The Brief

A panel of vaccine advisers to the federal government — now embroiled in controversy under the leadership of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — has voted in favor of changing the childhood vaccine schedule.
On Thursday afternoon, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, voted 8-3 to change the current recommendations that allow children under 4 to receive the MMRV vaccine, a combination shot for measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox (or varicella).
The vast majority of children in the U.S. — about 85% — get separate shots for MMR and chickenpox, though parents currently have the option to give their children the single shot to cover all four diseases.

More: California releases its own vaccine recommendations as RFK shifts federal policy

The panel's votes still require final approval from the acting CDC director Jim O'Neill, an ally of Secretary Kennedy's who's expected to greenlight their recommendations.

The panel, which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also debated changes to the current recommendations for the hepatitis B vaccine. It will hold that vote Friday, and several members including the chair Martin Kulldorff made comments supportive of the idea.
Also on Friday, the panel will vote on recommendations on who should be eligible for the latest COVID-19 vaccines.

The MMRV vote will not affect the Vaccines for Children program — the committee decided to stick to the status quo for that program. That means it can still pay for these shots if parents opt to have them. But the Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid will be affected by the vote and may not cover these shots anymore.
The moves to overhaul the children's vaccine schedule represent the latest victory in Secretary Kennedy's long-running campaign to reshape policy. There was vocal opposition to the proposed changes from representatives of major medical groups who were present at the meeting.
"A question I've had all along through these discussions is why? Why are we addressing this hepatitis B vaccine recommendation? Is there really a reason?" asked Dr. Flor Muñoz, a pediatric infectious disease clinician who spoke at the meeting.
The proposed changes to the vaccine schedule also run counter to the hours of data presented by the CDC's own scientists throughout the meeting on the rationale for these recommendations.
Many in public health had warned that Kennedy was aiming to retool the vaccine schedule, after he replaced all 17 members of ACIP with his own handpicked roster, including five members he added this week. Many of those he chose have a history of being critical of vaccines.

MMRV no longer recommended for kids under 4

Tension between the committee and the medical establishment surfaced throughout the discussion over changes to the MMRV vaccine guidance.
At issue was evidence, presented by CDC staff, showing a slightly increased risk of fever-related seizures in children ages 12-23 months after receiving the MMRV shot compared to the MMR, which concerned some committee members.
"I would go with the option that seems to be safer," said ACIP member Retsef Levi, an MIT professor of operations management who gained prominence during the pandemic for criticizing COVID vaccines.
But Dr. Cody Meissner, a pediatrician at Dartmouth College and ACIP member, pointed out that fever-related seizures, while "frightening" for the family, are not uncommon. They occur in 3% to 5% of all children.
"Every pediatrician is experienced in febrile seizures. We know that the prognosis is excellent," he said.
Removing the MMRV shots from the vaccine schedule for children under age 4 would spark more public confusion, compromise insurance coverage and potentially lead to fewer kids being vaccinated, said Dr. Jason Goldman, president of the American College of Physicians who is acting as a liaison to the committee.
"I urge this committee not to change the recommendations if they truly want to give the power to the parents to decide what is best for their child," he said.
Several liaisons from major medical groups criticized the committee's process.
Goldman said it failed to bring in the voice of subject matter experts, clinicians and patients, noting that the representatives from medical groups had been removed from ACIP workgroups.

A potential break with existing policy on hepatitis B

The proposed changes to the hepatitis B vaccine schedule would mark a major departure — one that pediatricians and medical groups caution could reverse decades of progress in lowering rates of illness in the U.S.

Existing policy is to give the vaccine to all babies at birth regardless of the mother's hepatitis B status. The new recommendation would upend this, instead guiding doctors to screen all mothers and offer the vaccine only to those who do not test negative in an initial screening.
Several new ACIP members questioned why a universally given birth dose was necessary, if mothers could be adequately screened ahead of time.
"Are we asking our babies to solve an adult problem?" said Dr. Evelyn Griffin, an OB-GYN and ACIP member, "Are we trying to lower the prevalence of hepatitis B in a high-risk population by vaccinating them on day one?"
But CDC scientists explained that gaps in prenatal screening could leave many babies vulnerable to catching a debilitating, sometimes fatal illness. And an infant could be infected by exposure to someone else in the household who is infected — around half of people with hepatitis B don't know they have it.

"I have not seen any data that says that there is any benefit to the infant of waiting a month, but there are a number of potential harms to the infants of waiting," responded Dr. Adam Langer, a CDC scientist who was presenting on the data.
Meissner echoed these sentiments, pointing out that efforts to identify high risk groups had failed in the past, which is why the recommendations were made in the first place.
"It's an extremely safe vaccine," said Meissne. "If we change the recommendations, we will increase the risk of harm based on no evidence of benefits because there will be fewer children who get the full hepatitis B series.

"We will be creating new doubts in the mind of the public that are not justified."

Political tensions around the vaccine guidance process

The meeting comes on the heels of a contentious Senate hearing on Wednesday with the recently ousted CDC director Susan Monarez.
Monarez testified that she was fired after clashing with Kennedy over his demands that she preemptively agree to approve vaccine recommendations from ACIP, and fire career scientists.
"He said the childhood vaccine schedule would be changing starting in September and that I needed to be on board with it," she said.
Kulldorff, an epidemiologist, acknowledged the "controversy" at the outset, with pointed comments against his critics — among them a slate of former CDC directors who have said the new members, selected by Secretary Kennedy, are "unqualified" and "share his dangerous and unscientific views. "
Kulldorff rebuffed the idea that he or others on the panel were "anti-vaxxers" and challenged the former directors to an "open public debate."
"If they want to be trusted, they should all accept," he said.
Another sign of the increasingly polarized nature of vaccine policymaking was the notable absence at this week's meeting of a liaison from the American Academy of Pediatrics — the leading national group representing pediatricians in the U.S. that would usually collaborate with the panel.
The AAP had decided to boycott the meetings, arguing federal vaccine policymaking is no longer a "credible process." Kennedy has barred professional medical groups such as the AAP from serving in their traditional roles as expert liaisons to workgroups of the advisory committee.
ACIP member Meissner said the AAP was making a "grave mistake not to participate" and "moving itself to irrelevance."
Dr. Susan J. Kressly, president of the AAP issued a statement Thursday noting the group had published its own immunization schedule "to ensure providers and families have evidence-based guidance rooted in the best interests of children's health."
The group continues to recommend that the combination MMRV shot "should remain an option for families," Kressly said.
Copyright 2025 NPR

As Los Angeles homeowners grapple with the expense of rebuilding after last year’s devastating fires, an L.A. City Councilmember is putting forward an idea that could lower some costs.

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, has introduced a motion to explore waiving part of the city’s portion of the local sales tax for fire victims who purchase rebuilding materials in the city.

The 1% of the local 9.75% sales tax that goes into the city’s general fund would be given back to consumers under the proposal. The waiver could apply to lumber, appliances and other rebuilding goods purchased within the city.

The motion, introduced Friday by Park and seconded by Councilmember John Lee, says: “The City should do everything within its power to alleviate the financial burden for these residents and businesses in order to facilitate their return and stabilize the Pacific Palisades community.”

Would it make much of a difference? 

Economists told LAist the proposal could help many homeowners mitigate the high cost of rebuilding, but likely wouldn’t tip the scales for under-insured, under-resourced property owners.

“It wouldn't hurt if it's very well designed and easy to use,” said Alexander Meeks, a director at the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute. “But I'm not sure if it's really going to tackle the scale of the financial challenge that survivors are facing.”

Meeks noted that the tax waiver wouldn’t lower up-front costs such as environmental testing, architectural design and permitting. And it may not help homeowners sourcing raw materials from outside the city.

Zhiyun Li, a UCLA Anderson School of Management economist, said the waiver could help some homeowners justify the additional cost of rebuilding more fire-safe structures.

“Homeowners must typically pay out of pocket to upgrade to IBHS+ standards, which are more stringent,” Li said. “The tax waiver could encourage upgrading to IBHS+ standards or investing more in mitigation, thereby reducing future risk and improving the likelihood of maintaining insurance coverage.”

What’s next for the proposal? 

The proposed tax relief would not be available to properties that have been sold since the fires started in January 2025.

The motion has been sent to the City Council’s budget and fire recovery committees. If approved by the full council, it would require the city administrative officer, the Office of Finance and the city attorney to report back to the council within 60 days on options for crafting a tax relief plan.

The motion calls for the report to consider factors such as how to minimize the burden of administering the tax relief, what documentation homeowners would have to submit and what it would cost the city to oversee the program.

Senate and House Republican leadership have resurrected a stalled plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security after a record 47-day funding lapse.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a joint statement on Wednesday that the House will take up a measure passed by the Senate last week to fund most of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through the end of September.

Republicans would then attempt to fund ICE and Border Patrol for three years using a party-line budget reconciliation bill that would not require support from Democrats.

"In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited," Thune and Johnson wrote.

The agreement comes nearly a week after House Republicans dismissed an identical plan, refusing to take up the Senate-passed measure and instead passing a 60-day short term funding bill for all of DHS that had little chance of overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate.

Johnson called the agreement a "joke" and President Donald Trump declined to publicly endorse the deal. Trump had previously resisted any package that did not include his push to overhaul federal elections known as the Save America Act.

"I think any deal they make, I'm pretty much not happy with it," Trump told reporters last week.

Democrats welcomed the agreement as in line with their pledge not to give ICE any more money without reforms after immigration enforcement agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But the deal does not include any of the policy demands Democrats are pressing for, such as a ban on masks for immigration enforcement officers and requiring warrants issued by a judge, not just the agency, to enter homes.

"For days, Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a statement Wednesday. "Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered."

Trump seemed to bless the revived plan earlier Wednesday, writing on social media that he wants a party-line bill to fund immigration enforcement on his desk by June 1.

"We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won't be able to stop us," Trump wrote.

Despite the shutdown, ICE has been minimally impacted because Republican lawmakers approved $75 billion for ICE through another party-line budget reconciliation bill last year.

Congress is on a two-week recess, but the Senate and House could move to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP as early as Thursday using a procedure known as unanimous consent that allows the chambers to circumvent formal voting as long as no member objects.

Even during a recess when most members are not in Washington, this could be unpredictable, especially in the House, where many hard-line conservatives oppose a deal that does not fully fund DHS.

"Let's make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again," Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X. "If that's the vote, I'm a NO."

If a member does object, that could require waiting for another vote when all members are back from recess.

Claudia Grisales contributed reporting.
Copyright 2026 NPR

California clocked its second-worst snowpack on record Wednesday, a potentially troubling signal ahead for fire season.

It’s an alarming end to a winter that saw abnormally dry conditions briefly wiped from California’s drought map in January, for the first time in a quarter-century.

Though precipitation to date has been near average, much of it fell as rain rather than snow. Then March’s record-breaking heat melted most of the snow that remains. The state’s major reservoirs are nevertheless brimming above historic averages and are flirting with capacity, and a smattering of snow, rain and thunderstorms are dousing last month’s heat wave.

But experts now warn that California’s case of the missing snowpack could herald an early fire season in the mountains.

On Wednesday, state engineers conducting the symbolic April 1 snowpack measurement at Phillips Station south of Lake Tahoe found no measurable snow in patches of white dotting the grassy field.

“I want to welcome you call to probably one of the quickest snow surveys we’ve had — maybe one where people could actually use an umbrella,” joked Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources. “We’re getting a lot of questions about are we heading into a hydrologic drought? The answer is, I don’t know.”

State data reports that California’s snowpack is closing out the season at an alarming 18% of average statewide, and an even more abysmal 6% of average in the northern mountains that feed California’s major reservoirs.

Only the extreme drought year of 2015 beat this year’s snowpack for the worst on record, measuring in at just 5% of average on April 1st, when the snow historically is at its deepest.

“I think everyone's anticipating that it will be a long, busy fire season,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.

“Without a snowpack, and with an early spring, it just means that there’s much more time for something like that to happen.”

‘It’s pretty bizarre up here’ 

In the city of South Lake Tahoe, which survived the massive Caldor Fire in the fall of 2021 without losing any structures, fire chief Jim Drennan said his department is already ramping up prevention efforts.

“It's pretty bizarre up here right now. It really seems like June conditions more than March,” Drennan said. “People are already turning the sprinklers on for their lawns.”

Without more precipitation, an early spring may complicate prescribed burning efforts. But Drennan said fire agencies in the Tahoe basin can start mechanically clearing fuels from forest areas earlier than usual.

“That means we can get more work done,” he said.

It also means homeowners need to start hardening their homes now, said Martin Goldberg, battalion chief and fuels management officer for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, which protects unincorporated communities in the Lake Tahoe Basin’s south shore.

Goldberg urges residents to scour their yards for burnable materials, create defensible space and reach out to local fire departments with questions. The risks are widespread — from firewood, wooden fences, gas cans, plants, pine needles — even lawn furniture stacked against a house.

“In years past, I wouldn't even think of raking and clearing until May,” Goldberg said. “But my yard's completely cleared of snowpack, and it has been for a couple weeks now.”

‘A haystack fire’

Battalion chief David Acuña, a spokesperson for Cal Fire, said fire season is shaped by more than just one year’s snowpack.

Climate change has been remaking California’s fire seasons into fire years. And California’s recent average to abundant water years have fueled what Acuña called “bumper crops of vegetation and brush.”

“Most of California is like a haystack. And if you’ve ever seen a haystack fire, they burn very intensely because there's layers of fuel,” Acuña said.

Like Quinn-Davidson, Acuña wasn’t ready to make specific predictions about fires to come.

But John Abatzoglou, a professor of climatology at UC Merced, said the temperatures and snowpack conditions this year offer a glimpse of California in the latter decades of this century, as fossil fuel use continues to drive global temperatures higher.

How this year’s fires will play out will depend on when, where and how wind, heat, fuel and ignitions combine. But it foreshadows the consequences of a warmer California for water and fire under climate change.

“This,” Abatzoglou said, “is yet another stress test for the future in the state.”

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