The Brief

A key federal vaccine advisory panel whose members were recently replaced by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is expected to vote to recommend delaying, until age 4, the hepatitis B vaccine that's currently given to newborns, according to two former senior officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"There is going to likely be a discussion about hepatitis B vaccine, very specifically trying to dislodge the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine and to push it later in life," said Demetre Daskalakis, the former director for the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. "Apparently this is a priority of the Secretary's."

The vote is expected to take place Thursday during the next meeting of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP. The meeting is scheduled for September 18-19 at a CDC office in Atlanta, Georgia.

For more than 30 years, the CDC has advised that infants get the first of three shots of the hepatitis B vaccine at birth. In that time, the potentially fatal disease has been virtually eradicated among American children. Between 1990 and 2022, case rates plummeted 99 percent among people age 19 and younger.

Pediatricians warn that waiting until age 4 to begin vaccination opens the door to more children contracting the virus.

"Age four makes zero sense," said pediatrician Eric Ball, who practices in Orange County, California. "We recommend a universal approach to prevent those cases where a test might be incorrect or a mother might have unknowingly contracted hepatitis. It's really the best way to keep our entire population healthy."

In addition to the hepatitis B vaccine, the panel will also discuss and vote on recommendations for the combined measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine, and COVID vaccines.

Pediatricians worry changes to the schedules of these vaccines will limit access for many families, because ACIP's recommendations generally determine whether insurance plans and federal programs pay for the vaccines.

Typically, ACIP would undertake an analysis of the data before recommending a change to vaccine guidelines. As of the end of August, this process had not begun for the hepatitis B vaccines, Daskalakis and another former official said.

"This is an atypical situation. There's been no work group to discuss it," Daskalakis said.

The second former official spoke to NPR and KFF Health News on condition of anonymity.

In an email, a Health and Human Services spokesman, Andrew Nixon, wrote, "ACIP exists to ensure that vaccine policy is guided by the best available evidence and open scientific deliberation. Any updates to recommendations will be made transparently with gold standard science."

The draft agenda for the upcoming ACIP meeting was released to the public Sunday, only a few days before the meetings are scheduled to begin.

At the last ACIP meeting in June, chairman Martin Kulldorff, one of the new members handpicked by Kennedy, questioned the need to vaccinate every newborn, citing only two of the many ways the virus can spread.

Dr. Martin Kulldorff speaks during a June 25 meeting of the Advisory Committee in Immunization Practices at the CDC in Atlanta.

(

Mike Stewart

/

AP Photo

)

Kulldorff is a former Harvard Medical School professor who became known for opposing some public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

"Unless the mother is hepatitis B positive, an argument could be made to delay the vaccine for this infection, which is primarily spread by sexual activity and intravenous drug use," Kulldorff said.

The infection requires direct exposure to infected bodily fluids like blood and semen. The disease has no cure and can lead to serious conditions like cirrhosis and liver cancer later in life. The CDC advisory panel may maintain the recommendation to inoculate newborns whose mothers are considered at high risk of the disease, the former officials said.

Protection from birth

In 1991, federal health officials determined it was advisable for newborns to receive their first dose of the hepatitis B vaccine within 24 hours of birth, which blocks the virus from taking hold if transmitted during delivery.

While parents may opt out of the shots, many daycare centers and school districts require proof of hepatitis B vaccination for enrollment.

The prospect of altering the recommendation has left some people living with the virus deeply unsettled.

"I am goddamn frustrated," said Wendy Lo, 52, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area. Lo says she has probably had hepatitis B since birth. Years of navigating the psychological, monetary, medical and social aspects of chronic hepatitis B has impacted almost every aspect of her life.

"I would not want anyone to have to experience that if it can be prevented," she said.

Lo only learned she had the disease due to a routine screening in order to study abroad in college as a young adult.

Lo credits the vaccines with protecting all the members of her close family from infection.

"I shared with my partner, 'if you get vaccinated, we can be together,'" she said. He got the vaccine, which protects him from infection, "so I'm grateful for that," she said.

The CDC estimates half of people with hepatitis B do not know they are infected. It can range from an acute, mild infection to a chronic infection, often with few or no symptoms.

Most people with chronic hepatitis B were born outside of the U.S. Asians and Pacific Islanders, followed by Black people, have the highest rates of newly reported chronic infections.

When her children were born, Lo was adamant that they receive the newborn dose, a decision she says prevented them from contracting the virus.

The earlier an infection occurs, the worse the lifetime consequences, according to the CDC. When contracted in infancy or early childhood, hepatitis B is far more likely to become a chronic infection, silently damaging the liver over decades.

Those who become chronic carriers can also unknowingly spread the virus to others and face an increased risk of long-term complications including cirrhosis and liver cancer, which may not become evident until much later in life.

Treatments like the antivirals Lo now takes weren't available until the 1990s. Decades of the virus replicating unchecked damaged her liver. Every six months she gets scared of what her blood tests may reveal.

"Now I'm in my 50s, one of my big concerns is liver cancer. The vaccine is safe and effective, it's life-saving, and it protects you against cancer. How many vaccines do that?" Lo said.

Thirty years of universal vaccination

After a vaccine was approved in the 1980s, public health officials initially focused vaccination efforts on so-called "high-risk" adults.

"I, and every other doctor, had been trained in medical school to think of hepatitis B as an infection you acquired as an adult. It was the pimps, the prostitutes, the prisoners, and the healthcare practitioners who got hepatitis B infection. But we've learned so much more," said William Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and a former voting member of ACIP.

As hepatitis B rates remained stubbornly high in the 1980s, scientists realized an entire vulnerable group was missing from the vaccination regime – newborns. The virus is often spread from an infected mother to baby in late pregnancy or during birth.

"We may soon hear 'let's just do a blood test on all pregnant women.' We tried that. That doesn't work perfectly either," Shaffner said.

Some doctors didn't test, he said, and some pregnant women falsely tested negative, while others acquired hepatitis B later in pregnancy, after they had already been tested. In 1991, Schaffner was a liaison member to the ACIP group that voted to recommend universal vaccination for hepatitis B before an infant leaves the hospital.

"We want no babies infected. Therefore, we'll just vaccinate every mom and every baby at birth. Problem solved. It has been brilliantly successful in virtually eliminating hepatitis B in children," he said.

In 1990, there were 3.03 cases of hepatitis B per 100,000 in those 19 years old and under in the U.S., according to the CDC.

Since the federal recommendation to vaccinate all infants, cases have dramatically decreased. CDC data shows that in 2022, the rate of cases among those ages 19 was less than 0.1 per 100,000.

While hepatitis B is often associated with high-risk behaviors such as injected drug use or multiple sexual partners, health experts caution that it is possible for the virus to be transmitted in ordinary situations, especially among young children.

The virus can survive for up to seven days outside the body. During that time, even microscopic traces of infected blood on a school desk or playground equipment can pose a risk.

If the virus comes into contact with an open wound or the mucous membranes of the eyes, an infection can occur. This means that unvaccinated children who are not considered "high risk" can still be exposed in everyday environments.

Future access uncertain

If the CDC significantly alters its recommendation, health insurers would no longer be required to cover the cost of the shot if given before the new recommended age. That could leave parents to pay out of pocket for a vaccine that has long been provided at no charge.

Children who get immunizations through the federal Vaccines for Children program would lose free access to the shot as soon as any new ACIP recommendations get approved by the acting CDC director.

The two former CDC officials said that plans were underway to push back the official recommendation for the vaccine as of August, when they both left the agency, but may have changed.

Schaffner is still a liaison member of ACIP, and hopes to express his support for universal newborn vaccination at the next meeting.

"The liaisons have now been excluded from the vaccine work groups. They are still permitted to attend the full meetings," he said.

He intends to speak up if he can, because he's worried about the next generation of babies and the doctors who care for them.

"We'll see cases of hepatitis B once again occur. We'll see transmission into the next generation," he said. "And the next generation of people who wear white coats will have to deal with hepatitis B, when we could have cut it off at the pass."

This story was produced in partnership with KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs of KFF.

NPR Health Correspondent Will Stone contributed to this story. Copyright 2025 KFF Health News

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.