The Brief

Cynthia Williams is furious with U.S. House Republicans willing to slash Medicaid, the government-run insurance program for people with low incomes or disabilities.

The 61-year-old Anaheim resident cares for her adult daughter, who is blind, and for her sister, a military veteran with severe post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health conditions. Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid, pays Williams to care for them, and she relies on that income, just as her sister and daughter depend on her.

“Let’s be real. We shouldn’t have to be here tonight,” Williams told a raucous standing-room crowd of over 200 people at a recent town hall. “We should be home, spending time with our loved ones and our families, but we’re here. And we’re here to fight, because when politicians try to take away our healthcare, we don’t have the option to sit back and let it happen.”

The House last month approved a Republican budget plan that could shrink Medicaid spending by $880 billion over 10 years, only partially paying for an extension of expiring tax cuts from President Donald Trump’s first term, plus some new ones he has promised, totaling as much as $4.5 trillion.

A spending cut of that magnitude would have a huge impact in California, with nearly 15 million people — more than a third of the population — on Medi-Cal. Over 60% of Medi-Cal’s $161 billion budget comes from Washington.

Attendees applaud speakers during a Tustin town hall last month organized to protest potential cuts to Medicaid.

(

Jenna Schoenefeld

/

KFF Health News

)

Williams was among about a dozen providers, patient advocates, disabled people and family members who stood up one after the other to tell their stories. Rep. Young Kim, a Republican whose district includes this relatively affluent Orange County city, declined an invitation for her or a staff member to attend. But her constituents delivered their message loud and clear to her and the other Republicans in Congress: Hands off Medicaid.

Josephine Rios, a certified nursing assistant at a Kaiser Permanente surgical center in Irvine, said her 7-year-old grandson, Elijah, has received indispensable treatments through Medi-Cal, including a $5,000-a-month medication that controls his seizures, which can be life-threatening. Elijah, who has cerebral palsy, is among the more than 50% of California children covered by Medi-Cal.

“To cut Medicaid, Medi-Cal, that’s like saying he can’t live. He can’t thrive. He’s going to lie in bed and do nothing,” Rios said. “Who are they to judge who lives and who doesn’t?”

Josephine Rios, speaking at the Feb. 20 town hall in Tustin, worries about her grandson who has cerebral palsy and relies on Medi-Cal.

(

Jenna Schoenefeld

/

KFF Health News

)

Two-thirds of Californians across party lines oppose cuts to Medi-Cal, according to a new survey by the California Health Care Foundation and NORC at the University of Chicago.

The town hall here was one of three organized by Fight for Our Health, a coalition of health advocacy groups and unions, to target Republican House members whose California districts are considered politically competitive. The other two were in Bakersfield, part of which is represented by Rep. David Valadao, and Corona, home to Rep. Ken Calvert. Multiple other town halls and protests have sprung up across the country in recent weeks.

The coalition has reprised a campaign — part of a broader national movement — that fought against the GOP’s unsuccessful 2017 effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

The Republicans’ loss of House control in the 2018 midterm elections has been widely attributed to their stance on healthcare. Valadao was among the GOP members who lost their seats in 2018, though he took his back two years later.

Still, he voted for the House budget proposal last week, despite the fact that about two-thirds of the population in his district is on Medi-Cal — the highest in the state — and even though he is one of eight GOP House members who sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson warning about the “serious consequences” of deep cuts to Medicaid. Valadao’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Calvert, who’s been in the House for 32 years and eked out reelection last November, also voted for the budget, as did Kim. All nine GOP members of California’s congressional delegation supported it, as did all House Republicans except one.

A woman protests Medicaid cuts outside the Tustin town hall.

(

Jenna Schoenefeld

/

KFF Health News

)

Critics of the budget plan say it helps the rich at the expense of society’s most vulnerable — an argument that was vigorously repeated at the Tustin town hall. But supporters of the plan say that extending the tax cuts, key provisions of which are set to expire at the end of this year, would avoid a large tax hike for average Americans and benefit low-income families the most.

“American families are facing a massive tax increase unless Congress acts by the end of the year,” Calvert said in a statement to KFF Health News before the vote. He vowed the GOP would not touch Social Security or Medicare. He did not offer similar assurances on Medicaid, but said, “We are not interested in cutting the social and healthcare safety net for children, disabled and low-income Americans. We are focused on eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.”

The House budget proposal does not specify spending cut details, though it instructs the Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicaid and Medicare spending, to cut $880 billion — a large chunk of the up to $2 trillion in total cuts. The GOP’s razor-thin majority means Johnson will have a narrow path to get a more detailed budget passed. Republican support, whether from fiscal hawks who want deeper spending cuts or House members worried about slashing Medicaid, could ebb and flow as the details are hashed out.

Moreover, the House must reach a compromise with the Senate, which has passed a much narrower budget resolution that leaves the big tax cuts out for now.

Like Kim, Valadao and Calvert declined invitations to attend or send staffers to the town hall meetings in their regions. At the Tustin meeting, multiple speakers chided Kim for her absence. At one point, the large screen behind the podium flashed a picture of an empty chair with the words, in large block letters, “Congresswoman Kim, we saved you a seat.”

Kim spokesperson Callie Strock said in an email that Kim and her local staff had preexisting commitments that night. She added that Kim is “committed to protecting and strengthening our healthcare system.”

But those in attendance were clearly worried.

“It’s a moral obligation for all of us to look at the most disadvantaged people in our country and take good care of them,” said Beth Martinko, whose 33-year-old son, Josh, has autism and relies on Medi-Cal for his care. “This has no place in politics.”

President Donald Trump's long-anticipated executive order to loosen U.S. restrictions on marijuana promises to bring immediate relief for cannabis businesses — but only in some respects. And although rescheduling it as a lower-risk drug is touted as opening a new era for cannabis research, experts say it's not as simple as flipping a light switch.

"It's hard to see the big headlines of, 'Marijuana rescheduled to [Schedule] III; marijuana research will open,'" says Gillian Schauer, executive director of the nonpartisan Cannabis Regulators Association, which includes agencies from 46 states. "You know, those things are not true as of now."

That's because on its own, Trump's Dec. 18 order isn't enough to rewrite federal drug policy that has stood for more than 50 years.

"The Controlled Substances Act [of 1970] does not grant any president the authority to unilaterally reschedule a drug," Schauer says. Such changes are historically made through either a rulemaking process, or an act of Congress.

Many details will shape how the administration enacts Trump's order, affecting the timeline and scope for easing marijuana restrictions. But when it does happen, rescheduling won't automatically revoke federal laws targeting marijuana, and interstate marijuana commerce would remain illegal, Schauer says.

It's not yet known how other policies might change.

"We don't know what will happen to federal drug testing requirements," Schauer says, until agencies issue guidance.

Here's a rundown of other key questions raised by the rescheduling order:

The time frame depends on which path the DOJ takes

Trump's order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to "take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III" of the Controlled Substances Act "in the most expeditious manner in accordance with Federal law … "

The directive evokes the process that started under former President Joe Biden. Under his administration, both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Justice Department advanced a proposal to reclassify pot from Schedule I, meaning it has no medical use and a high potential for abuse, to the lower-risk Schedule III, which includes ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids.

The Trump administration could resume the process that was already underway under Biden. But the new executive order's mention of the Controlled Substances Act's Section 811 hints at a potential shortcut.

"That allows the attorney general to move a drug to whatever schedule they deem is best, without going through the usual steps that are needed to reschedule a drug," Schauer says.

The streamlined process was meant to ensure the U.S. can do things such as complying with international drug treaty obligations. But a historic precedent also links it to cannabis: In 2018, it was used to schedule the CBD epilepsy drug Epidiolex, months after it became the first U.S.-authorized purified medicine derived from marijuana. The drug was placed in Schedule V, the least restrictive schedule.

President Donald Trump displays an executive order reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug in the Oval Office on Dec. 18.

(

Evan Vucci

/

AP

)

Will the DOJ call for public comment?

The Trump administration's approach to administrative hearings and public comment periods would also help determine the pace of rescheduling.

"I would anticipate, if they use that [expedited] option, that we would not see a comment period," shortening the process, Schauer explains.

But rescheduling could take longer if the Justice Department follows the traditional, and lengthy, notice-and-comment process.

Again, Bondi has options that could speed things up. She could choose to issue a final rule after a public comment period, for instance, or do so without a comment period.

"Some of the calculation for that may be on the legal end," Schauer says. Noting that some anti-marijuana groups are vowing to file legal challenges to block rescheduling, she adds that the DOJ will likely have to balance Trump's call for expedience with the need to defend its actions in court.

If the rule is published for comment, interest would likely be intense: In 2024, the DEA's earlier proposed rescheduling rule for marijuana attracted more than 43,000 comments.

Cannabis firms would get tax relief, but credit cards remain forbidden

Sam Brill, CEO of Ascend Wellness Holdings, a multistate dispensary company, says rescheduling could bring a cascade of positive changes to his industry. But one benefit could come immediately, he says.

"The biggest thing that happens overnight is the 280E, the restrictive punitive tax code that is set on us," would no longer apply to marijuana businesses, he says.

Like other businesses, Brill's company is obligated to pay taxes on income. But because their core product is a Schedule I drug, the IRS says that under Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, they're blocked from claiming common tax deductions, exposing them to a higher effective tax rate.

Section 280E "does not allow us to basically deduct normal expenses that everyone else can deduct," Brill says. "I can't deduct the rent for my stores, the cost of my employees in those stores, my interest expense."

Brill says that some cannabis companies, including his, say 280E should not apply to them — but the IRS disagrees. As a result, Brill says, his company sets aside a large reserve fund in case the IRS comes after them.

"For 2024 alone, the value of this reserve" was about $38 million, Brill says, "which includes interest and penalties."

Brill hopes marijuana's changing status might also eventually lead to other restrictions falling, especially the inability of cannabis operations to accept credit cards. Most financial institutions refuse to provide basic banking services to state-authorized marijuana businesses, due to potential liability.

"The lack of the use of a credit card is really one of the biggest challenges for customers," he says. Citing the importance of payday, Brill says: "For us, Friday by far is the biggest day every single week because this is a cash business."

Medical research 

Scientists welcomed news in 2023 that the Biden administration was moving toward reclassifying marijuana, and Trump says his move will boost medical research. But both then and now, there are caveats.

One benefit of the new rules is that they wouldn't require marijuana researchers to go through the onerous process of obtaining a Schedule I license, and they would also ease rigorous laboratory regulations.

"You have very stringent requirements, for example, for storage and security and reporting all of these things," neuroscientist Staci Gruber, of McLean Hospital in Massachusetts and Harvard Medical School, told NPR last year.

But another obstacle promises to be more stubborn: finding marijuana to study. The U.S. requires researchers to obtain marijuana from a handful of sources, which is itself an improvement over decades in which they were compelled to use one facility based at the University of Mississippi.

And, as Schauer notes, federal rules about sourcing marijuana have been decided separately from the controlled substances schedule.

"This does a little to make research easier," Schauer says of the current rescheduling effort. "But there's a lot that will still be challenging in researching cannabis unless we see a lot of agency policies change and adjust."
Copyright 2025 NPR

Tortillas sold in California are going to have a new ingredient, one that’s intended to help nurture healthy infants.

Starting Jan. 1, a new law will take effect requiring most tortillas and corn masa products sold in the state to contain folic acid, a vitamin that’s important to infant health.

Latinas in California are far less likely than other women to get enough folic acid early in pregnancy — a gap that can lead to life-altering birth defects.

State data show that, between 2017 and 2019 – the latest years for which state data is available – about 28% of Latinas reported taking folic acid the month before becoming pregnant. White women took the vitamin at a higher rate, with 46% of them reporting consuming folic acid, according to the California Department of Public Health.

This puts Latinas at higher risk of having a baby born with neural tube defects — defects of the brain and spinal cord. Some examples of that are conditions like spina bifida and anencephaly.

Research has shown that folic acid can reduce birth defects by up to 70%. That’s why it’s found in prenatal vitamins. But because women may not find out they are pregnant until weeks or months after, public health has long recommended that folic acid also be added to staple foods.

In 1998, the U.S. required manufacturers to fortify certain grain products with folic acid, such as pasta, rice, and cereals, to help women of reproductive age get the necessary amounts. Since that rule took effect, the rate of babies born with neural tube defects dropped by about a third, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But even with the addition to these foods, birth defect rates among babies born to Latinas have been consistently higher. In search of a more culturally appropriate addition, in 2016, the federal government allowed makers of corn masa to add folic acid to their foods – but didn’t require it.

Joaquin Arambula, a Democrat from Fresno, who authored the law said leaving folic acid out of corn masa products, used in many Latino staple foods, was a “real oversight.”

Now, with the implementation of Assembly Bill 1830, California is the first state to require folic acid in corn masa products. The law requires manufacturers that do business in the state to add 0.7 milligrams of folic acid to every pound of flour and to list the addition in their nutrition labels. The law makes exemptions for small batch producers like restaurants and markets that might make their own tortillas from scratch.

Months after California’s law was signed, Alabama passed its own version. Its law goes into effect in June 2026.

Some large manufacturers have already been adding folic acid to their products for years. Gruma, the parent company of Mission Foods, said it started fortifying its foods back in 2016, when the federal government first allowed it. A company spokesperson said Gruma “has a longstanding commitment to supporting legislative fortification initiatives” and supports the new laws in California and Alabama.

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

A new year means a new parade of classic characters and works entering the public domain.

Under U.S. law, the copyright on thousands of creations from 1930 — including films, books, musical compositions and more — will expire at the stroke of midnight on Jan. 1, 2026, meaning they will be free to use, share and adapt after nearly a century.

"I think this is my favorite crop of works yet, which is saying a lot," says Jennifer Jenkins, the director of Duke University Law School's Center for the Study of the Public Domain, who has compiled an annual list of public domain entrants for over a decade.

This year's treasure trove features famous faces like the original Betty Boop — whose iconic hoop earrings originally took the form of floppy dog ears — and the initial version of Disney's Pluto, who first went by the name Rover.

"That's not only exciting in itself, but it's really an opportunity to look back at the history of these two incredible animation studios, Fleischer and Disney, and how their styles are imprinted in the DNA of today's cartoons," Jenkins says. "That's just a fun rabbit hole."

Literary highlights include William Faulkner's As I Lay Dying, the full version of Dashiell Hammett's The Maltese Falcon, Watty Piper's The Little Engine that Could, the first four books of the Nancy Drew detective series and The Murder at the Vicarage, Agatha Christie's first Miss Marple mystery.

The movie selection spans war stories, musicals, thrillers, Westerns, comedies and more, coming from directors including Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hughes and Salvador Dalí. Among them are All Quiet on the Western Front, Animal Crackers starring the Marx Brothers, 1931 best picture winner Cimarron, and two Marlene Dietrich films, Morocco and The Blue Angel.

Several movies on the list feature future stars in their early days: Bing Crosby's first feature-film appearance in King of Jazz, Greta Garbo's first talkie Anna Christie and The Big Trail, John Wayne's first leading role.

Notably, Jenkins says, the films on this year's list all predate the Hays Code, a set of self-imposed studio guidelines that banned subjects from profanity, violence and nudity to interracial relationships and "lustful kissing" in movies from 1934 to 1968.

The musical compositions include "Georgia on my Mind," "Dream a Little Dream of Me" and four songs by Ira and George Gershwin: "I Got Rhythm," "I've Got a Crush on You," "But Not for Me" and "Embraceable You." Among the artworks are Piet Mondrian's "Composition with Red, Blue and Yellow" and the Jules Rimet Cup by Abel Lafleur — the original trophy of the FIFA World Cup from 1930 to 1970.

Jenkins says her four-person team spent well over 80 hours poring through the archives to compile this year's list. Writing the online summary was another feat, one she says kept her busy from 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. over the course of two weeks.

But she thinks the crick in her neck is a small price to pay for shining a light on the value of public domain in "nurturing creativity and enabling access."

"What's really fun is that people are excited about it — people well beyond our world of copyright lawyers — especially when they start recognizing these works," she says. "And for me, one of the most exciting things is when you revisit a work that you loved in a different period of your life and get to look at it again."

The public domain unleashes new possibilities 

You may be wondering: Isn't there already a pretty famous Nancy Drew movie from 2007, and a cult-favorite Betty Boop musical on Broadway now?

Yes. But those productions had to get permission and pay money to adapt those characters at the time, Jenkins explains.

"What's different now is if you and me are really good at choreographing dance moves and writing lyrics for songs, we could make our own musical featuring Betty Boop 1.0 and we can go in whatever crazy directions we want," she says.

As a matter of fact, a Betty Boop horror movie is already in the works, following a string of 2025 scary movies starring villainous versions of the freshly non-copyrighted Peter Pan, Bambi and Popeye. Also, a Minnie Mouse slasher is due for release in 2026.

Not all adaptations have to be dark: Think West Side Story drawn from Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet, Percival Everett's reimagining of Huckleberry Finn in the 2024 book James and, of course, the Wizard of Oz-inspired Wicked movies.

And public domain isn't just good news for those who want to create art, but also for those who simply want to consume it.

"It goes well beyond creativity to availability, to preservation, to being able to use things freely in school," Jenkins explains.

For example, Jenkins says, books tend to become cheaper — and available in more editions — once they enter the public domain.

A lot of creative works from the 1930s haven't been in print for decades, and ownership questions have kept many from being available online at all — at least while they were under copyright.

"Publishing houses go out of business, people die, ownership changes hands," Jenkins adds. "I mean, who on Earth owns the copyright to those random works from … almost a century ago? And when they go into the public domain, you don't have to worry about that."

Another benefit is that third parties can now digitize old films and sound recordings that have physically deteriorated over the decades — allowing for their preservation and wider distribution.

Jenkins says that's especially exciting for teachers, who can make use of these resources for free at a time when school budgets are shrinking. And even those who are not regularly in a classroom can learn a lot from this sampling of works.

"Now we're all having these conversations with our chatbots and wondering what it means that we're reacting to artistic work or to words that are generated by a machine, it was just really striking to feel the humanity behind all these works from 1930," Jenkins says, explaining that they were all created by people living in the shadow of World War I.

While there are many unresolved questions around AI and intellectual property, Jenkins says one thing is clear: "Human authorship is a requisite for copyright." So if a bot writes your Boop musical, don't expect it to be protected.

Copyright 2025 NPR