The Brief

For two decades, Washington, D.C., pediatrician Lanre Falusi has counseled parents about vaccine safety, side effects and timing. But this year, she said, the conversations have changed.

"For the first time, I'm having parents of newborns ask me if their baby will still be able to get vaccines," Falusi said.

Throughout the U.S., pediatricians say anxious parents are concerned about access to routine childhood immunizations.

That's especially true for those with children covered by Medicaid, the government insurance program for low-income families and people with disabilities. Medicaid covers 4 in 10 children in the United States.

"It really became an issue when RFK Jr. stepped into the role of HHS secretary," said Deborah Greenhouse, a pediatrician in South Carolina.

The concern accelerated after the shake-up of a key Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine advisory body in June, raising fears that millions of American families could soon have to pay out of pocket for shots now covered by their health insurance.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime anti-vaccine activist, removed all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the panel responsible for recommending which shots are included in the nation's adult and childhood immunization schedules.

Kennedy replaced the panelists with new members aligned with his views, prompting alarm among medical professionals and public health experts.

Insurance uncertainty worries parents

"People should be worried about what's going to happen to the availability of vaccines for children," said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured at KFF, a national health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Under the Affordable Care Act, health insurers are required to cover all ACIP-recommended vaccines.

States and other jurisdictions use the childhood vaccine schedule to set immunization requirements for schoolchildren.

ACIP's recommendations also determine which vaccines get covered by the Vaccines for Children Program, a CDC-funded initiative that provides free immunizations to low-income and uninsured children. Half of children in the U.S. are eligible for the VFC Program.

If the new ACIP members withdraw support for a particular vaccine and the CDC director agrees, Tolbert said, the consequences would be immediate.

"It would automatically affect what is covered and therefore which vaccines are available to children on Medicaid," she said.

Health insurance companies have not yet said how they would alter coverage, but Tolbert said such a move would open the door for private insurers to refuse to cover the vaccine.

Pediatricians worry about a future where parents might have to choose: pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket for shots or leave their kids unprotected.

The health insurance industry group AHIP said that health plans "continue to follow federal requirements related to coverage of ACIP-recommended vaccines and will continue to support broad access to critical preventive services, including immunizations."

Pediatricians say news about President Donald Trump's new budget law, which is expected to reduce Medicaid spending by about $1 trillion over the next decade, has also prompted questions from parents.

While parents may be worried about losing their Medicaid, the law doesn't mention vaccines or change eligibility or benefits for children's Medicaid, Tolbert said.

But less federal funding means states will have to make decisions about who is covered and which services are offered.

To raise the revenue needed to pay for Medicaid, states could raise taxes; move money earmarked for other spending, such as education or corrections; or, more likely, reduce Medicaid spending.

"And they may do that by cutting eligibility for optional populations or by cutting services that are optional, or by reducing payments to providers in the form of provider rates," Tolbert said. "It's unclear how this will play out, and it will likely look different across all states."

In May, Kennedy announced in a post on X that the CDC is no longer recommending the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children and pregnant women. The move prompted a lawsuit by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other physician groups that seeks to freeze Kennedy's directive.

And in June, the new ACIP members appointed by Kennedy voted to recommend that adults and children no longer receive flu vaccines with thimerosal, a preservative rarely used in some flu vaccines. Anti-vaccine activists, including Kennedy, have rallied against thimerosal for decades, alleging links to autism despite no evidence of any association.

"There is no cause for concern," Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in a statement. "As Secretary Kennedy has stated, no one will be denied access to a licensed vaccine if they choose to receive one."

"When the ACIP committee met last month, they reaffirmed that flu vaccines will remain accessible and covered, and they emphasized safety by ensuring these vaccines are mercury-free," Hilliard wrote.

"The Vaccines for Children (VFC) program continues to provide COVID-19 vaccines at no cost for eligible children when the parent, provider, and patient decide vaccination is appropriate. Medicaid will continue to reimburse the administration fee."

But the possibility that a vaccine could be restricted or no longer covered by insurance is already changing how parents approach immunization.

In Falusi's practice, parents are scheduling appointments to coincide precisely with their child's eligibility, sometimes making appointments the same week as their birthdays.

Doctors warn that fewer kids may get shots if cost shifts to families

Melissa Mason, a pediatrician in Albuquerque, N.M., has treated some patients who got measles during the multistate outbreak that started in neighboring Texas.

She's concerned that any new limitations on access or reimbursement for childhood vaccines could lead to even more preventable illnesses and deaths.

Nationally, there have been more than 1,300 measles cases since January, including three deaths, according to the CDC. "We're seeing this outbreak because vaccination rates are too low and it allows measles to spread in the community," Mason said.

Children and teens account for 66% of national measles cases. Mason has begun offering the measles vaccine to infants as young as 6 months old, a full six months earlier than standard practice, though still within federal guidelines.

Last year, overall kindergarten vaccination rates fell in the United States. At the same time, the number of children with a school vaccination exemption continued to rise.

Pertussis, or whooping cough — another disease that can be deadly to young children — is spreading. As of July 5, more than 15,100 cases had been identified in U.S. residents this year, according to the CDC.

Mason said pertussis is especially dangerous to babies too young to receive the vaccine.

For now, pediatricians are trying to maintain a sense of urgency without inciting panic.

In Columbia, S.C., Greenhouse used to offer families a flexible age range for routine vaccinations.

"I'm not saying that anymore," the pediatrician said.

She now urges parents to get their children vaccinated as soon as they are eligible.

She described anxious parents asking whether the HPV vaccine, which helps prevent cervical cancer, can be administered to children younger than the recommended age of 9.

"I actually had two parents today ask if their 7- or 8-year-olds could get the HPV shot," Greenhouse said. "I had to tell them it's not allowed."

With the vaccine requiring multiple doses months apart, Greenhouse fears time may run out for families to get the series covered by insurance. If they have to pay out of pocket, she's afraid some families may choose not to get the second dose. A second dose could cost about $300 if no longer covered by insurance.

"I cannot be 100% sure what the future looks like for some of these vaccines," Greenhouse said. "I can tell you it's a very scary place to be."

Kennedy's newly appointed vaccine advisory committee is expected to hold its next public meeting as soon as August.

This story comes from NPR's health reporting partnership KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. It's one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Copyright 2025 KFF Health News

The Supreme Court today ruled that the Trump administration can revoke Temporary Protective Status from hundreds of thousands of Syrian and Haitian refugees.

The TPS program was created by Congress in 1990, forming a pathway for vetted refugees who need protection to live and work in the United States. There are about 330,000 displaced Haitians and 3,800 Syrians living in the U.S. today.

California is home to nearly 80,000 TPS holders as of March 31, 2025, according to the Forum, a nationwide coalition of immigration-related groups. Not all of the TPS holders in California are from Syria or Haiti.

Jose Serrano, executive director of the Orange County Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs, said it’s heartbreaking to continue to receive notifications like these.

“They're contributors to our communities. They're local leaders. It's more than just unfortunate,” Serrano said.

Many people could be deported, Serrano added. He said his group will continue “to remind folks that they are part of our communities … and providing the appropriate guidance, so that they feel as if they're not abandoned.”

What does this mean? 

Jessica Bansal, attorney with the National Day Laborer Network, told LAist’s AirTalk that Haitian and Syrian TPS holders will soon lose their work authorization and lawful immigration status.

“The timeline isn't super clear, but we're talking days or weeks,” Bansal said. “TPS holders, even if they have a U.S. citizen child, even if they have a U.S. citizen spouse, even if they've been here for 20 years, unless they have been lawfully admitted at some point — and TPS is not a lawful admission — they can't adjust their status.”

For Honduran TPS holders who lost their status last year, Bansal added, “ the lives that they built here are just gone on 60 days' notice.”

Given today’s ruling, some refugees are already preparing for self-deportation.

“People have been preparing, but how do you prepare to say goodbye to your citizen children? How do you prepare to bring them to a country where you think they're not safe?” Bansal said. “You can't prepare for something like this, no matter how much you try or know it might be coming.”

Members of the National TPS Alliance rally at the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on April 29, 2026.

(

Alex Wroblewski

/

Getty Images

)

Who are TPS holders? 

The designation is granted to immigrants from countries hit by crises, such as natural disasters or war. The federal government typically renewed the deportation protection every 18 months.

“ These are people who have lived here [and] have a justifiable reason for coming to the United States. [They] are entitled to work based on work permits, are paying taxes, and are not committing crimes,” said Stacy Tolchin, an immigration attorney based in Pasadena. “These are the folks that we want in this country.”

TPS holders lose their protections with a conviction for one felony or two misdemeanors, regardless of the type of offense.

Since 2025, when Trump returned to the White House, the administration has attempted to strip TPS from 13 of the 17 countries.

(L-R) Alexei Laushkin, Rev. Patrick Mahoney and Katie Mahoney hold a banner that reads "Protect the Haitian Community!" on the House East Front Steps at the U.S. Capitol Building on March 6, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(

Andrew Harnik

/

Getty Images

)

What could this mean for TPS holders from other countries? 

The ruling is specific to those from Haiti and Syria, but the remaining countries that fall under the TPS program, including Ukraine, Lebanon, Sudan and El Salvador, could lose their TPS designation when they come up for renewal in the fall.

Sergio Perez, executive director at the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, told LAist that the ruling is a warning sign for anyone with TPS protections.

"They all now need to understand that they are in a riskier and less safe position now,” Perez said. “So it presents a real risk, a real risk to our refugee neighbors.”

Oksana Pashko Reeves, president of Ukrainians in Orange County, told LAist the ruling is not good news.

“Especially for people who do not have homes to go back to because they were destroyed or are under Russian occupation,” Reeves said, “I hope exceptions will be made.”

Carlos Perea, executive director of the Harbor Institute OC, called the ruling shameful.

“Orange County has large populations of Arab communities and refugee communities, and so I wouldn't be surprised to see that there's a big impact, particularly to Orange County,” Perea told LAist. “This is going to have a large impact not only in the TPS community but in general on human rights and due process.”

What’s next? 

Perez said pushing back against the administration will look different for everybody. For attorneys and advocates, it means finding the pressure points to push back against the campaign against immigrants.

“It means taking care of your neighbors," Perez said. "It means putting your time and your money to work in every way possible, so that folks who are in the target range of this administration are protected by their networks in their communities.”

Serrano recommends that TPS holders contact nonprofits, legal experts and advocates for information and resources.

“It is really important to walk alongside each other,” Serrano said. “Remembering that behind every person who came here seeking safety or refuge is a story of hope, it's a story of humanity, it's a story of potential.”

LAist correspondent Jared Bennett contributed to this report.

Can’t make it to those late night meetings for your city council or county board of supervisors? You’ll soon be able to speak up on local issues remotely — from your couch, or while stuck in traffic on the 101.

What’s this all about?

A new state law that takes effect July 1 requires most Southern California city councils and other governing bodies to allow people to comment remotely. Some cities already allow this, but many only let the public speak in person … until now.

Why it matters

The idea is to make it easier for more people to participate. It could also mean longer meetings and so-called "Zoom bombings." But supporters say that’s a small price to pay for more civic engagement. The new law also calls for local governments to translate meeting agenda into languages commonly spoken in the district.

What does the law say exactly?

The new law, SB 707, requires local governments to allow for remote participation, and to pause meetings if the internet cuts out or there’s some other glitch making it impossible for people to participate remotely. It also requires translation of meeting agendas into languages commonly spoken in the district.

What is covered by the law?

The law applies to city councils in cities with a population of 30,000 or more; and all cities in counties with a population of 600,000 or more. That means all cities in L.A., Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties must comply with the new law. It also applies to large special districts like LA Metro and the Orange County Water District.

How to watchdog your local government

One of the best things you can do to hold officials accountable is pay attention. Your city council, board of supervisors, school board and more all hold public meetings that anybody can attend ... and now, for most of them, remotely. You can find meeting times and agendas by visiting the websites of the city, county or other government agency you're interested.

As this year’s legislative session speeds to a close, a handful of bills focused on the state’s homelessness crisis have made the cut so far.

Though homelessness improved slightly last year, there are still an estimated 182,000 Californians with nowhere to call home. The issue is top of mind for many lawmakers in Sacramento, who are pushing a range of laws that would do everything from free up state funds for sober housing, dispose of RVs on city streets and create a plan for homelessness prevention.

Here are a few of the bills to watch as they approach their final votes and await a potential signature from the governor:

State-funded sober homeless housing

Gov. Gavin Newsom hit Assemblymember Matt Haney with a surprise veto last year, blocking his bill that would have allowed state funding to pay for sober homeless housing.

Haney is back with a similar bill, which he says will give people recovering from drug and alcohol addiction the choice to live in an environment free from dangerous temptations.

“A lot of people who are on the street right now or exiting shelter programs would prefer drug-free housing options,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “And right now there are few options, if any, for them.”

Last year, Assembly Bill 255 would have allowed cities and counties to spend up to 10% of their state funding on “recovery housing” where people are required to stay sober. That was a tweak to California’s “housing first” strategy, which emphasizes a no-strings-attached approach to housing and generally frowns on barriers that require people to stay clean or participate in treatment.

In his veto message, Newsom said the state already allows the state to fund sober housing. His office pointed to a new set of guidelines on the subject, published online the day after Newsom’s veto.

But Haney says that guidance is unclear, and housing providers still believe state funds are off-limits for sober housing. The proof: Haney said that as far as he knows, no one has used state funds to pay for sober housing since the governor’s veto last year.

His new bill, Assembly bill 1556, lays out the rules a sober housing provider must follow to be eligible for state funding. Each provider must have a policy to handle relapses, which is supposed to help the resident get sober again, but also can include evicting them if they continue to use alcohol or drugs and do not follow the policy. That worries critics, including Sharon Rapport, director of California state policy for the Corporation for Supportive Housing, who fears it could put people back on the streets.

Unlike last year’s bill, AB 1556 doesn’t limit the amount of state money that could go to sober housing. The bill comes with no additional funding, meaning the more money that goes to sober housing, the less will be left for the low-barrier housing needed for people who aren’t ready to overcome their addiction, Rapport said. That’s even more worrying because the Trump administration also is prioritizing sober housing for federal funds – creating an even bigger gap in low-barrier housing, she said.

“We don’t really want to see Trump policy implemented in California at the state level,” she said.

This year, Haney is expecting a more positive reaction from Newsom.

“The governor’s office has been very collaborative and responsive from the beginning this time around,” he said.

Solutions to homelessness

Most people in California agree that homelessness is a problem. But exactly how much would it cost to solve it? And how could California get there?

It turns out, the state has never actually done that math publicly. Assembly Bill 1165 would force the state to do just that. The bill by Assemblymember Mike Gipson, a Gardena Democrat, would require the California Department of Housing and Community Development to create a financial plan to solve homelessness, as well as performance metrics for success, by January 2028. That would include determining how much money the state would need to meet the housing needs of everyone who is homeless now or expected to become homeless in the future, and how the state could achieve that goal.

The state has estimated California must plan for 2.5 million homes over the next eight years to meet demand and ease the state’s affordable housing shortage. AB 1165 would require the state to go into more detail about what resources are needed, and lay out a plan to meet that goal.

The Corporation for Supportive Housing estimates it would take $8.1 billion a year for 12 years to solve homelessness. The budget the legislature proposed this month includes $900 million for Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention funds – the state’s main source of homeless funding.

If it passes, AB 1165 could help hold legislators and the next governor accountable and push the state to spend its homelessness funds more wisely, Rapport said. A 2024 audit found the state failed to track its homelessness spending or measure results.

The bill doesn’t come with new resources to fight homelessness, meaning implementing a plan to end homelessness could be tough in the current tight budget environment.

Another measure, Assembly Bill 1924, would require the California Interagency Council on Homelessness to establish a statewide strategy to prevent homelessness before it happens. If passed, the plan would need to be in place by July 2027.

Prevention has become an increasingly popular way to tackle homelessness, as it’s much easier and cheaper to help someone hold onto their housing than it is to re-house them once they wind up on the streets. Organizations already using this strategy have found that giving someone several thousand dollars can allow them to avoid homelessness.

Like AB 1165, the prevention bill also comes with no new funding.

Forcing cities to report homelessness and housing data

How much data on homelessness should California cities that aren’t getting state funds be required to report to the state? That’s the question behind a bill by Senator Catherine Blakespear, which has received pushback from some of her colleagues.

Counties, continuums of care (regional groups that coordinate homelessness services) and the 14 largest cities are eligible for money from the state’s Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention program. In exchange for the funds, those entities must report certain data about their homeless populations, the services they offer, and the progress they’ve made getting people off the streets.

Blakespear, a Democrat from Encinitas, wants the rest of California’s cities, even if they get no funding, to report that data, too.

“Homelessness is a regional problem that does not stop at city or county boundaries,” she said during a recent Senate floor hearing.

Senate Bill 866 alarmed some city leaders, who complained they don’t have the staff or money to compile that extensive amount of data. Dozens of cities oppose the bill, as does the League of California Cities.

As a concession, Blakespear agreed to exempt all cities with 50,000 or fewer people – eliminating about half of California’s cities.

But that wasn’t enough to appease some of her colleagues, including Republican Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil from Modesto, who called the bill an un-funded mandate for cities.

“I have to ask,” she said, “if we have this level of opposition, not just from rural communities, not just from Republican-represented communities, but from cities across the state, why do we have a half-cooked bill on this Legislature's floor?”

No arrest warrants for people who miss court dates

Assembly Bill 2122 doesn’t specifically mention unhoused Californians, but advocates say it would have big implications for people who sleep outside.

Cities around California are cracking down on street homelessness, leading to increasing numbers of arrests and citations in some places. People are ticketed for unauthorized camping, but they can also be cited for other offenses such as loitering, trespassing, public urination, violating park rules, and more. Typically, the police hand them a paper citation that says when they are supposed to show up in court.

It’s common for unhoused people to miss those court dates – they may lack transportation, be unable to leave their belongings or pets unattended, or simply lose track of the date amid the unpredictability of life on the street. When that happens, the court issues a bench warrant for their arrest. The next time they encounter the police, they could go to jail.

Not only does that cost the city money, but it also could make it harder for the person to get housing, Rapport said.

Assembly Bill 2122, by Assemblymembers Ash Kalra and Josh Lowenthal, would change that. If someone is cited for an infraction (which could include loitering or other minor offenses) and then misses their court date, they could not be jailed as a result. It would also prohibit courts from issuing arrest warrants for people who fail to pay traffic tickets.

The bill applies only to infractions. Different cities classify crimes differently – in some places, an offense such as loitering might be an infraction, while in other places it could be a misdemeanor.

The California State Sheriffs’ Association is opposed to the bill, and says it sends the message that it’s acceptable to fail to appear in court.

RVs on city streets

As unhoused Californians increasingly turn to vehicles for shelter, multiple legislators have turned their attention to addressing the resulting rows of RVs, trailers and lived-in cars lining streets up and down the state.

Last year, Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez, a Los Angeles Democrat, pushed through a bill intended to make it easier for local governments to dispose of inoperable RVs parked on their streets. The goal was to address vehicles that create blight in neighborhoods and are breeding grounds for bad behavior, he said.

He ended up amending the bill to apply only in Los Angeles and Alameda counties. But by making that change, Gonzalez inadvertently made the law basically unusable. While the counties of Alameda and Los Angeles themselves could use the law to dispose of RVs, the cities within them could not. The Los Angeles City Council found that out the hard way, when it voted to establish an RV disposal program, only to have it shot down in court.

Assembly Bill 647 fixes that oversight by allowing cities within those two counties to destroy RVs valued at $4,000 or less. Opponents worry the bill will lead local governments to seize more lived-in RVs, forcing people out of the relative safety of a vehicle and onto the street.

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

President Donald Trump blew up what could have been a win for his party — and he did it to force lawmakers to pass an elections overhaul bill that has been all but doomed in the Senate.
On Wednesday, Trump abruptly canceled a scheduled signing of bipartisan legislation aimed at bringing down housing costs, saying he would only sign it after Congress approved the SAVE America Act.
This move wasn't entirely surprising because Trump has been saying for months that he won't sign any bill until the SAVE America Act is passed.
His obsession with the SAVE America Act has already scuttled the reauthorization of a surveillance tool and nearly ruined GOP efforts to increase immigration enforcement spending.
The SAVE America Act currently doesn't have the needed 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster – and Republican leaders are reluctant to get rid of the filibuster to pass the bill, as Trump has suggested.

A big reason Trump has been obsessed with getting the SAVE America Act sent to his desk for signature ahead of what could be a pretty bruising midterms for the GOP, is that he believes it would ensure that Republicans never lose another election for at least 50 years.
Much of this belief is based on false claims that Democrats only win elections because of noncitizen participation in elections, which according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, and many experts, is extremely rare.
But the president's case for the SAVE America Act is rooted in this misinformation. Here's what's in it:

1. It requires proof of citizenship to register to vote

The SAVE America Act specifically prohibits states from accepting and processing voter registration applications in a federal election "unless the applicant presents documentary proof of U.S. citizenship."

Citizenship is already required to register to vote in the U.S. and states have a system to make sure that noncitizens do not make it on to the voter rolls. And when the system fails, it fails in a very limited number of cases.
And the list of what is acceptable to prove citizenship under the SAVE America Act is fairly limited. It includes U.S. passports and birth certificates, as well as some state and tribal IDs. This documentation is prohibitive in some cases: 1 in 10 eligible voters, or 21.3 million people, said in a national survey conducted by a voting rights organization that they either "do not have or could not quickly find" proof of citizenship records.
Trump has tried to require proof of citizenship for anyone registering to vote via executive order, but that effort was permanently blocked by a federal court on Wednesday.

2. It requires photo ID to cast a ballot

The bill requires that voters show one of these valid forms of identification to cast a ballot in person. Notably, it also requires that people voting by mail provide "a copy of a valid photo identification" with their ballot.
If they can't do that, they have to provide the last four digits of their Social Security number and sign an affidavit from state officials that says they were unable to get an ID "after making reasonable efforts to obtain such a copy." Voter ID requirements are largely popular among voters. And most states require some form of ID to vote, already. However, voters aren't as supportive of a sweeping overhaul that would change various aspects of American elections.

3. It requires that state officials remove noncitizens from their voter rolls

States routinely check their voter registration list for people who shouldn't be there – whether it's people who passed away or who lost their voting rights due to legal trouble.
And that also includes those who were improperly registered. However, when states have tried to identify and purge alleged noncitizens from their rolls, their efforts have gone wrong in some cases.

4. It requires that states submit their complete voter rolls to the Trump administration

States would have to turn over complete, unredacted copies of their voter registration lists to the Department of Homeland Security through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system.

These voter lists contain sensitive voter data like driver's license numbers and partial Social Security numbers, which is why many states have refused to turn over this information when the Trump administration began asking for them last year.

The Department of Justice has since been suing states across the country to obtain these lists, but the courts have consistently blocked those efforts. A federal court also recently ruled that the Trump administration's expanded SAVE system is unlawful and cannot be used in its current form.

5. It creates new penalties against election officials

Lastly, the SAVE America Act creates a private right of action against an election official who registers someone who didn't provide proof of citizenship. It also establishes new criminal penalties against officials who register people without citizenship documents.

Copyright 2026 NPR