The Brief

Tyler Clites, an assistant professor in mechanical and aerospace engineering at UCLA, leads a team of researchers working on bionic technologies to prevent unnecessary amputations.

Earlier this year, after the Trump administration froze UCLA’s federal research funding, Clites held a meeting with his team where he delivered a dire warning.

“I think that we can weather this for three months,” he said. “But, after that, I might have to start letting people go."

At the time, Clites told LAist, his lab had 10 doctoral students, along with two post docs, “a few surgical residents” and 10 undergrads.

The worst-case scenario Clites feared did not come to pass. The Trump administration froze UCLA’s grants in July. By late September, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation — the two largest federal funders of research at U.S. universities — were forced to restore some 800 grants at UCLA in response to federal court orders.

But the temporary freeze was long enough to cause permanent damage to some research teams. Plus, students and professors like Clites fear that budget reductions at the NIH and NSF may threaten their research capabilities and professional futures.

Dealing with the aftermath  

At UCLA’s pediatrics department, Cole Peters is part of a team that’s engineering T-cells to target proteins expressed by sarcoma tumors. Sarcoma is a rare type of cancer that originates in the body's bones and soft tissues, including muscles, blood vessels and nerves.

Currently, Peters told LAist, the five-year survival rate for pediatric sarcoma is around 66%.

Peters’s team uses mice to develop treatment options. “We're trying to get the patient's own immune system to attack [their] cancer,” he said.

The team gives the mice a human immune system, Peters added, “so that we can study how a human immune system would attack a human cancer.”

During the funding freeze, those in charge of keeping the mice healthy had to stop their work, and “the colony pretty much died out,” he said.

As a result, an experiment that he and his colleagues planned to start in August is now slated for the middle of January. This unnecessary delay, Peters added, “slows down the potential to generate a medicine” for children.

Cole Peters, a cancer researcher in UCLA's pediatrics department.

(

Courtesy

)

Elle Rathbun, a sixth-year doctoral student in neuroscience who studies the brain's responses to potential stroke treatments, was also frustrated by the funding freeze.

To stem that loss, she applied for a predoctoral fellowship, which involved gathering a score of documents and letters of recommendation. All told, she said, that process took about a month.

During that time, Rathbun added, “I was doing sort of the bare minimum that my research required.”

“I just couldn't prioritize all the benchwork and the experiments [for my research] and mentoring undergraduates in the way that I was planning on,” she said. “I had to step back from all that.”

Ultimately, Rathbun did secure that fellowship. But then UCLA’s federal funding was restored, so she had to give it back. The rigmarole, she said, was a waste of time.

“I would have rather just been doing experiments and making discoveries,” she said.

Rathbun, Peters, Clites and other researchers at UCLA expressed relief at having their funding restored. But because the court decisions aren't final, they remain fearful.

“I think the biggest impact is [that] people are very reticent to hire,” Clites said. “I'm not really open to taking on a new graduate student . . . I'm much more risk-averse than I have been historically.”

For Peters, it feels like he and his colleagues are working with “a knife over [their] heads.”

Grappling with an uncertain future  

In addition to concerns around UCLA’s grants, researchers also worry about the broader state of federal funding.

A recent New York Times investigation — which used public data to analyze over 300,000 grants dating back to 2015 — found that NIH and NSF money is going to fewer grants under the Trump administration. There are also fewer opportunities available for new scientists through graduate student, postdoctoral and early-career fellowships and grants.

In practice, this means that researchers will face more competition for federal funding. The change could also push students to consider other careers.

Elle Rathbun studies the brain's responses to potential stroke treatments.

(

Courtesy

)

Maya Weissman, a postdoc at UCLA’s Garud Lab, studies the evolution of the human gut microbiome.

The microbiome, she told LAist, helps us digest food, “but it's also connected to a wide range of health issues, including irritable bowel disease and Alzheimer's.”

Her lab is funded by NSF and NIH grants. Having that money restored means she and her colleagues can once again access high-performance computing resources and other critical equipment. And if the undergraduate she mentors wants to conduct research this summer, she’ll be able to pay him.

“We're also able to recruit new members to the lab, because a lot of current members are graduating soon,” she added.

This is all cause to celebrate, Weissman said. But when she looks toward the future, her career is less certain. This year, she intended to apply for the NSF’s postdoctoral research fellowship in biology. But funding for that opportunity was not renewed.

The fellowship “is very prestigious,” Weissman said. “It would have helped my career to have that line on my resume. It would have also funded my salary for several years, and that would take pressure off of my boss, allow her to recruit more people. And it would have allowed me to fund my own experiments and give me a certain amount of independence.”

Weissman visited the NSF’s webpage repeatedly throughout 2025. She kept refreshing it, hoping that a new call for proposals would be posted.

“This huge pool of money that funds a lot of the brightest and most promising researchers at my career stage — it's just gone,” she said.

Moving forward, Weissman will have to spend more time looking for funding.

“Instead of applying for one big fellowship, I have to apply for a dozen little ones to try to cobble together some support,” she said.

Rathbun likewise aims to become an assistant professor at a university, where she can continue doing research.

“I am really reassessing my career path,” Rathbun said. “As much as I want to develop stroke therapies and therapies for other neurodegenerative diseases, and as competitive as I think I am for those positions, if funding is going to be unstable — if, down the line, I'm going to have to constantly be firing people because the NIH suspends grants — that's not viable. It's no longer my dream career.”

Disclosure: Julia Barajas is a part-time law student at UCLA.

The summer heat is now in full swing, bringing with it scorching temperatures for some areas of Southern California over the next few days.

Starting Tuesday, a heat advisory kicks in for interior mountains and valleys in L.A. County, with temperatures in the mid 80s to 90s. Meanwhile, closer to the coast, temperatures will hover in mid 70s.

In Orange County, high temperatures along the coast will range from 71 to 80 degrees, and from 79 to 86 degrees more inland. In the Inland Empire, temperatures there will reach up to 98 degrees.

In Coachella Valley, there's an extreme heat warning since temperatures are expected to reach up to 113 degrees on Tuesday.

Come Wednesday, temperatures will continue to increase, so make sure to stay hydrated and check in on loved ones.

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.”