The Brief

The House has approved a Trump administration plan to rescind $9 billion in previously allocated funds, including $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — a move that cuts all federal support for NPR, PBS and their member stations — and about $7 billion in foreign aid.

The vote was 216-213, with two Republicans joining all of the chamber's Democrats against the cuts. The bill goes next to President Donald Trump for his signature.

Immediately after the vote, NPR CEO Katherine Maher issued a statement calling the cut an "irreversible loss" to the public radio system. She said the effect would be "an unwarranted dismantling of beloved local civic institutions, and an act of Congress that disregards the public will."  

"Public funding has enabled the flourishing of a uniquely American system of unparalleled cultural, informational and educational programming, and ensured access to vital emergency alerting and reporting in times of crisis — all for about $1.60 per American, every year. Parents and children, senior citizens and students, tribal and rural communities — all will bear the harm of this vote," Maher said.

North Carolina Rep. Alma Adams was among the Democrats who rose to defend public broadcasting. "When Hurricane Helene devastated western North Carolina last year, public broadcasting was there when traditional communications failed," she said. "Widespread power, cellular and internet outages meant that for thousands of North Carolinians, public radio was how they received their news."

The House move follows a "vote-a-rama" late Wednesday and into early Thursday in the Senate to consider a series of amendments to the rescission package — all but one of which failed on largely party-line votes. Republicans repeatedly voted to block changes to Trump's request, known as a rescission. The single amendment that passed was aimed at protecting PEPFAR, the U.S. AIDS relief initiative created under President George W. Bush.

What this means

The House vote on Thursday means CPB will lose $1.1 billion meant to fund it through the next two years, while the bill also cuts $7.9 billion in other programs. CPB acts as a conduit for federal money to NPR, PBS and their member stations. Although NPR, which produces news programs such as Morning Edition and All Things Considered, relies on direct federal funds for only a small portion of its budget, its approximately 1,000 member stations get a heftier portion of their operating revenue through CPB.

The network has warned that many of those stations — especially those broadcasting to rural areas or to underserved audiences, such as Native Americans — could be forced to shut down as a result of the funding rollback.

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds announced earlier this week that he had struck a deal to use money allocated during the Biden administration to continue funding 28 stations serving Native American listeners in nine states. However, Native Public Media President and CEO Loris Taylor called the compromise "structurally impractical," in a letter to Rounds.

PBS CEO and President Paula Kerger said Thursday that the move to cut public broadcasting "goes against the will of the American people, the vast majority of whom trust PBS and believe we provide excellent value to their communities."

PBS — with its nightly PBS News Hour and children's programming, such as Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood — gets around 15% of its revenue through CPB.

"These cuts will significantly impact all of our stations, but will be especially devastating to smaller stations and those serving large rural areas," Kerger said. "Many of our stations which provide access to free unique local programming and emergency alerts will now be forced to make hard decisions in the weeks and months ahead."

A Harris Poll last week found that 66% of Americans support federal funding for public radio, with the same share calling it a good value. Support included 58% of Republicans and 77% of Democrats. The online poll surveyed 2,089 U.S. adults with a 2.5 percentage point margin of error.

How we got here

In recent years, NPR has landed increasingly in the crosshairs of conservatives, who have accused the network of left-wing political bias and "woke" programming. The publication last year of an essay authored by then-NPR business editor Uri Berliner critical of the network's coverage only reinforced the notion, providing ammunition to NPR's detractors.

In the piece published by the Free Press, an online site embraced by journalists who believe the mainstream media is too liberal, Berliner argued that an NPR drive for greater diversity in its workforce had actually narrowed the network's viewpoint.

Shortly after the piece was published, Berliner was suspended and later resigned and became a contributing editor for the Free Press. NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, responded to Berliner's essay by saying the network covers "a wide range of challenging stories" and that inclusion among its staff and sourcing "is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world."

On Thursday, Nevada Republican Rep. Mark Amodei echoed remarks made by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski this week about the need for lawmakers to protect local stations while acknowledging conservatives' anger at NPR and PBS.

"If you're mad at the editorial people, that's fine. But you shouldn't be mad at the stations," he said, speaking to reporters Thursday. "And, oh, by the way, you ought to look at where those stations are, because it's a lot of Trump country, and they're not the problem. And so cutting them off of funds doesn't seem very well thought out."

Democrats and Republicans alike have also raised concerns about the rescission process — a rare move that hasn't been attempted in a quarter century. The lawmakers said rescission would make it harder for lawmakers to pass future appropriations bills to fund the government ahead of a Sept. 30 deadline.

"The only way we can fund the government is to get at least seven Democrats to vote with us at the end of Sept. 30, or we can go into a shutdown," Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said on the Senate floor Wednesday. "If I'm a Democrat, and you're trying to get me to vote and get to a 60-vote threshold to fund the government, and you've just betrayed a prior agreement and a prior appropriation — what are the likelihood that they're going to do that?"

In a letter to Senate Democrats this month, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York called the rescissions package "an affront to the bipartisan appropriations process."

"That's why a number of Senate Republicans know it is absurd for them to expect Democrats to act as business as usual and engage in a bipartisan appropriations process to fund the government, while they concurrently plot to pass a purely partisan rescissions bill to defund those same programs negotiated on a bipartisan basis behind the scenes," Schumer wrote.

More rescissions are "likely"

Ahead of Thursday's expected House vote, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought told reporters that the administration will "likely" send another rescissions package to Capitol Hill soon.

"There is still a great enthusiasm for these rescissions bills, because Congress wants to be a part of voting for these cuts and making them permanent," Vought said at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

Meanwhile, Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., called the Senate's version of the bill "better than the one we sent over" because it removed $400 million worth of cuts to PEPFAR. Bacon, an initial Republican holdout who flipped his vote to support the package last month, said House Speaker Mike Johnson had given him assurances that local public TV stations will be funded in future appropriations processes.

"I sat down, I said, 'I will vote for [it] if you can assure me that PBS will get funded this coming cycle.' And they huddled up, and they came back and said yes," Bacon said. "I take the speaker at his word."

He added that he hasn't had additional conversations with Johnson about how that would work.

Disclosure: This story was written and reported by NPR Correspondent Scott Neuman and NPR Washington Desk Producer Lexie Schapitl. It was edited by Managing Editors Gerry Holmes and Vickie Walton-James. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

Copyright 2025 NPR

The FBI seized about 15 drones near SoFi Stadium and L.A. Memorial Coliseum on Friday and Saturday for violating temporary flight restrictions, Amir Ehsaei, special agent in charge of counterterrorism and crisis response at the FBI's Los Angeles Field Office, told LAist. Multiple operators were cited.

Stadiums hosting World Cup games and official fan festival venues are designated as "No Drone Zones" by the Federal Aviation Administration on match days.

“We have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to drones violating the temporary flight restrictions," Ehsaei said.

One of the drones seized near SoFi Stadium on Friday.

(

Courtesy FBI Los Angeles

)

One of the drones seized Friday at SoFi Stadium.

(

Courtesy FBI

)

He said drone detection teams are deployed at all SoFi games. "We will be out at other places depending on the nature — the size, the scope — [and] different intelligence that we'll get based on  threat assessments."

Drones are prohibited at SoFi within a three-nautical-mile radius and up to 3,000 feet above ground level. They are also banned at the Coliseum for the official fan festival within a one-nautical-mile radius and up to 1,000 feet above ground level.

Violators could face fines of up to $100,000 and federal criminal charges.

Residents in East LA are weighing the promise of a new Metro E Line extension with concerns over construction disruptions, small-business impacts and whether more outreach is needed about the project.

The 4.7-mile extension of the Metro E Line would connect East Los Angeles to Montebello with four new stations. The project would relocate the existing Atlantic and Pomona station underground and include a mix of underground, aerial and street-level track transit.

The $7.9 billion project is expected to open for service between 2035 and 2037, according to Metro.

Construction will begin in 2029 and last approximately eight to 10 years, pending full funding approval. It’s part of a wider plan to connect the E Line to the city of Whittier, though officials say the work will be built in two phases due to funding constraints.

While officials say the project is intended to reduce traffic congestion and ease pressure on local roads, residents at a recent community meeting focused more on the immediate impact and communication.

Concerns over construction and local impact

“Thirty days for comment on a complex issue like this is ridiculous. … We need better outreach,” said East LA resident Clara Solis about a 30-day public comment period ending June 26.

Solis and others also raised concerns about how construction could affect traffic and disrupt local commerce, pointing to past transit projects.

“How is this going to impact the businesses? When the Gold Line went through, a lot of our businesses really suffered economically. We want to see a presentation on that. You should have a presentation just on how it’s going to impact the businesses,” Solis added.

A map shows the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project will extend the E Line nearly nine miles east from East Los Angeles to the City of Whittier. ()

(

Courtesy Metro

)

Calls for broader outreach

East LA resident Kristie Hernandez said community outreach for the project should also extend to people who do not necessarily live within the immediate 200-foot project radius.

“We need to understand that folks who don’t necessarily live within that close proximity also frequent that area when they drive,” said Hernandez.

Hernandez advocated for a 90-day public comment window and also called for presentations on underground infrastructure, especially in the wake of the East LA pipeline that was punctured during construction work in late May.

“We do not want that to happen again,” she said.

A promise for greater mobility

Lucia Martinez spoke favorably about the extension plans, considering that she relies on buses to get around East LA to do her shopping. She said she looks forward to using the Metro to travel to the Citadel as well as to the hospital in Pasadena.

“As an older woman who became aware of this project, I think it is amazing because I am someone who does not drive,” she said.

LA Documenter Rafael Cazzorla contributed reporting for this story. LA Documenters trains and pays LA residents to take notes at local government meetings around Los Angeles. You can find meeting notes and audio at losangeles.documenters.org

For the first time in nearly three decades, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new chemical UV filter for use in sunscreens sold in the U.S. And that has many dermatologists cheering.

"This is a very big deal," says Dr. Heather Rogers, a dermatologist in Seattle and a fellow of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The new ingredient is called bemotrizinol, and it has several advantages over the chemical sunscreen ingredients previously available in the U.S., Rogers says.

"It hits like really every box for us that we have been waiting for as dermatologists and consumers," Rogers says.

Here's what you need to know about this new ingredient and how it could lead to better sunscreens sold stateside.

1. It blocks both UVA and UVB rays

Rogers says in general, you want to use sunscreens that are broad spectrum, meaning they protect against both UVA rays — the longer wavelengths that cause premature aging and wrinkles — and UVB rays, which lead to sunburns. Both types of UV rays can cause skin cancer.

She says the sunscreens currently sold in the U.S. do an excellent job of protecting against UVB rays, but the chemical UV filters available in sunscreens in the U.S. until now aren't as good at blocking out UVA rays.

In general, chemical sunscreens sold in the U.S. rely on an ingredient called avobenzone to block out UVA rays, says Kelly Dobos, a cosmetic chemist who teaches at the University of Cincinnati.

But avobenzone by itself isn't photo stable, meaning its protection can start to break down rapidly when exposed to sunlight. And as avobenzone breaks down, it can release molecules that lead to skin irritation, says Alexa Friedman, a senior scientist with the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, or EWG.

By contrast, bemotrizinol offers protection against both UVA and UVB rays all on its own, and it is photo stable, so it breaks down more slowly, offering better protection, Rogers says.

"So if you go a little longer than two hours to reapply your sunscreen, there will be more protection left," Rogers says. However, she says you should still reapply sunscreen every two hours.

2. It's long been used in other countries 

Bemotrizinol has been widely used in European and Asian sunscreens for decades. But it has taken 20 years for the FDA to approve its use in this country.

That's because in the U.S., sunscreens are regulated as over-the-counter drugs rather than cosmetics, as they're classified in Europe. That means ingredients need to undergo rigorous testing for safety and efficacy before they can be approved for use in the U.S.

"It's really expensive and time consuming," Dobos says. The European company DSM-Firmenich spent at least $18 million over more than two decades in its push to gain FDA approval for bemotrizinol.

3. It has a well-documented safety profile

However, all that testing means bemotrizinol has more safety data to back it up than any other chemical sunscreen ingredient currently approved in the U.S., says Friedman of EWG.

"This ingredient is exciting because we have that data to support its safety," Friedman says.

Friedman says animal testing showed bemotrizinol doesn't lead to concerns like reproductive harm, while clinical testing on humans found that it does not irritate the skin, even after repeated application over time, "which is hopefully how people are using sunscreens."

And because bemotrizinol's molecules are larger, it's not readily absorbed by the skin and into the bloodstream, she says.

That's important, because studies have shown that some of the other chemical sunscreen UV filters sold in the U.S. can be absorbed in the bloodstream, prompting calls for more safety data and leading to a backlash against sunscreen on social media fueled by misinformation. Rogers says that trend is concerning because skin cancer is the most common form of cancer.

"We just need to have sunscreen that people will use, that they'll trust," Rogers says. "And this ingredient is going to allow that to happen. And that is very exciting."

And bemotrizinol is also considered to be non-irritating, Friedman says. That should be welcome news to people who've been put off by chemical sunscreens in the past.

4. It could lead to sunscreens that look better on you

Until now, Rogers says, the only sunscreen ingredient available in the U.S. that offered the aforementioned advantages of bemotrizinol — photo stable, non-irritating, minimally absorbed into the skin and with good broad spectrum protection against both UVA and UVB rays — was zinc oxide.

Both zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are mineral UV filters. Both chemical sunscreens and mineral sunscreens work by absorbing UV rays from the sun. Mineral sunscreens also reflect some UV rays. The bigger difference is that mineral sunscreens sit on the surface of the skin, while chemical sunscreens get absorbed into the skin, Rogers says.

The downside of mineral sunscreens is that they can leave an unattractive white cast on the skin — think of lifeguards with white paste on their noses. "Particularly if you're a person of color, zinc is going to make you look pale, white or ashy, which really makes it hard to use on a regular basis," Rogers says.

Bemotrizinol, on the other hand, is transparent on the skin, and because it protects against both UVA and UVB rays on its own, it doesn't have to be mixed with as many other chemical filters and stabilizers to achieve broad spectrum protection, Dobos adds. She says that should lead to more aesthetically pleasing, less greasy sunscreen formulations in the near future.

"I think it's a real win for public health," Dobos says. "If we can make a sunscreen that consumers like to use and want to use and apply in the proper amounts, I think that's something that's really going to be a win for consumers."

DSM-Firmenich has exclusive rights to market bemotrizinol in the U.S. for 18 months. It will be sold under the brand name Parsol Shield. The company says the first sunscreen products containing the ingredient should start hitting American store shelves around September.

The Justice Department on Friday approved Paramount's proposed $111 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

After concluding its antitrust investigation into the pending merger, the department said in a statement that it found that the deal posed no threat to competition or consumers of film, broadcast television or streaming.

The decision clears the way for a merger of two rival Hollywood studio titans: Paramount, the owner of CBS, including CBS News, will swallow the much larger Warner, which includes HBO and CNN.

The DOJ''s Antitrust Division concluded that a union of two studio giants isn't anti-competitive because the streaming market has expanded the competition for conventional Hollywood studios, which includes Netflix, Apple and Amazon, as well as smaller streamers. The Justice Department's view is that, for the same reason, consumers won't lose out because there are plenty of other places to get entertainment.

Several states, including California, have raised antitrust concerns. The European Union is investigating as well.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who has been investigating the deal for antitrust violations, said in a post on social media following the Justice Department's approval: "The merger of Warner Bros and Paramount is not a done deal and remains under investigation by my office."

In a statement following the decision, Paramount described the deal as "pro-competitive," and would result in "a stronger company better positioned to compete against dominant technology platforms in an industry increasingly defined by intense competition for audiences, talent, technology, and investment."

The company said it planned to complete the merger as soon as possible, "delivering its benefits to consumers, creators, and the entertainment industry as a whole."

The consolidation will put media mogul David Ellison — son of Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison — at the helm of Warner Bros. studio as well as its cable and streaming properties, including CNN and HBO. The Ellison family took over Paramount and CBS last summer.

In the months leading up to the regulatory approval, critics in Hollywood feared the deal would consolidate an already concentrated media landscape and lead to fewer jobs and less creative content.

In April, thousands of directors, actors, writers and other industry talent — including Kristen Stewart, Pedro Pascal and Javier Bardem — signed an open letter opposing the merger.

The elder Ellison is also a financial backer and adviser to President Trump on artificial intelligence. Critics of recent changes at CBS under the Ellisons' control are concerned that, as they say has happened with CBS News, the acquisition would make CNN more friendly to Trump.

NPR's Carrie Johnson and Mandalit del Barco contributed to this story.
Copyright 2026 NPR