The Brief

Breaking with national public health policy, California officials are recommending that children 6 months to 2 years old, as well as people who are pregnant and lactating, should get vaccinated against COVID-19, following guidance from reputable medical groups.

In a statement to KQED, the California Department of Public Health said Wednesday that it endorses recent recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for COVID-19, influenza and RSV vaccines.

The guidance, released last month, was in line with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations under the Biden Administration.

“As a part of our efforts, along with our West Coast state partners and other states around the country, to provide a unified science-based approach to protecting the health of our communities, California is carefully considering guidance from various trusted national medical professional and scientifically based organizations,” the CDPH said.

Typically, the CDC sets vaccine recommendations based on the available data, which insurers use to set reimbursement guidelines. But under the direction of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — who has espoused virulent anti-vaccine rhetoric for decades — the CDC now only recommends COVID vaccines for “most adults ages 18 years and older.”

That left many in the medical community concerned that confusing and inconsistent messaging would cause vaccine rates to drop, and even make vaccines unaffordable for lower-income families whose insurance providers may no longer cover them.

Dr. Abraar Karan, an infectious disease physician at Stanford University, said the state is making a “wise” choice because data show that vaccines help minimize COVID-19 infections in typically healthier populations like children older than six months and young adults, and reduce the risk of urgent care and emergency room visits for COVID-19 patients “by 33%.”

“That’s pretty significant, and sort of mirrors what you see with flu vaccines as well. Functionally, that is what we are hoping for, for the general population, is to make you get less sick, fewer days of [missed] work [and] less utilization of the health care system,” Karan said.

“COVID spreads in waves. We have multiple waves per year, and they do require a large usage of our health care system. So if we have a safe, effective vaccine to reduce that healthcare usage in that healthier group, that’s important.”

Karan said that because California is following the guidance of leading medical groups, it’s likely insurance companies will cover the shots.

More importantly, he said, those states are adhering to the evidence.

“Whereas what is happening at HHS is … a lot of opinions, particularly from RFK Jr. himself, on unproven therapeutics, on risks that are not borne out by the data. And then he’s sort of just hand-waving and doing whatever he wants,” Karan said.

In June, Kennedy removed all 17 members of an advisory committee that helps the CDC form its vaccine policies to begin to “restore public trust in vaccines.”

Dr. John Swartzberg, professor emeritus of infectious diseases and vaccinology at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health, said that by following the advice of leading medical groups, California and the other states of the West Coast Alliance are making it easier for families to get their children vaccinated against COVID-19.

“When you look at the data for very young children in terms of hospitalization and death, the rates are pretty comparable to older Americans,” Swartzberg said. “This is a vulnerable population where protection is terribly important. So I think that the California Department of Public Health, in following the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics, is spot on.”

Swartzberg said it is interesting to note that President Donald Trump even pushed back on Kennedy’s anti-vax stance in the last few days. Trump even expressed some skepticism about Florida’s push to phase out all childhood vaccine mandates.

“I think there are people in the administration who recognize that this is a hot button item, and all the Republicans are not really on board with where Kennedy is, so that might translate into the administration not trying to make a political football out of this with California,” he said. “We are very fortunate here in California. We have a department of health that is science-based and really solid.”

Who can get a new COVID vaccine right now?

The updated 2025–26 COVID-19 vaccines are currently available at CVS, Walgreens and Safeway pharmacies in California.

(Pharmacies take their cue from the federal government, not the states, so they’ve always been the first places that COVID-19 vaccines roll out — before shots become more widely available through providers and public health authorities.)

These pharmacy appointments are only available to people who, during the online booking process, say they are either:

• Age 65 and older
• Have a health condition that could make someone at higher risk from COVID-19

But what counts as “high risk”? To find out if you or a family member might qualify, you can consult the CDC’s current list of health conditions that potentially put you at higher risk of severe illness, hospitalization or death from COVID-19, which includes cancer, chronic lung, kidney and liver disease and certain disabilities. However, it also encompasses other factors like mental health conditions — including depression — obesity and being a current or former smoker.

When listing some of these conditions, CVS’s online appointment also suggests “any other conditions or situations that place you at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 (consult your pharmacist or medical provider if you need help).”

• Make a 2025 COVID-19 vaccine appointment at CVS
• Make a 2025 COVID-19 vaccine appointment at Walgreens 
• Make a 2025 COVID-19 vaccine appointment at Safeway

Two years ago, a judge freed Anthony Bailey after 27 years in the federal penitentiary, giving him a second chance at life.

And Bailey has been making the most of his early release. Between long hours driving a city bus in Indianapolis, attending barbecues and playing card games with family, Bailey has developed deep roots in his community.

Now, after a ruling from the Supreme Court and a legal move by the Justice Department, Bailey, 61, is facing a return to prison in a matter of weeks.

"I'm hoping and praying that everything turn out and I get my life back," Bailey said in an interview. "Today, right now, I'm a better person — I'm a productive citizen, I work hard."

Bailey's case is one of about a dozen that could be directly affected by a Supreme Court ruling in late May that limited how prisoners can use the compassionate release program to get out early.

The high court found that the compassionate release program, designed for extraordinary or compelling circumstances, is supposed to cover such things as severe illness or old age. The court majority said inmates serving much longer sentences than the punishments they would receive today were not automatically eligible for the program.

Retired federal Judge John Gleeson disagrees with that ruling.

"These are indefensibly long sentences, and they need to be corrected," he said. Gleeson launched a pro bono program that has helped more than 100 people in prison petition the courts for early release.

Most of those inmates are Black men who used a gun in connection with other crimes. Prosecutors added severe mandatory penalties to their cases, stacking those punishments, even if no shots were fired, to build prison terms of 50, 60 or even 100 years.

Anthony Bailey (left) poses with family members shortly after his release from prison in July 2024.

(

Via Anthony Bailey

)

"Productive member of society"

That's what happened in Bailey's case.

On Sept. 3, 1997, Bailey and two other men robbed a bank and then carried out two carjackings. Prosecutors said in court papers that his crimes were serious and put several people in danger, including a school-age girl.

"Something that I totally regrets — will never happen again, ever, in life," Bailey said.

He spent most of his time at the federal prison in Terre Haute, Ind., where he worked as a barber — a job that gave him access to scissors and other sharp tools.

His record inside prison was clean for decades, with just one minor infraction mentioned in court filings.

Maryam Kanna is a pro bono lawyer for Bailey. She said he has already served more time than most people convicted of federal murder.

"He has a stable, happy life and is a really productive member of society, so I mean, the idea that he poses a danger is completely farcical," Kanna said.

Congress changed the law, but not retroactively

Prosecutors are now signaling that they could move soon to send Bailey back to serve the rest of his long sentence — one that would give him a release date in 2050, when he is nearly 86 years old.

Kelsie Clayton, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Indiana — where Bailey's case is pending — said the office speaks only through official court filings.

Congress has since lightened some of the harsh mandatory penalties that applied to Bailey and others convicted back in the 1990s. But lawmakers did not make that change retroactive, to apply to people already inside prison.

And the Supreme Court's ruling says that this means those people's punishments are not extraordinary or compelling, as the compassionate release program mandates.

Bailey said he would abide by the law. "OK, just got to keep fighting," he said.

He has been getting good marks from his probation officer, who told him before the Supreme Court decision that she'd recommend his early release from probation this fall.

Now, he's not sure where he'll be in September. He's making the most of his time, enjoying family barbecues and card games in the park and showing his 4-year-old grandson the ropes.

"He's a worker, you know. Everything I do — he sit there and just watch and then he [asks], 'We washing the car?' Or, 'We taking the trash out?' Like, yeah, c'mon."

He's teaching his grandson how to mow the lawn and, as a treat, taking him to enjoy the boy's favorite food: the french fries at McDonald's.
Copyright 2026 NPR

The Los Angeles Unified School Board unanimously approved a policy Tuesday to limit student screen time starting in August.

The decision follows a board vote in the spring that required the district to create a policy to set up guardrails on the amount of time students should spend in front of a digital device.

District officials said that since May they’ve received feedback from nearly 19,000 members in the community. “Student focus and attention were the most frequently cited concerns, along with mental health and wellbeing, online safety, and privacy,” they said.

What does the policy change?

The changes include eliminating use of district-issued digital devices, like tablets and laptops, in the early years, from preschool through 1st grade. And for every other grade level, there will be daily or weekly maximum screen time limits:

• Preschool to 1st grade: 0 minutes (beginning August 2026)
• 2nd to 3rd grade: 20 minutes per day or 100 minutes per week, including homework (beginning November 2026)
• 4th to 5th grade: 30 minutes per day or 150 minutes per week, including homework (beginning November 2026)
• 6th to 8th grade: 60 minutes per subject, per week, including homework, not to exceed 360 minutes per week (beginning January 2027)
• 9th to 12th grade: 90 minutes per subject, per week, not to exceed 600 minutes per week (beginning January 2027)

The policy allows exceptions for subject areas that heavily rely on computers, like computer science, graphic design, and yearbook, and for district and state assessments. It also allows unrestricted use when necessary for students with disabilities.

Board Member Nick Melvoin proposed a successful amendment to reduce the screen time limits for several grades and break up the limitations by subject starting in middle school.

“[It’s] much harder for teachers in secondary to coordinate across five or six subjects,” Melvoin said in explaining the change.

The policy also:

• Bans elementary and middle school students from using devices during lunch or recess, except for school-approved work
• Blocks streaming services like YouTube and “non-approved gaming platforms”
• Allows parents to opt-out of their students taking home a district device
• Encourages laptop cart use for upper elementary school grades
• Will be updated annually 

Board Vice President Rocío Rivas cautioned that the minute limits may discourage teachers from assigning multimedia projects, and adds the burden of monitoring student technology use.

“Schools may end up focusing on counting minutes, documenting usage, auditing classrooms instead of evaluating learning outcomes,” Rivas said.

How much will this cost? 

The district says it’ll cost $4.25 million in one-time costs to buy laptop carts for elementary school classrooms, if each class opts in. And it’ll cost another $1 million annually for software that would track screen time and block content.

How is this different from the cellphone ban?

This policy is about school-issued devices, like laptops and iPads — not student cellphones.

During the pandemic, the district had moved to equip every student with a digital device in an effort to close digital equity gaps.

District officials noted that when adopting the policy, “caution is advised that efforts to close the digital divide for highest needs populations will be negatively impacted.”

Mireya Garcia, a mother and grandmother, told the board that her family shares a single computer at home.

“I don’t want them to lose access to tools that can help them read, to learn and to be successful,” Garcia said.

Board staff clarified the policy does not prevent students of any age from checking out a device for home use from their child’s school.

District analysts, however, also note research shows that device access alone doesn’t lead to better academic outcomes, but that it needs to be coupled with adult supervision and engagement.

“Because families vary widely in their ability to provide consistent supervision, unrestricted take-home devices raise equity concerns,” the district’s office of research and program evaluation wrote.

Some parents say the policy is not enough

Representatives for the parent advocacy group Schools Beyond Screens, which had advocated for the policy, say it’s a good step, but more needs to be done around artificial intelligence.

“We’re setting a new standard for the rest of the country,” said Lila Byock, who founded the group. “From Atlanta, to D.C., to Houston, they’re all trying to do what we’re doing here today.”

Byock and other LAUSD parents associated with Schools Beyond Screens called on the board to reduce the minute limits for students and to adopt a moratorium on AI use until there’s more guidance from the district’s ad hoc committee on the subject.

The Los Angeles City Council took a first step Tuesday to reinstate a law that bans new oil drilling and requires existing wells to be phased out over the next two decades.

The city’s first attempt to pass such a law was in 2022, but oil companies sued and the city had to repeal it. L.A. County has been going through a similar back-and-forth.

Now, with a new state law backing their authority, L.A. officials think they can cap the city’s more than 2,000 wells over the next 20 years — and end L.A.’s distinction as one of the largest urban oil fields in the nation.

“ In my district, we have hundreds of active wells, and our neighbors are ready to move into the next chapter,” District 5 Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky said Tuesday at the council meeting approving the ordinance’s reintroduction. "We know the industry will continue to fight us at every turn.”

For more than 10 years, local groups have pushed for an end to oil drilling near homes, childcare centers, parks and schools.

“ Neighborhood oil drilling is fundamentally incompatible with protecting public health,” said Wendy Miranda with Esperanza Community Housing in Historic South-Central. "We carry this evidence in our bodies. We have experienced countless nosebleeds and headaches, asthma and even cancer.”

Research has shown living near oil infrastructure elevates the risk of such health issues.

In the city of L.A. alone, about 75% of active oil or gas wells are located within 1,700 feet of “sensitive locations,” such as homes and schools. About one-third of all L.A. County residents live less than 1 mile from an active drilling site.

The L.A. City Council will vote again later this summer to finalize its oil phaseout law.

In a document more than 100 pages long, lawyers representing oil companies vowed to fight the law again, saying it violates the companies’ private property and due process rights, among other things.

Culver City and Santa Barbara have passed similar ordinances.

The L.A. City Council on Tuesday agreed to place a half-cent sales tax to fund the fire department on the November ballot. The vote was 14-0.

If approved by voters, the measure would raise $345 million in its first year and would remain in effect until repealed by voters.

United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, the labor union that represents firefighters, sponsored the measure. The union collected more than 225,000 petition signatures to qualify the measure.

“Due to decades of underinvestment, the LAFD currently operates with the same number of firefighters as in the 1960s, six fewer stations and five times the call load,” the union said in a statement issued before the vote.

According to national standards, emergency resources are expected to arrive at nearly all 911 calls within four minutes. Current LAFD response times are almost double this recommended average, according to the union.

The money would be spent on core functions, including hiring additional firefighters and paramedics, building new fire stations and repairing old stations, as well as modernizing equipment.

Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez said no part of L.A. is immune from the growing threat of fire, pointing to the Palisades Fire last year and the Boyle Heights fire currently affecting air quality throughout the region.

“When these emergencies happen, our constituents expect us to be prepared. They expect firefighters to have the staffing, equipment and resources they need to respond quickly and to keep people safe,” she said.

“As climate change and corporate negligence continue to make these emergencies more frequent and more severe, we have a responsibility to be honest about the conversation that it will take to protect our community,” Hernandez added. “This measure gives voters a chance to weigh in on that question directly.”

The current sales tax rate in the city of Los Angeles is 9.75%. The fire measure would increase it to 10.25%.

The measure says new revenue would not be able to replace existing general fund support for the fire department. It also creates a Citizen's Oversight Committee and annual public audits.

Susan Shelly of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association said if the city made the fire department a top funding priority, it wouldn’t need a tax increase.

“They should fund the fire department appropriately from the first dollar that's in the budget,” she said.