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

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Trump admin proposes dramatic changes

    Topline:

    Access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth will be dramatically restricted by the Trump administration under new proposals by the Department of Health and Human Services.

    The proposals: NPR has obtained the draft text of a proposed rule that would prohibit federal Medicaid reimbursement for medical care provided to transgender patients younger than age 18. It also prohibits reimbursement through the Children's Health Insurance Program or CHIP for patients under age 19. An additional proposed rule would block all Medicaid and Medicare funding for any services at hospitals that provide pediatric gender-affirming care.

    What's next: The rules are being prepared for public release in early November, according to an employee at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In the states where the care is still legal, many clinics and hospitals have ended their programs for gender-affirming care. If these rules were to take effect, the remaining programs would likely follow suit. The care is already banned in 27 states.

    Go deeper: Trans kids in SoCal face more roadblocks in gender-affirming care following a summer of closures and restrictions

    Access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth will be dramatically restricted by the Trump administration under new proposals by the Department of Health and Human Services.

    NPR has obtained the draft text of a proposed rule that would prohibit federal Medicaid reimbursement for medical care provided to transgender patients younger than age 18. It also prohibits reimbursement through the Children's Health Insurance Program or CHIP for patients under age 19.

    An additional proposed rule would go even further, blocking all Medicaid and Medicare funding for any services at hospitals that provide pediatric gender-affirming care.

    The rules are being prepared for public release in early November, according to an employee at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The employee asked that NPR not use their name because they fear professional retribution for speaking to the media without authorization. An HHS spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment about the planned timing of the proposed rules' release.

    A near ban in all states

    Both supporters and opponents of transgender rights agree that, taken together, the forthcoming rules could make access to pediatric gender-affirming care across the country extremely difficult, if not impossible. The care is already banned in 27 states.

    "These rules would be a significant escalation in the Trump administration's attack on access to transgender health care," says Katie Keith, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at Georgetown University.

    "I think it's really, really important to note that nothing is changing immediately," she explains. "These would be proposals that would go out for public comment, it would take months for the Trump administration to issue a final rule, and then, if past is prologue, we would see litigation over whatever the final rules are."

    Administration goals

    In his first days in office, President Trump signed an executive order declaring that the United States "will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called 'transition' of a child from one sex to another."

    In the months since, HHS released a report critical of the research that supports access to this care. A federal suicide prevention lifeline specifically for transgender youth was cancelled, as were hundreds of millions of dollars in scientific research funding related to LGBTQ people. Federal health officials warned state Medicaid directors to tread carefully, and the Department of Justice announced subpoenas of some children's hospitals and threatened providers with prosecution.

    "I think these restrictions are very good," says Terry Schilling of the forthcoming rules. Schilling is president of the American Principles Project, a conservative advocacy group. "It's going to change the entire transgender industry, and it's going to take away a lot of their funding streams."

    He points to an opinion poll from the spring, which found 66% of the public opposes Medicaid coverage for this type of care for young people.

    "They believe that if you want to get some type of sex-trait modification procedure, you should have to pay for it," Schilling says. "The American people are fully behind this effort."

    Dramatic new expansion of power

    The proposal to condition a hospital's participation in Medicaid and Medicare on halting gender-affirming care for youth represents an "unprecedented" use of the executive branch's power to control what medical care is available in hospitals, says Keith.

    "Because Medicare is such a significant portion of many hospitals' revenue," she explains, the rule would essentially force hospitals to end their gender care programs for transgender youth. That would mean all of those programs' patients — whether they have Medicaid or private insurance — would lose access.

    This is not how the federal government normally uses this type of rule, Keith says. She served in the Biden administration on the Gender Policy Council, and worked on some "conditions of participation" regulations for Medicare and Medicaid, she says. "They're so basic — it's like, you have to have a crash cart [with] enough medicine to help a pregnant woman in crisis."

    Instead of health and safety standards, this proposal would instruct hospitals "to stop offering a certain type of care completely to a certain patient population," she says.

    Law professor Katie Eyer of Rutgers University questions whether such a rule would survive a court challenge. "But if it were successful, I shudder to think what this administration would do with such a tool in their hands," she says. It could open the door for any White House to withhold all federal funding from hospitals over the provision of medical care that it disfavors.

    "The writing has been on the wall that this has been coming," says Lindsey Dawson, director of LGBTQ Health Policy at KFF, a nonpartisan health research organization.

    Yet the timing of the release has been a mystery for months. Notice of both proposed rules — though not the rules themselves — appeared on a government register over the summer, and it's been unclear why they have yet to be released, Dawson says.

    'An obsessive focus'

    The administration's efforts on transgender issues stretch far beyond health policy and beyond youth. The Federal Trade Commission recently hosted a workshop "on unfair or deceptive trade practices in 'gender-affirming care' for minors." The military forced out transgender servicemembers. Universities have been told their federal funding is contingent on adopting anti-transgender policies on issues like bathroom access.

    Even the impending lapse in funding for food assistance, or SNAP, is linked to Democratic support for "gender mutilation procedures," according to a banner on the Department of Agriculture website.

    "It's endless," says Eyer. "It really has been an obsessive focus that's been deployed across the administration."

    The warning letters and cancelled grants and more have had a significant chilling effect. In the states where the care is still legal, many clinics and hospitals have ended their programs for gender-affirming care. If these rules were to take effect, the remaining programs would likely follow suit.

    "There are real people behind all this," says Eyer, who is also the parent of a transgender child. "People are really scared and suffering as a result of this onslaught of attacks on the trans community."

    It's still legal, although access is shrinking

    Gender-affirming care for youth — including puberty blocking medications, hormones, and rarely, surgery — does not actually violate federal law, Eyer notes. And, despite recent political pressure, no major U.S. medical organization has altered their clinical guidance that supports these treatments as appropriate and safe.

    Approximately 3% of youth in the U.S. identify as transgender or nonbinary, although not all of them seek medical treatment related to their identity.

    Notably, in Utah, a state-commissioned analysis of the evidence recently came to the opposite conclusion as the Trump administration's transgender report. University of Utah researchers found that there was ample evidence of benefits and safety for these treatments, and wrote that policy restrictions on this care for youth "cannot be justified based on the quantity or quality of medical science findings or concerns about potential regret in the future."

    The draft text of the proposed federal rule obtained by NPR does not mention the Utah analysis, nor does it cite the American Academy of Pediatrics, whose guidelines also support access to the care.

    In Eyer's view, the public release of these rules will offer the opportunity for them to be legally challenged.

    "It will be subject to 'arbitrary and capricious' review, and a court will presumably take a close look at the factual basis that actually underlies it," she says. "That is actually preferable to what we've had up until now, which is coercion without law."

    Diane Webber edited this story.

    Copyright 2025 NPR

  • Dodgers fans grapple with loyalty ahead of it
    A man with medium skin tone, wearing a blue Dodgers shirt, speaks into a microphone standing behind a podium next to others holding up signs that read "No repeat to White House. Legalization for all" and "Stand with you Dodger community." They all stand in front of a blue sign that reads "Welcome to Dodger Stadium."
    Jorge "Coqui" H. Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on Wednesady to demand the Dodgers not visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

    Topline:

    Less than 24 hours before season opener, longtime Dodgers fans demand the team divest from immigration detention centers and decline the White House visit.

    More details: More than 30 people joined Richard Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. “We are demanding that the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together we have the power to make a change.”

    The backstory: The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

    Read on ... for more on how some fans are feeling leading up to Opening Day.

    This story first appeared on The LA Local.

    Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

    “The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

    Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

    More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

    “We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

    Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

    Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

    A man with medium skin tone, wearing a blue Dodgers t-shirt, speaks into a microphone behind a podium.
    Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.
    (
    J.W. Hendricks
    /
    The LA Local
    )

    In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

    “They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

    Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

    The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

    In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

    The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

    When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

    “These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

    According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

    “I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

    The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

    Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

    “It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

  • Sponsored message
  • Warmer weather has caused more biting flies
    A zoomed in shot of a fuzzy black fly with some white spots.
    The warmer weather and high water flow are causing an early outbreak of black flies in the San Gabriel Valley.

    Topline:

    The warmer weather and high water flow are causing an early outbreak of black flies in the San Gabriel Valley, according to officials.

    What are black flies? Black flies are tiny, pesky insects that often get mistaken for mosquitoes. The biting flies breed near foothill communities like Altadena, Azusa, San Dimas and Glendora. They also thrive near flowing water.

    What you need to know: Black flies fly in large numbers and long distances. When they bite both humans and pets, they aim around the eyes and the neck. While the bites can be painful, they don’t transmit diseases in L.A. County.

    A population spike: Anais Medina Diaz, director of communications at the SGV Mosquito and Vector Control District, told LAist that at this time last year, surveillance traps had single-digit counts of adult black flies, but this year those traps are collecting counts above 500.

    So, why is the population growing? Diaz said the surge is unusual for this time of year.

    “We are experiencing them now because of the warmer temperatures we've been having,” Diaz said. “And of course, all the water that's going down through the river, we have a high flow of water that is not typical for this time of year.”

    What officials are doing: Officials say teams are identifying and treating public sources where black flies can thrive, but that many of these sites are influenced by natural or infrastructure conditions outside their control.

    How to protect yourself: Black flies can be hard to avoid outside in dense vegetation, but you can reduce the chance of a bite by:

    • Wearing loose-fitted clothing that covers the entire body. 
    • Wearing a hat with netting on top. 
    • Spraying on repellent, but check the label. For a repellent to be effective, it needs to have at least 15% DEET, the only active ingredient that works against black flies.
    • Turning off any water features like fountains for at least 24 hours, especially in foothill communities.

    See an uptick in black flies in your area? Here's how to report it

    SGV Mosquito and Vector Control District
    Submit a tip here
    You can also send a tip to district@sgvmosquito.org
    (626) 814-9466

    Greater Los Angeles Vector Control District
    Submit a service request here
    You can also send a service request to info@GLAmosquito.org
    (562) 944-9656

    Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control
    Submit a report here
    You can also send a report to ocvcd@ocvector.org
    (714) 971-2421 or (949) 654-2421

  • Rent hike to blame
    A black and brown dog lays down on a brown sofa on the foreground. In the background, a man wearing a plaid shirt sits.
    Jeremy Kaplan and Florence at READ Books in Eagle Rock.
    Topline:
    Local favorite mom and pop shop READ Books in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say they’re just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

    The backstory: Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and their shop dog Florence.

    What happened? The building where Kaplan and his wife Debbie rent was recently sold and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

    What's next? While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

    Read on... for what small businesses can do.

    A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

    Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

    Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

    “Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

    But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

    Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

    California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

    Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

    What can small businesses do? 

    Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

    Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

    “There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

    She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

    “We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

    Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

    What’s next 

    After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

    While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

    Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

    Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

    By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

    When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

    “It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

    “And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

  • Ballots to be sent out
    A person sits in the carriage of a crane and places solar panels atop a post. The crane is white, and the number 400 is printed on the carriage in red.
    A field team member of the Bureau of Street Lighting installs a solar-powered light in Filipinotown.

    Topline:

    The Los Angeles City Council approved a plan in a 13-1 vote on Tuesday to send ballots to more than half a million property owners asking if they are willing to pay more per year to fortify the city’s streetlight repair budget, most of which has essentially been frozen since the 1990s. The item still requires L.A. Mayor Karen Bass’ signature, but her office confirmed to LAist on Wednesday that she’ll approve it.

    Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

    Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

    Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote on Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

    Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

    How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

    Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired.The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.

    Topline:

    The Los Angeles City Council approved a plan in a 13-1 vote Tuesday to send ballots to more than a half-million property owners asking if they are willing to pay more per year to fortify the city’s streetlight repair budget, most of which essentially has been frozen since the 1990s. The item still requires L.A. Mayor Karen Bass’ signature, but her office confirmed to LAist on Wednesday that she’ll approve it.

    Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

    Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

    Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

    Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

    How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

    Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.