Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Fearing changes, parents rush for appointments

    Topline:

    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.

    Why now? "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.
    The context: 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, 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.

    The background: 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.

    Read on ... for more on the possible implications of federal changes.

    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

  • Watch replay: Bass, Raman on environmental issues
    Two women in suit jackets hold mics and gesture as the address an audience.
    L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman separately explain their environmental positions at a mayoral forum held Thursday at L.A. Trade Tech in downtown Los Angeles.

    Topline:

    Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass painted herself as a proven fighter for environmental justice issues. Her challenger, L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman, said progress on environmental goals has stalled in City Hall.

    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

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

    Topline:

    Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass described herself as a proven fighter for environmental justice issues. Her challenger, L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman, said progress on environmental goals has stalled in City Hall.

    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.

  • Sponsored message
  • Ahead of election, Trump admin still has big plans

    Topline:

    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.

    About the timing: Trump officials will no longer meet its own deadline to publish that information on a portal on Friday, which is 60 days before Election Day.

    Where things stand: 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.

    Why this matters: 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 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

  • CA officials oppose land-swap deal
    A mountain with a sheer face is seen behind a row of trees. In the foreground is a river.
    El Capitan in Yosemite National Park.

    Topline:

    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.

    About the proposed land exchange: 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.

    Why it matters: A bipartisan group of 61 state legislators led by Assemblymember Greg Wallis, a Republican who represents Riverside and San Bernardino counties argues 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.

    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.”

    Two men and one woman stand side by side, looking to their left. Behind them is an bay.
    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.”

  • New program to help small shops install cameras
    A window to a business storefront is broken as you can see inside the gated fence and "Open" sign.
    A file photo of an East Village restaurant that was vandalized on Thursday, June 6, 2024.

    Topline:

    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.

    More details: 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.

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

    Read on... for more on how to qualify for these grants in Long Beach.

    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.