The Brief

The CDC on Monday accepted controversial new guidelines for the updated COVID-19 vaccines that could make it harder for many people to protect themselves this winter compared with previous years.

Acting CDC Director Jim O'Neill agreed to the recommendations for the COVID shots from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s handpicked Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which met in September.

Unlike in earlier years, the new guidelines call for people to talk to a doctor, pharmacist or some other health care provider about the risks and benefits of getting vaccinated before they get a shot. This extra step is called "shared decision-making,"or "individual-based decision-making," according to the language in the news release.

The move is the final action necessary for implementing the new guidelines, which affect who can get and give the COVID shot, and whether vaccination will be covered by private and government insurance without copayments.

Final recommendations were delayed

The step came after an unusual, unexplained two-week lag between when CDC advisers issued the recommendations and the agency accepted them. The official decision allows the CDC to finally start shipping vaccines to doctors, clinics and other providers through the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides vaccines free to about 40% of all U.S. children.

"Informed consent is back," O'Neill said in a statement announcing the step. "CDC's 2022 blanket recommendation for perpetual COVID-19 boosters deterred health care providers from talking about the risks and benefits of vaccination for the individual patient or parent. That changes today."

Independent vaccine experts challenged that claim.

"There is no basis to claim that routine recommendations prevent doctors from discussing risks and benefits with patients," said Dorit Reiss, who studies vaccine policies at the University of California, San Francisco. "Doctors [have always been] required to get informed consent. Shared clinical decision-making simply signals the vaccine is not routinely recommended and decreases uptake."

Others agree O'Neill's claim is false and could undermine public confidence in the vaccines.

"The claim that the past recommendations deterred health care professionals from talking to patients about risks is completely untrue and is another example of the misinformation and made up information that this administration continues to release to the public and further creates confusion and distrust in healthcare providers and vaccines," wrote Dr. Tina Tan, the president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, in an email. "This is extremely unfortunate and critically increases the American public's risk for serious vaccine preventable diseases."

The CDC also formalized a recommendation that makes it more complicated for some parents to get their babies vaccinated against measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox.

"If that's his approach, I am concerned about [additional] childhood vaccines recommended for routine use," Reiss added in an email. "If he thinks a routine recommendation undermines informed consent — which it doesn't — that could further reduce uptake and may make the Trump-Kennedy outbreaks of measles and pertussis we are seeing even larger."

The moves guarantee continued insurance coverage for the COVID shots and allows pharmacists nationwide to keep administering the vaccines. But the changes withdraw some government coverage for the combination shot that protects against measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox and that some parents prefer.

In previous years, the COVID-19 vaccines have been easily available for free to anyone 6 months and older by simply walking into a pharmacy, doctor's office or clinic and asking for a shot.

Barriers to vaccination

But the vaccines became harder to get in August, when the Food and Drug Administration approved updated versions of the Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech and Novavax vaccines only for people at increased risk for serious disease because they are age 65 or older or had some other health issue.

The change occurred because top Trump administration health officials say they have concerns about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines, even though there is overwhelming evidence the vaccines are very safe and highly effective. Federal health officials also argue that most people have so much immunity now that they don't necessarily need annual boosters anymore.

Many public health experts agree that COVID no longer poses the serious risk it once did to many people, especially those who are younger and otherwise healthy. Other countries have also shifted to a more "risk-based" COVID vaccination strategy.

But some healthy people still want to get vaccinated to reduce their risk of getting sick at all, missing work or school, developing long COVID or spreading the virus to vulnerable people, such as older family members and friends with other health issues.

Over the past month, the change caused anger, frustration and confusion. In states like Georgia and Utah, people had to get a prescription to get a shot and some couldn't get vaccinated at all.

The situation was further complicated because Kennedy, who has a long history of criticizing vaccines, said the government was no longer recommending the vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children, even though pregnancy is listed as a risk factor by the CDC and FDA, and COVID can still make some kids very sick.

Earlier this month, the vaccine panel, which gives influential advice to the CDC, voted to recommend the shots for anyone 6 months and older, provided they consult with a health care provider about the risks and benefits.

Confusion still reigns 

The requirement for shared clinical decision-making creates a new hurdle to getting vaccinated compared with previous years, by explicitly requiring a conversation with a provider on an individual's risks and benefits before they get one.

The new guidelines continue to ensure coverage by private and public insurers, including Medicaid, Medicare, the Vaccines for Children Program and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

The recommendation should also clarify that anyone age 6 months and older is eligible for the COVID vaccine, including healthy children, pregnant women and younger adults. (The only way to protect younger babies, who are among those who face the greatest risk from COVID, is by immunizing their mothers during pregnancy.)

But some providers may remain confused or hesitant to administer the shots because of lingering uncertainty and mixed messages, for instance, speculative safety risks presented during the CDC's advisory committee meeting that are not backed by solid evidence.

Some states and major medical groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Infectious Diseases Society of America have issued separate guidelines recommending the shots to most everyone ages 6 months and up, to protect themselves and their communities this upcoming respiratory virus season.

In addition, more doctor's offices may opt against stocking the new vaccines because of concerns the debate may further dampen demand, requiring people to go elsewhere, such as a pharmacy.

Some pharmacies may require patients to read and fill out a form that discusses the potential risks and benefits of the vaccines. But CVS, the nation's largest pharmacy chain, says people will be able to get a COVID vaccines simply by asking for one. Pharmacists won't have to require anything, including even a conversation, unless patients have questions, CVS says.

A separate shot for chickenpox is now recommended 

O'Neill also accepted the panel's vote to ban the MMRV combination shot, which protects against measles, mumps, rubella and varicella, or chickenpox, for children under 4.

Young children can gain the same protection by getting separate shots for MMR and varicella, and most of them – some 85% – already do, according to CDC data shared and discussed at the advisory committee's September meeting.

That's because the combination shot is associated with a slightly higher risk of fevers that can lead to seizures in kids under 4. Because of the risk the CDC has, for more than 15 years, preferred that children under 4 receive the shots separately. Still, some parents were choosing to get the combo shot, because it was easier or more available, and the risk associated with the potentially frightening but temporary side effect is low.

Because of the recommendation, the MMRV vaccine will no longer be covered by federal programs that offer subsidized vaccines. "This panel has made a recommendation for a practice that's essentially in place anyway, but removed the option of having those vaccines financed for those who may think this is a better option," says Dr. Katrina Kretsinger, a medical epidemiologist who worked on vaccine policy for more than a decade at CDC, before retiring from the agency in 2023, "This is effectively removing a choice from parents."

Making different policies from the same safety information that was thoroughly examined years ago will also raise mistrust among parents, Kretsinger says. "There is confusion about how to proceed, and also doubts raised by the fact that this is being re-examined," she says, "It furthers the chilling effect on vaccine uptake."

The change may also cause shortages of the separate vaccines, at least initially, until manufacturers can adjust their production to meet the new demand.

A fresh call to break up the MMR vaccine

A few hours after issuing the new vaccine guidelines, Acting CDC Director O'Neill also called on makers of the combined MMR vaccine to break it up into three separate shots for measles, mumps and rubella in a post on X.com. The post praised President Trump for his leadership and reposted his call in September that the MMR vaccine be administered as "THREE TOTALLY SEPARATE SHOTS."

The combination shot for measles, mumps and rubella has been used in the U.S. for decades.

"This really is absolutely completely ridiculous and really sets us back over 50 years in time given that the MMR vaccine was licensed here in the US in 1971," said Tan, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, in an email. "It was made as a combination vaccine to ensure that persons would receive all the vaccines that they would need as a single shot as opposed to 3 separate injections. This is crazy and continues to erode the public health system and the public trust in vaccines."

"There is no published scientific evidence that shows any benefit in separating the combination MMR vaccine into three individual shots," said a statement from Merck, which makes an MMR vaccine. "Use of the individual components of combination vaccines increases the number of injections for the individual and may result in delayed or missed immunizations."

The statement also said that evidence suggests combination vaccines improve outcomes for kids by increasing completion of recommended vaccines and getting them at the right ages. Merck also said there are no single-shot vaccines approved for use in the U.S. for measles, mumps or rubella.

"Combination vaccines play a crucial role in improving vaccination coverage rates; their safety and efficacy have been demonstrated by decades of research," said a statement from GSK, maker of the other MMR vaccine available in the U.S. "By reducing the number of separate injections required, combination vaccines allow for a simpler and more efficient immunization process, which is essential for timely protection against disease."
Copyright 2025 NPR

Topline:

Key topics: The candidates each had about 45 minutes to individually answer questions from Erin Stone, an LAist senior reporter focused on climate and environment.

Here are some of the topics they covered:

• Extreme heat
• Emergency preparedness and recovery
• Protecting communities from pollution
• Water
• Public transit

About the organizers: The event is organized by a coalition of local environmental and environmental justice groups including: Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters, SCOPE-LA, Sierra Club, Clean and Healthy California, Neighborhood Council Sustainability Alliance and Communities for a Better Environment

LAist will have more coverage and analysis of the conversations Friday morning.

The Trump administration is taking steps to advance a mysterious and unprecedented project to compile state-by-state lists of people it has decided are eligible citizens over the age of 18 who can vote in the upcoming midterm election. But it will no longer meet its own deadline to publish that information on a portal on Friday, which is 60 days before Election Day.

Department of Justice attorneys told opposing counsel in two separate lawsuits that instead of meeting the Sept. 4 deadline, they would give 48-hours notice to plaintiffs' counsel before the state citizenship portal was launched, according to recent court filings.

The U.S. has never attempted to create a comprehensive list of American citizens before this administration. Maintaining voter lists is the responsibility of states, not the federal government, as the Constitution dictates that states control elections. But President Trump has repeatedly taken steps to try to exert executive control over elections.

The basis for the federal government creating state citizenship lists is an executive order Trump signed on March 31. A lower court had blocked implementation of key parts of that executive order in 23 states and Washington, D.C., but the Supreme Court stayed that injunction late last month, opening the door for the plan to be implemented after all.

The March 31 executive order directs U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration to create "State Citizenship Lists" of individuals the agencies believe are citizens in each state, and send those lists to state officials "no fewer than 60 days before each regularly scheduled Federal election."

The next section of the executive order says the U.S. attorney general will prioritize investigating and prosecuting state and local officials who issue federal ballots to anyone not eligible to vote.

"States here have a strong incentive to actually use these lists to try to avoid federal investigation," said Jules Torti, counsel at the nonprofit Protect Democracy, in an interview with NPR. "But we know that these lists are going to be based on really inaccurate data. So the risk of disenfranchisement here is really, really palpable."

The privacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center, along with individual voters, filed a motion Thursday asking a federal judge in Maryland to block the administration from creating the citizenship lists and publishing them on a portal. Specifically, they seek to block a June 8 implementation memo authored by USCIS director Joseph Edlow that outlines the plan.

The motion, which was brought by Protect Democracy, along with another nonprofit legal group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argues the administration's plans to share Americans' personal data between agencies and then disseminate the data to states violates multiple federal laws, including the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. Under the Privacy Act, federal agencies must give the public 30 days notice and the opportunity to comment before they collect and disseminate Americans' personal data for a new purpose.

The EPIC lawsuit also argues the government does not have access to accurate, up-to-date information on American citizens, especially those who move frequently, have changed their names, or are foreign-born. For example, Social Security's citizenship data often isn't updated when people naturalize, and the SAVE data system, operated by USCIS, frequently doesn't include records for people who became citizens as minors when their parents naturalized.

Torti said it is "deeply concerning" that the administration is still planning to go ahead with the creation of citizenship lists but is no longer going to meet the deadline, since that means the lists will be completed even closer to Election Day.

"It means additional chaos, additional confusion for the state election officials and just for voters," Torti said. "And I think that's the point. The point here is to create chaos in advance of the election."

Neither the Department of Justice, nor the Department of Homeland Security, which is tasked with compiling the citizenship lists, responded to NPR's request for comment.

The June 8 implementation memo stated that the portal for state election officials would be available around June 30 and a second portal where citizens could check their information would be available at a later date – but that deadline passed without further updates.

The federal government has secured a domain for the state citizenship lists portal. While the portal is not currently online, it was briefly live in recent days with a landing page that said "Coming Soon," according to court filings.

Lawyers representing Democratic party groups that had challenged the March 31 executive order in a separate lawsuit filed in April, accused the administration in a recent filing of failing to notify the court or the parties about its plans to move forward with the state citizenship portal. They asked the judge to require the federal government to give immediate updates about their plans to implement the executive order.

This latest legal battle over the administration's plans to compile state citizenship lists comes as the Department of Homeland Security is ramping up its efforts to analyze state voter rolls with the goal of identifying potential noncitizens who are registered to vote. Previous audits have found instances of noncitizens casting ballots to be incredibly rare. 

Additionally, last week, ICE published a request for information on a federal procurement site seeking vendors who can compile public voter rolls and voter history files from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and U.S. territories, "to support Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) fraud detection and data segmentation activities."

NPR's Hansi Lo Wang contributed reporting to this story. 
Copyright 2026 NPR

A group of California lawmakers called on federal officials to halt and reject a proposed land exchange in Yosemite National Park that would allow a private developer to take control of a strip of land in the park for an access road to the park’s main attractions.

The letter to Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on Wednesday was signed by a bipartisan group of 61 state legislators led by Assemblymember Greg Wallis, a Republican who represents Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

“Republicans and Democrats from both houses of the Legislature are standing together because some things are bigger than politics,” Wallis said in a statement. “Yosemite is not a subdivision. It is not a bargaining chip. And it is not for sale. Secretary Burgum and the administration should put an end to this proposal.”

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum (center) visited the Tunnel Tops in San Francisco in 2025 after he and then-Attorney General Pam Bondi toured Alcatraz ahead of their announcement to reopen the former federal prison.

(

Katie DeBenedetti

/

KQED

)

The group argued that the proposed land exchange is counter to the mission of the National Park Service and the founding of Yosemite in 1864, which set aside the start of the park for public use and protection for the first time in the history of the federal government.

“What is being proposed now runs directly against that founding principle, more than a century and a half later,” the letter states.

It continues later: “Our national parks belong equally to every American. They are not the Department’s to trade away, and they are not for sale.”

The proposal was first reported by news outlet NOTUS, which published a story last week alleging that members of the Trump administration were meeting with representatives of Kingsbarn Realty Capital, a private equity group that owns an 83-acre parcel next to the park. In an email to KQED, Kingsbarn’s lawyer Lanny J. Davis confirmed the group is pursuing the land exchange to build a new access road from its property to the park.

Previous owners have pushed for the same deal since the early 2000s and failed in court.

State Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), who signed on to the letter, called the proposal “indefensible,” and said he’s looking at state laws to ensure a similar proposal could never slip through.

“If the Trump administration can’t defend this publicly in broad daylight, then they shouldn’t be doing it,” he said.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Marin) told KQED’s Forum on Wednesday that he’s worried there isn’t enough opposition among his Republican colleagues in Congress to stop the Trump administration’s efforts.

“I have not seen a single Republican colleague willing to stand up to Donald Trump when he decides that he’s just going to do something,” Huffman said. “So that is my concern, that he just plows ahead with this — even if it has dubious legal authority, or even if it’s an open violation of the law. He’s doing stuff like that anyway. And in this Congress, there’s no one here to stop him.”

In a statement to KQED, state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil (R-Modesto), whose district includes parts of Yosemite, said she will “keep pressing the Department [of the Interior] for a clear answer that this exchange will not proceed.”

Since the news of the deal broke late last week, it has sparked condemnation from a number of Democratic state leaders, including Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, as well as Attorney General Rob Bonta and Bonta’s predecessor, Xavier Becerra, who leads the race for California governor.

“The secretive backroom land-exchange scheme has gotten everyone’s attention,” said Neal Desai, senior Pacific regional director of the National Parks Conservation Association. “I can’t recall another issue — and I’ve been working in the conservation space for over a couple of decades — where the response has been this sharp and so one-sided that this is a terrible idea that should not happen.”

The backlash comes at a turbulent time for National Park Service employees, who have faced layoffs, staffing cuts and fear of retaliation for speaking up against Trump administration policies since the start of the second Trump administration.

Some former employees have also raised concerns about a potential reorganization of the National Park Service, according to a separate letter sent to Burgum’s office Wednesday. According to an email seen by KQED, park superintendents have been asked to attend in-person regional meetings in September — with no clear agenda beyond discussing “agency priorities, our FY 2026 outlook, and other matters important to the work ahead.”

The letter to Burgam, signed by 20 retired parks superintendents warns: “An ill-advised and hastily planned reorganization could dismantle that structure, putting our parks — and those who visit them — at great risk.”

Emily Thompson, executive director of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, which organized the letter, said the email about regional meetings “raises some alarm bells.”

“The Park Service is already operating from a difficult place, from a place of crisis,” she said. “And any additional cuts, any movements or actions that would further jeopardize the capacity of the folks that are left, that’s concerning. It’s worrying, and it’ll have a devastating impact on the Park Service.”

Among the letter’s signatories is Don Neubacher, retired Yosemite superintendent, who has been a vocal advocate for parks amid the Trump administration’s changes.

Thompson said she’s worried parks leaders will be stretched even further than they already are, and local decision-making over parks could be in jeopardy.

“Morale is low,” Thompson said. “It’s a hard time to be a federal employee. Anything that … contributes to this culture of fear, it’s just not acceptable.”

This story first appeared on Long Beach Post.

Long Beach is offering up to $1,500 for local business owners and landlords to equip their storefronts with safety measures like cameras, floodlights, alarms and point-of-sale systems.

The grant program is accepting online applications now. You can apply here.

Businesses with storefronts of 1,500 square feet or less may receive grants of up to $750, while businesses between 1,500 and 5,000 square feet are eligible for up to $1,500.

Nonprofit organizations are eligible as well, and landlords can apply on behalf of commercial storefronts that are vacant or occupied. Franchises can also receive the grant.

To qualify, a business must:

• Have an active business license for a storefront within the city
• Be independently owned and operated (franchises are eligible)
• Be currently open and active for business
• Earn no more than $5 million in annual gross revenue
• Hold “active” status with the California Secretary of State for corporations, limited liability companies and limited partnerships

The funds will be provided as a reimbursement after eligible security improvements are installed. Grants will be given out until funds are exhausted.

It’s a great idea, according to Edwin Jara, who manages a pet store in Belmont Heights and was on the receiving end of a break-in earlier this year.

His store had security measures already in place — two cameras and an alarm system — but even that wasn’t enough to deter a masked burglar who grabbed $1,000 cash and a handful of dog treats.

Despite having footage of the burglar, Jara said police haven’t been able to catch the person and that a detective never responded after he filed a police report.

The grant program is being paid for with $350,000 from the city’s Redvelopment Agency along with $50,000 from Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn’s office.

“Our local small businesses are part of the fabric of our neighborhoods, and when business owners feel unsafe, the whole community feels it,” Hahn said in a statement.

In a statement, Mayor Rex Richardson said the program is a “direct investment in the hardworking business owners who make our commercial corridors vibrant and welcoming.”

Jara said he would consider applying for a grant if the city could send someone to help him and the store’s owner fill out the application.

He was offered a separate grant to replace a glass door the burglar smashed, but the store’s owner opted not to fill out the application.

“There was a lot of stuff that we needed to do, and I don’t have a lot of that information,” Jara said.