worker given the same warning notice

The lawsuit mentions that the same day HSI agents visited Streever's home on June 23, they also confronted Paigelynne Gonyea, a Syracuse resident who was working at a polling place for the New York primary election that day, about an Instagram post.

While Gonyea was at Syracuse's Central Library working the polls, an HSI agent left her a voicemail that said the agents had just visited her former apartment and were calling "in reference to a post that we believe you made on Instagram where you doxxed an ICE agent back in January."

Doxxing typically refers to releasing sensitive information about a person online.

Gonyea called the agent back. She said the agents had wanted her to come outside the polling place to speak with them but she told NPR she did not trust them, and had told them to come talk to her inside the polling place when there was a lull in voters.

Local election officials later said the federal agents should not have gone inside, given that police are not supposed to enter polling places unless there is an emergency and a recently enacted New York law bars federal immigration officers from voting sites.

Video captured by fellow poll workers shows two agents with badges speaking with Gonyea inside the library and delivering a warning notice that said her Instagram account may have violated the law. Gonyea said the agents did not tell her which of her posts had prompted their visit but they had confirmed it was a post about Jonathan Ross, the ICE officer who fatally shot Renee Macklin Good in Minneapolis.

Gonyea denied to NPR and other news outlets that she had ever doxxed Ross and had said she thought the agents were referring to a post she made that identified Ross by name after the Minnesota Star Tribune had reported it, and called for Ross to be indicted. That post is still visible on her Instagram account.

But after NPR and other media outlets wrote about the encounter, DHS released a statement that said Gonyea "committed a federal crime by posting the address of an ICE law enforcement officer online." The statement continued, "Doxxing federal law enforcement officers is a federal crime that puts their lives and their families in serious danger…If you doxx our officers, we will investigate you, and you will be brought to justice."

DHS did not respond to requests from NPR to provide evidence that Gonyea had doxxed Ross. But the department did share with the Associated Press a redacted screenshot taken from a cell phone of a different Instagram post that looks like it was posted from Gonyea's account.

The post that was shown to AP is a photo of Ross with text that reads, "The killer's name is Jonathan Ross of" and the rest is redacted, presumably by DHS. The post does not currently appear on Gonyea's Instagram account. The screenshot shows it was taken six hours after the post went up but does not show a date.

Gonyea told NPR she had the opportunity to review the screenshot of the post but she did not believe she had posted it.

"Based on everything I know, I do not believe that I made that post, and I have no independent recollection of ever creating or publishing it," she told NPR in a text message.

"There is additional context that I believe is important, and I look forward to addressing those matters through the appropriate process rather than in the press," she wrote.

"What has not changed is my concern about the broader constitutional issues raised by my experience, including free speech, due process and government accountability."

Steinbaugh from FIRE told NPR last week that a social media post that shares a person's address alone is not a criminal offense.

"What the law criminalizes is publishing an address or sharing an address with the intent to convey a threat," Steinbaugh said. "So if you post an address and say, 'Hey, gang, at 5:00 tonight, we're going to all meet up here with our pitchforks and torches,' that puts you more in the ballpark of a threat."

He said some social media posts that publicized Ross's address were in the context of a broader public debate about whether federal immigration officers can wear masks and refuse to identify themselves "and essentially [act] almost as a secret police." He said for that reason, some posts that shared information about Ross were a form of protest.

"People might think that that is speech that people should not engage in, but it's still protected and it can't be criminalized," Steinbaugh said.

Gonyea and Streever are the first two people who have made public that they received warning notices from Homeland Security agents about their online communications.
Copyright 2026 NPR