The Brief

The Trump administration is cancelling almost $500 million in contracts to develop mRNA vaccines to protect the nation against future viral threats. The move thrilled critics of the technology but horrified many public health and biosecurity experts.

The federal Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, which oversees the nation's defenses against biological attacks, is terminating 22 contracts with university researchers and private companies to develop new uses for the mRNA technology, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced Tuesday.

The mRNA technology was used by the first Trump administration to create the most commonly used COVID-19 vaccines, which are widely considered a medical triumph that safely and effectively saved millions of lives. But vaccine mandates during the pandemic sowed fierce antipathy towards the technology, leading to widespread public opposition.

"Let me be absolutely clear: HHS supports safe, effective vaccines for every American who wants one," Kennedy said in a video explaining the decision. "That's why we're moving beyond the limitations of mRNA vaccines for respiratory viruses and investing in better solutions."

The announcement dismayed many who study infectious disease.

"This may be the most dangerous public health judgment that I've seen in my 50 years in this business," says Michael Osterholm, who runs the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. "It is baseless and we will pay a tremendous price in terms of illnesses and deaths. I'm extremely worried about it."

But the decision was welcomed by vaccine critics like the group Children's Health Defense, which Kennedy himself founded.

"While we believe the mRNA vaccines should be taken off the market, the announcement is a positive move towards protecting public health," said Mary Holland, the group's president and CEO, in a statement.

Jennifer Nuzzo strongly disagrees. She runs the Brown University School of Public Health Pandemic Center, and says the move could erode preparedness for future pandemics.

"This is a profoundly disappointing development," she says. "When there's the next pandemic, we're going to be caught flat-footed. It absolutely leaves the country vulnerable."

Nuzzo and others aren't just worried about the next pandemic. Many experts say mRNA vaccines would provide a crucial deterrent and powerful defense against bioterrorists.

"I think that it endangers the national security of the United States," says Chris Meekins, a top biodefense official in the first Trump administration. "It could put the US at a strategic national security disadvantage and would be a significant threat to the national security of the United States."

In announcing his decision, Kennedy claimed the COVID-19 vaccines were unsafe, ineffective, helped drive the evolution of the virus and could not keep up with new mutations.

"After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA, HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits against these respiratory viruses," Kennedy said.

Many outside experts say Kennedy's claims are wrong.

"His science is backwards, as it often is," says Dr. Peter Hotez, the dean of the Baylor College of Medicine who runs the Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development. "This is a proven technology for emerging respiratory viruses or respiratory virus pandemics. It is extremely safe and has been incredibly effective."

mRNA vaccines work by stimulating the immune system with a key protein from a virus. Kennedy says the federal government is instead investing in an alternative technology that uses whole killed viruses and can produce "natural immunity."

While that technology has produced effective vaccines, it's a much older approach that can have safety issues and is not nearly as nimble in responding to new threats, experts say.

"It is irresponsible to strip funding from future technologies with great potential and shift it towards outdated old fashioned technologies," says Rick Bright, who ran BARDA during the first Trump administration. "We're taking our country from 2025 back to 1940 and we all know that's a recipe for disaster and failure."

The mRNA technology is the only vaccine technology that can be developed quickly enough to respond swiftly to a new pathogenic threat, experts say.

"In an outbreak, when you are facing a rapidly spreading virus – whether it's from nature or a nation-state adversary – speed is the name of the game," Bright says.

The administration previously cancelled a $766 million contract with the vaccine company Moderna to develop an mRNA vaccine to protect people against flu strains with pandemic potential.

Many fear moves like this will continue to undermine public trust in vaccines generally and mRNA technology specifically, which is also showing promise for treating diseases, most notably cancer.

"The deleterious impact is not only in the contracts that they're canceling but they're trying to make the case to the public that mRNA technology doesn't work very well and it's unsafe," Hotez says. "And that's absolutely untrue."
Copyright 2025 NPR

Most California voters cast their ballots by mail, but two big federal changes are in the pipeline that could impact how those ballots are handled and counted in the November election.

One could come from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that’s expected soon, and another through the United States Postal service, which is working to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive order that would give the agency the final say over who receives a mail-in ballot.

The efforts come as Trump and his allies have scrutinized mail-in ballots for years, claiming without evidence that states with longer count times and universal mail-in voting are allowing widespread cheating. Research shows fraud rates remain extremely small.

A major ruling could end mail-in grace periods

Fourteen states, including California, count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by then and show up within a certain window. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision that could end that kind of grace period.

The case in question is Watson v. Republican National Committee, which centers on whether Mississippi’s five-day grace period for late-arriving ballots is constitutional under federal law. In California, that period is seven days.

Geoffrey Skelley,  chief elections analyst at Decision Desk HQ, told LAist the RNC’s argument centers on a federal law enacted in 1845 that set Election Day as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and that’s why votes shouldn’t be accepted after it.

A decision on that is expected to come within the next month, according to Wren Orey, who directs the elections project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. The Washington D.C.-based think tank works with both sides of the political aisle to craft policy suggestions.

Orey told LAist it’s looking like the justices will side with the RNC and overturn Mississippi’s law. However, it’s not known how broad the ruling could be. The Purcell principle, a legal doctrine that discourages last-minute changes to election procedures, could also be invoked.

“ It’s possible that the Supreme Court rules that this specific statute is unconstitutional, but their judgment doesn’t go into effect until after the election,” they said.

Some critics say the Supreme Court has unevenly applied this principle, pointing to how a ruling affected Alabama’s primary when voters had already begun casting ballots.

How it could affect California

Just over 400,000 ballots arrived during California’s grace period in 2024 — that’s 2.5% of voter turnout. Orey said these usually come from areas that take more time for mail carriers to deliver, so it could disadvantage rural residents, for example. It’s unclear if there would be a carve out for service members and overseas voters under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which get rejected at higher rates.

The Bipartisan Policy Center’s research shows about the same rate of late ballot rejections between states with a grace period and those without, Orey said, suggesting that voters adapt to their state’s deadline.

“What isn’t clear, though, is how long it takes for voters to adjust,” they said, adding that they’ve seen some evidence of rejections going up immediately after a grace period goes away.

Workers count Los Angeles County ballots in the City of Industry on June 3.

(

Kayla Bartkowski

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

Skelley said a lot of voters would likely become aware and adjust in part because of how publicized the decision would be, but it wouldn’t solve everything.

“Now, does that mean some would be affected and might miss out on a chance to vote?” he said. “Yes, that’s perfectly plausible.”

California is also notoriously criticized for how long it takes to count ballots, even though that’s a feature, not a bug, of our election process. If the justices decide to end grace periods, don’t expect big changes to that.

That’s mostly because our slowness stems from the volume of mail-in ballots received on Election Day, Orey said. Those need to be verified, opened and flattened to be processed, which takes more time than if you voted in person.

Changes to universal mail-in ballots

Another looming change comes from Trump’s March executive order which, among many things, tasks the U.S. Postal Service with being a gatekeeper for who gets a mail-in ballot.

This is happening in the name of preventing noncitizens from voting, which is already rare and gets prosecuted.

USPS released its proposed rules earlier this month. Under the proposal, states would be required to send names of eligible mail-in voters to USPS, who would add them to a centralized list. If your name isn’t on that list for some reason, the Postal Service won’t mail your ballot.

This also depends on whether states agree to share voter information with the federal government, which California has so far refused to do in other situations.

“ Let’s say California and some states like it don’t give the federal government the information that they want,” Skelley said. “Presumably, that would mean that some people who have been voting by mail would not be able to get their mail ballots, and so they would have to figure out alternate ways to vote.”

Under federal law, states and Congress can determine how elections are run, so Trump’s executive order is seen by some as unconstitutional. It’s being challenged in court in multiple cases — one of which California is part of.

Among the concerns, it’s unclear what recourse voters would have to resolve errors, how accurate the data will be and what would happen if a voter requested a mail-in ballot after USPS’s deadline to add voters to the list.

The U.S. Postal Service may soon decide who to send mail-in ballots to.

(

Nathan Howard

/

Getty Images

)

Orey said they have talked to state election officials who don’t have a lot of trust in the Postal Service to handle ingesting and updating lists from every state, based on how the agency manages current operations and deadlines.

“We have no evidence to indicate that the infrastructure exists to begin with, or is at all functional,” they said.

Under Trump’s executive order, the final rule is due by the end of July — that is, of course, if it’s not delayed by the courts.

These rules would apply to federal elections, but not to primaries or ballots under the UOCAVA (the act for service members and overseas voters), according to the proposal. If you want to have your say, USPS is accepting public comment through July 2.

To commemorate the city’s participation in the 2026 men’s World Cup, the L.A. Department of Recreation and Parks has commissioned a local artist to create a piece with the help of young soccer fans. Now through mid-July, artist-in-residence Liseth Amaya is collecting at least 1,000 wooden hexagons, decorated by youths at parks throughout the city.

Soccer balls, she noted, are typically made up of black pentagons and white hexagons. For this project, however, the hexagons will be covered in art. Ultimately, they will be part of a large-scale installation at City Hall.

Amaya, the daughter of Salvadoran immigrants, is an L.A. native who earned her degree at Central Saint Martins college of art in London. To gather the hexagons, she will be hosting workshops across the city.

“In school, art education often takes a backseat to other subjects,” Amaya lamented. “I want to make sure I can run workshops where kids can use different material and learn about what it is to create art with their hands, not just on an iPad.”

In addition to the installation, Liseth Amaya will paint murals inspired by L.A.'s participation in the World Cup.

(

Julia Barajas

/

LAist

)

Watch parties and art 

At MacArthur Park in L.A.’s historic Westlake neighborhood this week, Amaya hosted a workshop during one of the city’s “Kick It In The Park” World Cup watch parties. There, she guided students on break from school, encouraging them to think about their background, their neighborhood and anything that brings them joy. Then, she asked them to use the paint markers she provided to bring those images and feelings to life.

Some students filled the hexagons with the flags of Guatemala, El Salvador and Mexico, in honor of their parents. Some painted placid lakes underneath bright blue skies. Others decorated their pieces with small things they love: an iced matcha, a slice of watermelon, their favorite animal.

One student named Daniella added a label to her piece: “I am 11 years old,” it read. “The re[a]son I play soccer is because I [want] to be like my dad[,] and I want to become a soccer player.”

To join the project, Angelenos solely need to gather at Amaya’s work station at “Kick It In The Park” events. All materials are provided at no cost.

All materials are provided at no cost.

At the end of each workshop, students have the choice of taking the piece home with them or donating it to Amaya for the art installation.

The artist has been heartened to find that collecting 1,000 hexagons will be a challenge. After poring over their work, many students have opted not to let them go.

Although thousands have flocked to SoFi stadium for the World Cup, soccer wasn’t always a fan-favorite sport in the United States.

The sport’s rise to popularity began when the U.S. hosted its first World Cup in 1994. At that time, the men’s soccer team was virtually unknown.

Summer of ’94, a new documentary directed by Chad N. Walker and Dave LaMattina, chronicles the U.S. team’s unlikely run during their first home World Cup.

At a screening in LAist’s Crawford Family Forum Room, viewers got an early look at the film. LAist’s Libby Rainey later moderated a talkback with Alan Rothberg, the president of U.S. Soccer in the 1990s, and Chris Leggett and Amanda Farrand, both producers of the film.

LAist's Libby Rainey moderates a talkback with Alan Rothberg, Chris Leggett, and Amanda Farrand.

(

James Van Evers

/

LAist

)

An unlikely team and a wild-card coach

Rothberg recalled several of the team’s challenges, and also pointed to soccer’s low popularity as a spectator and player sport at the time of the World Cup.

He said that factored into his decision when choosing a wild-card coach, Velibor “Bora” Milutinović, to lead the 1994 team.

The Starting IX for the United States before a 1994 FIFA World Cup Round of 16 game between the United States and Brazil at Stanford Stadium in Palo Alto on July 4, 1994.

(

J.Brett Whitesell

/

Getty Images

)

Ernie Stewart celebrates with his team after the US scores the second goal during the USA match against Colombia in the 1994 World Cup.

(

Stephen Dunn

/

Getty Images

)

Rothberg said “there was a lot of pressure to hire an American coach” for the home team. But he said he “felt there was a necessity to have a coach with international experience.”

Milutinović also emerged as a centerpiece of the documentary, which the producers said they didn’t expect.

“We just started falling in love with Bora, and after one interview with him, where he started [...] coaching the directors, we were like, this guy is magic,” Farrand said.

Leggett said that players were able to better understand Milutinović’s strategy through the documentary. He said that during the interview process, “what was very obvious was [the players] were really digesting and getting to understand Bora as well.”

What happened to U.S. soccer after 1994? 

Rothberg said that since that World Cup, funding for U.S. soccer took off. The team’s performance, “enabled us to immediately follow up and create Major League Soccer,” he said.

At that time, the organization had a $50 million surplus, which Rothberg said they used to create a nonprofit for “underserved communities.”

In 1999, the U.S. hosted the Women’s World Cup in major stadiums.

Libby Rainey (L) and Alan Rothberg (R) speak at a screening in LAist’s Crawford Family Forum.

(

James Van Evers

/

LAist

)

“[FIFA] had so little confidence in the women's game at that time that they wanted us to play in small stadiums in the Northeast, and we persuaded them,” Rothberg recalled.

Now, Major League Soccer has invested over $11 billion in facilities and stadiums, and the U.S. is hosting the World Cup this summer, including eight matches in L.A.

Rothberg said that since that World Cup, public interest in soccer has only increased. Now, we might even be underselling how popular the sport is.

“Soccer has been underestimated to this day. It's still the number one participant sport in the country,” he said.

Farrand said the film sought to inspire not just future players, but also volunteer coaches.

“If we could use this moment and this movie to inspire former players and parents to lean into coaching, we could really make a difference,” she said.

She added that volunteer coaching is “an act of civic participation,” which she encouraged attendees to consider ahead of the U.S.’s 250th anniversary of independence.

Both Rothberg and Farrand pointed to the Women’s World Cup, which will be hosted by the U.S. in 2031, as the next landmark event.

You can find where to stream on the documentary's website.

GUADALAJARA, Mexico — Mexico took advantage of a defensive blunder by South Korea to win 1-0 and become the first team to advance to the knockout stage of the World Cup on Thursday.

It marks a major triumph for a team that failed to get out of the group stage in 2022 and now has won twice on home soil in front of jubilant crowds.

Luis Romo scored in the 50th minute after South Korea goalkeeper Kim Seung-gyu collided with defender Lee Gi-hyuk and dropped the ball inside the area. Romo easily found the open net after picking up the loose ball.

The South Koreans nearly equalized in the 87th minute when Mexico goalkeeper Raúl Rangel stopped a header from close range by Cho Gue-sung, then made an even better save on the rebound, extending his right arm to keep the ball from crossing the line.

Mexico has six points from two Group A matches, three more than South Korea and five more than the Czech Republic and South Africa, who drew 1-1 earlier Thursday in Atlanta.

The top two teams from each group move on to the knockout stage, along with the best eight third-place teams. A round of 32 is being played for the first time at the World Cup after the tournament was expanded to 48 teams.