By Sheila Yasmin Marikar, Bloomberg News

At Nashik International Airport, there are so many posters advertising vineyards and wine tastings, you could be forgiven for thinking you’ve landed in California’s wine country rather than India’s west, 100 miles north of Mumbai.

Yet in the past two decades, Indian wine production has, in fact, become a thing, and Nashik is its epicenter. The greater wine industry is taking notice: Sula Vineyards, India’s leading winemaker, won the gold medal for cabernet sauvignon from the Global Wine Masters last May, the highest honor an Indian bottling has received at that annual competition. A viognier from Grover Zampa, which has vineyards in Nashik as well as Bangalore, in India’s south, was named best of show at January’s Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America competition.

Beyond winning awards, Nashik is fueling a thirst for wine in a country where alcohol consumption is restrained and mostly limited to whiskey. Its recent successes are not only resonating with locals but also generating renewed interest in international travel to India and bringing a new audience to the region. Ten years after Chandon, part of the LVMH-owned Moët Hennessy portfolio, opened its first winery in Nashik, the brand’s president, Arnaud de Saignes, touts the region’s “potential to produce premium grape varieties” and calls India a “dynamic market,” “with a growing appreciation for high-quality wines.”

Why travelers should go

“The concept of wine in India doesn’t make sense, initially,” says Lisa Alam Shah, the director of Micato Safaris India, a luxury tour operator that’s arranged subcontinental adventures for the likes of Hillary Clinton and the Ambani family. Part of that, she says, is because India heavily taxes alcoholic beverages, which makes it difficult for residents to access quality wines and spirits made abroad.

But her clients are increasingly “looking for something new beyond the Taj Mahal and the palaces of Rajasthan.” So Shah has helped develop Micato’s new tour to Nashik, on offer since last year. “The word ‘authentic’ is overused, but that is what people want, whether they completely understand it or not,” she says. “Nashik, right now, feels quite authentic.”

The highway that leads from Mumbai to the vineyards is modern, but sections of it involve winding dirt roads and wayward cows. (It’s a good idea to hire a driver, as Micato does for its guests.) And while wine is central to the experience, it’s hardly the full extent of what to do there. This is a place to sample brut rosé and cabernet-shiraz and then take a sunset boat ride on the reservoir of Gangapur Dam, one of Asia’s largest. The region also houses Trimbakeshwar, a revered and architecturally significant shrine to Shiva that dates to 1755 and contains a special three-faced representation of the Hindu god, and the 2,000-year-old Pandav Leni Caves, once frequented by Buddhist monks.

The game changer

Chandon may be a name known around the world, but Sula Vineyards has put Nashik on the map for international wine lovers. Founded in 1999 by Rajeev Samant, a former Oracle engineer who returned home after quitting his Silicon Valley job, it produces more than 50% of the wine consumed in India.

Sula’s production is encyclopedic: It makes more than 70 labels, from a pineapple-y sparkling rosé to an oaky chardonnay to a tannin-thick cabernet sauvignon that could pass for something out of Napa. Sula’s Nashik tasting room— billed as India’s first when it opened in 2005 — features a bar that can easily accommodate 100, a gift shop filled with kitschy T-shirts (think: “Partners in Wine”) and a theater that plays a short movie about Sula’s rise.

Since 2010 it’s also operated a vineyard resort, the Source, which looks like a cross between a Spanish hacienda and a Tuscan villa — albeit with an intricately painted elephant sculpture in the lobby. Suites look out onto vineyards of chenin blanc and groves of queen of the night, intoxicatingly redolent when they blossom after dark. Instead of mimosas at breakfast, there’s a “build your own chai” bar and an accompanying “chaiwala,” which is essentially a mixologist but for tea. The rates start at about $100 per night.

“My dad was born in Nashik,” says Samant of his connection to the land. While attending Stanford University in the 1980s, he visited Napa Valley. A decade later, his father showed him a parcel of land he was thinking of selling. “It reminded me of California,” Samant says of the area’s verdant rolling hills and dirt roads. “I said, ‘I don’t think you should sell this. I‘m going to try to do something here.’”

Now more than 350,000 visitors pass through the tasting room each year — as of April, more than 331,774 have come through in 2025 alone. “The notable spike reflects the growing popularity of wine tourism in India,” says Sula representative Kinjal Mehta, as well as the fact that the cooler months are the most popular time to visit Nashik.

While the majority of visitors are domestic, Sula says that the share of international visitors is growing. On a recent Thursday evening, the tasting room was packed with swillers of all stripes, from sari-clad grandmothers to polo-shirt-wearing bros broadcasting big bachelor party energy. A sign hung near the cellar door bears a believable, albeit unverifiable claim to fame: “More people taste their first wine here than any other place in the world.”

A caveat of selling wine experiences to a new-to-wine market, however, is that the 30-minute tastings feel very Wine 101. “Don’t drink it like a shot,” one employee admonishes during my visit, dispensing sparkling rosé into proffered glasses, then clarifying that it’s not in fact made from roses. Around a horseshoe-shaped bar, heads reverently nod. Afterward, many guests head to an on-site pizzeria bustling with parents and kids, washing down slices of paneer-topped pies with jammy zinfandel. Instagram opportunities abound.

A wild west for world-class wines

Sula is not the only game in town. About a half-hour drive from the Source is Vallonné, a humble winery producing some of the best wines in the region, owned and operated by Sanket Gawand. A Nashik native, Gawand cut his teeth at wineries in Bordeaux, France, and Bologna, Italy, before opening his own outfit. He also serves as Vallonné’s winemaker and runs its tastings, which take place in the cellar amid stainless steel tanks. He manages a team of 10 that harvests nine lakefront vineyards by hand. Vallonné’s viognier and Anokhee cabernet sauvignon stand up to their French inspirations more so than any other wines sampled in Nashik this fall — in my opinion — but Gawand admittedly lacks the public-relations prowess of more popular neighbors like Sula.

“We’re not good at marketing,” he says, with an amiable shrug.

Maybe he doesn’t need to be. The four rooms at Vallonné’s upstairs inn — quaint furnishings, vineyard views, priced at about $70 per night — are consistently booked, and its restaurant serves what might be the best food in the region. The all-day menu, which is also available to walk-in guests, includes succulent lamb kebabs and toothsome Hakka noodles made all the better with a glass of Vallonné’s crisp chenin blanc.

Diamonds in the rough such as Vallonné are best reached with the help of a local guide like Manoj Jagtap, a Nashik native who began conducting tours 10 years ago under the moniker “The Wine Friend.”

“I’ve got a group of eight Aussies coming tomorrow,” Jagtap tells his charges — me, my mother and a family friend — midway through a recent day trip that included Vallonné, Chandon and Grover Zampa. “During the winter harvest season, it’s nonstop.”

When to go

Fall and winter are prime time for the region, and the success of the past season signals that planning for next year will be more essential than ever. Since 2008, Sulafest, a wine and music festival akin to Coachella, has brought about 20,000 visitors to Nashik every February. Hotels drive up their rates; locals sell yard space to day trippers in need of parking. It’s the marquee event for Sula Vineyards and Nashik as a whole.

“There is potential for India to produce far, far better wines,” says Gawand, who believes that he and his peers are just getting started. “Many Indians are traveling abroad,” tasting quality wines and returning home with an elevated thirst. “Once consumers start understanding quality, the winemakers here will be forced to level up.”

A sip of Vallonné’s 2016 cabernet sauvignon — rich, smooth and redolent of sun-ripened red fruit — suggests that India’s winemakers are well on their way. To his competitors, Gawand raises the proverbial glass.

“We are a dense population,” he says. “Even if there are another 1,000 wineries, everyone will be well. There is more than enough business to go around.”

©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By Alyssa Bereznak, Los Angeles Times

It was, of all things, a Reddit post that changed the trajectory of Casey Johnston’s life in 2013. Up until that point, her workouts and diet were informed by tips from magazines, radio and other media that promised she’d look good and stay fit if she watched her calories and kept up her cardio. But the post she stumbled upon, in which a woman shared results from her new weightlifting workout, seemed to contradict that advice.

“Here’s this person who’s doing everything the opposite of what I was doing,” Johnston said. “She wasn’t working out that much. She was eating a lot. Her workout seemed pretty simple and short and she was not trying to lose weight. But aesthetically, she looked smaller and more muscular. I though you could only make that change by working out more and more and by eating less.”

That was enough to plunge Johnston into an entire subculture of women who were trading the latest exercise trend for a barbell. When Johnston decided to follow in their path, she was not only surprised by how her body changed, but the mental shift that came along with it. That journey inspired her to create her long-running “She’s a Beast” newsletter, and more recently, a book.

“A Physical Education: How I Escaped Diet Culture and Gained the Power of Lifting,” (Hachette) charts Johnston’s transformation through weightlifting in captivating scientific and emotional detail, articulating the sneaky ways that gender can inform body image, and what women in particular can do to reclaim both their literal and figurative strength.

The Times spoke with Johnston, an L.A. resident, about how she braved the weightlifting gym as a beginner, her previous misconceptions about caloric intake and the way building muscle gave her the confidence to reshape other parts of her life.

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Your book describes the journey you took to make your body stronger alongside your own mental evolution. Why was it important for you to tell both of those stories?

There’s so much more interplay between our bodies and our minds and our personal backgrounds than we afford it in our day-to-day life. As I was getting more into health, I realized that I hate the way we talk about it. It’s a lot of shoving it into corners. Like, Oh, it should be easy. Just eat less, or just take the stairs instead of the escalator. The more I thought about it, I was like, these are big forces in my life: How I’ve been made to think about food, or made to think about exercise.

Let’s say you maybe you don’t like your bank, but how often do you deal with your physical bank location? Not that much, twice a year for me, maybe. But stuff like eating breakfast, or you’re supposed to work out a few times a week. These are everyday things. It’s like a cabinet that you have to open every day, but it’s broken. It’s worth trying to understand it and have a good relationship with it, because it’s something that you’re doing all of the time. We’re so, so used to shutting it down.

Because of that, I spent a lot of time digging into my own personal background, being like: Why do I think about food the way that I do, or exercise? I think that there’s an important aspect of accountability there too. You have somebody who’s telling you it’s easy, like, Just do X, Y, Z. Well, it’s not easy for me. Why is it easy for you? Those are valuable questions that people don’t ask, or are discouraged from asking. And then when it’s not easy for them, they just feel guilty that it’s not easy, and then they blame themselves. We are all bringing different stuff to this, so to show somebody what I’m bringing to it will help, hopefully help them think about: What are they bringing to it?

Your book talks about the belief system that dictated your exercising and dieting habits. Where did it come from?

Magazines, for whatever reason, played such a big role in my conception of how bodies work. But also TV and infomercials and Oprah and even radio.

I mentioned in the book a SELF magazine cover. There was a whole study about disordered eating in there, how prevalent it was. It was all the way in the back of the magazine. The conclusions of it were something like, three quarters of women have some form of self-chiding that they’re doing about, you know, oh, I ate too much. Or, I need to lose weight, or I hate the way my stomach looks. And that study was not on the cover of the magazine. Everything on the cover was about how to lose weight, how to eat fruit to lose weight, 26 tricks to fit in your bikini. I don’t remember what it was exactly, but that was the conversation. Even with awareness of things going on under the surface, it was still this overwhelming amount of messaging about it.

It was, of all things, a Reddit post that challenged these ideas for you. What did your subsequent research reveal to you?

There were a lot of posts like that. It was not just her, it was this whole subculture. There’s this middle ground of people who have this relationship with lifting weights that’s more normal than I thought it could ever be. I was used to people lifting weights who need to be extremely strong or extremely huge and muscular, because they’re bodybuilders. I had not really heard of anyone lifting weights if they weren’t trying to be one or both of those things. So I didn’t know that this was an available modality to me.

What are some misconceptions that you were harboring about muscles and caloric intake?

I had not been aware that by eating too little, you can deplete your muscle mass. Muscle mass is like the main driver of our metabolism. So the less muscle mass you have, the more you destroy through dieting. The lower your metabolism is, the harder it is to lose weight. Also, the longer you’ve been dieting, the lower your metabolism is going to be. So it becomes this vicious cycle of the more you diet, the harder it is to diet, and the less results — as they would say — you’re going to have.

I was like, O kay, that’s really bad. But you can also work that process in reverse. You can eat more and lift weights and build back your muscle, restore your metabolism. So I had been asking myself, W hy does it feel like I have to eat less and less in order to stay the same way? Am I just really bad at this? Am I eating more than I thought? And it was like, No, I’m not. I’m neither bad at this nor imagining it. It’s literally how things work.

It was very gratifying to find out, but then also a relief that I could undo what I had done. And the way to do it was by lifting and by eating more protein.

Muscles are protein, basically. So by lifting weights, you cause damage to your muscles. And after you’re done working out, your body goes in and repairs them with all the calories and protein that you eat, and repairs them a little bit better than they were the next time. And you could just do this every time you work out. That same cycle repeats. Your muscles grow back. You get stronger and you feel better.

People are really intimidated by gyms. Even more so when it comes to weightlifting in them. You pinpoint this feeling in your book when you describe the moment you realize you would have to “face the bros.” How were you able to overcome your fears in that department?

I wanted so much to see if this worked and how it worked, that I was able to get to the point of OK, I’m gonna give this a try and accept that I might be accosted in an uncomfortable way, or not know what I’m doing, and I will figure it out at some point. I was definitely very scared to go into [a weightlifting] gym, because it felt like the worst thing in the world to be in someone’s way, or be using the equipment wrong, or to be perceived at all.

But I was buoyed along by wanting to give all of this a chance, and I knew that I couldn’t give it a chance if I didn’t get in there. That doesn’t mean that I didn’t get in there and immediately was like, Oh, I’m too afraid to use the spot racks. There was an on-ramp.

But what I tell people now in my capacity as an advice-giver is you have to give yourself that space to get used to something. It’s like starting a new school or starting a new job. You don’t know where the pens are. You have to give yourself a few days to figure it out.

You’ve written so much in your newsletter about functional fitness and compound movements. Why is that so much more valuable than machine lifting?

Machines are designed to work usually a limited amount of muscles, or even one muscle at a time. And they do that by stabilizing the weight for you in this machine. You’re moving on a gliding track for almost everything you could do. When we are handling weights, loads of things, like a child, groceries, boxes of cat litter, bags of dog food, I hear often you’re not doing it on like a pneumatic hydraulic. Your body is wiggling all over the place if you’re not strong. So learning to stabilize your body against a weight is sort of an invisible part of the whole task. But that’s what a free weight allows you to learn: to both hold a heavy weight and move in a particular direction with it, like squat, up and down with it, but at the same time, your body is doing all this less visible work of keeping you upright, keeping you from falling over. And your body can’t learn that when a thing is like holding the weight in position for you while you just move it in this one very specific dimension.

One of the uniting themes of your book is this idea of fighting against your body versus trusting it. Would it be safe to say that you began your fitness journey in the former and landed in the latter?

I definitely started off fighting my body. I just thought that’s what you do with your body. All of the messaging we get, it’s like deep in our American culture, this Protestant denial of your physical self and hard work. If it’s not hard, you’re not doing it right. And I did make a transition from it being hard to listening to my body, trusting it. Just by learning that there was this different dynamic between food, working out and myself that I wasn’t aware of for most of my life.

And once I got into lifting, I learned that all of these things can work better together. But an integral part of it was: You can’t get into lifting without [asking], That rep that I just did — how did that feel? Was it too hard? Was it too easy? Was the weight too high? Is my form weird? I ate a little more yesterday … do I feel better in the gym?

Running had been about pushing down feelings in the way that I was accustomed to from my personal life. You’re pushing through, you’re feeling pain, but trying to ignore it and go faster and faster. It was a lot of like, You got to unplug and disconnect.

So lifting, the dynamic of lifting through asking how do things feel, refracted into the rest of my life. How does it feel when somebody doesn’t listen to you at work? Or your boyfriend argues with you at a party? Lifting opened me up to this question in general, of how things made me feel.

A lot of us are used to thinking of ourselves as your brain is this and your body is that. You are your brain and all of the horrible parts that are annoying and betray you are your body. But there’s so much interplay there. It’s like your body is the vector that tells you, and when you learn to ignore it, you don’t learn to really meaningfully understand your own feelings. I had learned in my life to ignore those signals. When lifting built up my sense of: How does my body feel when it does certain things? It opened up my awareness of the experience of: How does my body feel when bad things or good things happen in the rest of my life?

---

©2025 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By Ariana Arghandewal, Bankrate.com

Credit cards are widely accepted in most parts of the world, which is great for those who want to maximize rewards on their trips abroad. Not only do many cards offer generous rewards on travel spending, but they also provide convenience and an added layer of protection in case your trip doesn’t go as planned.

Using a credit card is better than using cash in most cases. However, you may still encounter issues when attempting to use your credit card abroad, so make sure to plan accordingly.

Can I use my credit card abroad?

In most cases, yes! The country you’re visiting may have different banks, but many of the payment networks common in the U.S. are widely accepted around the globe. Some credit cards, most commonly travel credit cards, even have no foreign transaction fees and earn rewards on specific purchases worldwide, such as restaurants. This helps you save money and earn more in rewards when you travel.

However, it’s important to know that while your card can be used abroad, it doesn’t mean it will always work. If your card is worn down or tends to be a little faulty at home, it can be just as finicky outside the country. Or if your credit card issuer is unaware that you’re traveling, they may assume your identity is stolen and decline your purchases. Some payment networks are also less common abroad. Luckily, there are workarounds to a few of the most common issues you may come across.

Bankrate tip

See Bankrate’s Travel Toolkit for tips and insights to boost your savings and maximize your travel.

How to make sure your credit card works abroad

A handful of factors may prevent your credit card from working overseas. Most of them have simple solutions and require just a bit of advance planning.

—Use a widely accepted issuer. Visa and Mastercard are the most widely accepted credit card payment networks worldwide. While American Express and Discover can come in handy in many situations, you may want to bring a backup Visa or Mastercard while traveling abroad, just in case.

—Use chip and PIN cards or a digital wallet. In many countries around the world, chip and personal identification number (PIN) cards are the norm. These cards use a microchip and PIN to validate transactions, instead of a cardholder’s signature. Rather than swiping the magnetic stripe through the card reader, consumers insert the card into the machine and enter the PIN associated with the chip. If you have a card with a chip in your wallet, set a PIN so you don’t run into trouble using it abroad.

Digital wallets are also becoming the norm for storing credit cards, debit cards, and even boarding passes for your flight. They often lead to faster, more secured payments with a lower risk of being lost or stolen. So, it may be beneficial to set one up and add your card. This way, you can keep the physical card tucked away as a backup.

—Notify your bank of your travel plans. If you’ve booked any part of your trip on your credit card, notifying your bank isn’t usually required. If you did not use your credit card for any bookings, then providing advance notice of your travel plans reduces the odds of your bank declining your transactions abroad. Knowing that you’ll be in Paris for a week, your bank is less likely to reject your purchases at patisseries. They’ll know your credit card isn’t compromised — you’re just being a tourist.

Is it worthwhile to use a credit card abroad?

Yes, using your credit card abroad provides security and convenience that cash does not. You’ll potentially earn rewards on every purchase, which you can save and redeem toward future travel experiences. The items you buy may also be covered by purchase protection, giving you extra peace of mind. More importantly, you won’t have to carry large amounts of cash and worry about the security risk it poses.

While you should bring some cash for smaller purchases or in a city where it’s the main form of payment accepted, a credit card provides stronger protection and other added benefits.

Are there fees for using a credit card abroad?

You’ll encounter two types of fees when using a credit card abroad — foreign transaction fees and merchant fees. Foreign transaction fees are around 3% and can be avoided since many travel rewards cards waive them.

Merchant fees can include surcharges or convenience fees for using your card. These fees help to offset the merchant’s processing costs and can vary from 3% to 8%. These fees help offset the costs of the added protection you receive from a credit card.

Unfortunately, there isn’t much consumers can do about these fees. You can either pay the fee, use cash or shop somewhere else to get around them. Still, there is a small way to save some money when using your card.

If a merchant asks whether you want to pay in U.S. dollars or the local currency, always opt for the local currency. Your credit card issuer is likely to give you a much better conversion rate than the local business owner will.

Also, always opt out of dynamic currency conversion, which allows cardholders to handle transactions in their home currency when shopping or taking money from an ATM. While you may be able to know the actual price of your purchase, the additional fee often makes the purchase higher than it would be otherwise.

The bottom line

What you pack in your wallet matters as much as what you put in your carry-on when you travel abroad. You’ll want to bring one or more credit cards with a widely accepted payment network. Even better, bring one that offers purchase and travel protection, generous rewards and travel perks. You may encounter a few issues when using a credit card to pay for purchases, but there are workarounds. By following safe use practices, you won’t have to carry large sums of cash or worry about your transactions getting declined.

©2025 Bankrate.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By Melissa Nann Burke, The Detroit News

Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard pressed lawmakers on Capitol Hill this month to grant state and local law enforcement the authority to disable drones when they pose a threat to the public or are operating illegally.

Bouchard and U.S. Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Bruce Township, recently spoke with The Detroit News about the issue. Bouchard lamented that U.S. lawmakers haven’t taken action despite widespread reports of mysterious drones in New Jersey and other communities last year and the safety risks that unmanned aircraft may pose to airports and large public gatherings like concerts and football games.

Opponents have raised concerns about the change infringing on First Amendment and civil liberties protections, government surveillance and property rights.

McClain’s office said she’s having conversations about potential legislation to address the drone issue.

In the Senate, Sen. Gary Peters, D-Bloomfield Township, has pushed bipartisan legislation for the last two sessions of Congress that would grant the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice and local law enforcement more authority to combat potential threats posed by drones.

The Safeguarding the Homeland from the Threats Posed by Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act would allow DHS and DOJ to disable drones determined to pose a security risk. The legislation would also establish a pilot program that allows state and local law enforcement to help mitigate an urgent drone threat, according to a bill summary.

The bill, which hasn’t passed Congress, also would allow critical infrastructure owners and operators — like stadium operators — to detect, identify and track a drone threat so they can report it to state and local law enforcement for further investigation.

The following partial transcript has been edited for clarity.

Question: Sheriff, what are you talking about with the chairwoman this week and the other lawmakers that you’re visiting (in Washington, D.C.)?

Bouchard: First and foremost, it is because of Police Week. We’re very connected to that on lots of levels, but especially because we had Deputy Bradley Reckling ambushed and murdered less than a year ago.

This week is dedicated to not just police officers in general, but today is Police Memorial Day, so it’s especially heartbreaking. I was with his widow a number of times. I was with her last night ― four kids under the age of 7. We’re talking about the risk that our people face day in day out.

I’m reiterating that to the members (of Congress) that I meet with that we need their support to lift up families that are hurting, but also to support the ones that are going on every day to face the same threats.

The Michigan state trooper that was shot multiple times recently was trailing a car that my same auto-theft team was on when (Reckling) was murdered. They had been trailing it the night before. So that could have been the very same unit in a shootout less than a year later. Thankfully, the trooper wasn’t killed, but that could have been a dead trooper or could have been one of my deputies on the same team. …

I’m part of the Joint Terrorism Task Force: You saw that an individual wanted to commit a terrorist attack on behalf of ISIS in Warren, and he wanted to use drones?

Q: That was front-page news. … He launched a drone to try to carry out an attack at the Army’s TACOM (Tank-Automotive & Armaments Command) facility.

McClain: But talk about the drone issue, because that’s really what we in Congress need to do a better job of. And this is where I appreciate the relationship and the partnership that I have with Sheriff Bouchard ― he is not afraid to call me and tell me what he needs, what he’s dealing with, and the resources that he needs. And it’s our job to legislate.

We need to have a paradigm shift up here in D.C. We need to fund the police, and we need to make sure that we respect them, but also give them the resources they need, whether it’s for mental health, whether it’s for drones, whether it’s for retirement. They put their lives on the line, day in and day out, to make sure that they have our backs. I think the least we can do is make sure we have theirs.

And I appreciate the relationship, because he will call and advocate ― very sternly, I might add.

Bouchard: That attack (in Warren) in particular was going to be kicked off with a drone, right? And we have been banging the drum very loudly about the threats of drones, and it’s not a case of if but when. It’s going to happen here.

We’ve seen it operationally already ― dropping weapons and contraband into prisons and jails. It’s almost a regular thing now, but we have no ability to intervene. We’ve seen it used as weapons all over the world ― Ukraine, Israel ― with great effect. But even closer, Mexican cartels attacked a Mexican general’s convoy and blew it up with drones.

You can buy these things off the shelf and weaponize them very cheaply.

Q: What are you asking Congress to do?

Bouchard: Give us the authority to intervene that they have held only to federal agencies.

So for example, you have certain events. They’re called SEAR events, or national security events: The Republican National Convention, Democratic National Convention, the Super Bowl, things like that. It gets a supreme level of security and safety, including air restrictions, and it also gets counter-drone capability.

So my drone unit managed, with the federal government, the air operations over the NFL Draft when it was in Detroit last year. But the feds are the only ones that have the ability to take intervention action against a hostile or even a bad hobbyist that doesn’t understand that they could cause a very big problem. We don’t have the authority to do that, and there’s only a very limited number ― typically about two teams that are operating anywhere in the country ― that can do those kinds of things.

So my worst nightmare is, you know, we have the Dream Cruise every year: 1.3 million people in a 13-mile stretch. We run drone and counter drone and crude aircraft and air assets during it. Last year, we had like 96 interventions in our airspace over the Dream Cruise that were illegal.

McClain: And they can’t do anything.

Bouchard: We can’t do anything about it. Other than we can see the drone on our drone-detection systems that we already have. We can see where the operator launched from, but we don’t have the systems to intervene ―

McClain: Or the authority really, to intervene, right?

Bouchard: And three of those went past my crude aircraft to 1,480 feet. Had that hit the cockpit of our helicopter, you’d have a catastrophic crash over the Dream Cruise into the crowd. And it was not by intervention that didn’t happen, it was by luck. We can’t survive on luck in my world.

If you look at the California wildfires, they had a plane that was distributing water and putting out fires that was pierced by a hobbyist drone and had to make an emergency landing. It took it out of commission. And we’ve got records of Life Flights that can’t land because drone operators are curious what’s going on.

All we’re asking for is pretty simple: Allow us, local and state law enforcement, to have the same authority that the federal government has to intervene when a drone is operating illegally and or is an immediate threat to the public. Those are the only circumstances we want to intervene. That’s all we’re asking for.

Q: Which federal agencies are opposed to this?

Bouchard: It has to come from Congress. The federal agencies support us. DHS and I did a press conference three years ago. They said they want us to have it. And the best we’ve gotten so far is a proposal to do a pilot in five sites in the country. Well, a pilot is going to be, what, three years, and then by the time you’re talking seven years out. The threat’s today.

McClain: Congress definitely needs to act on this. There is no question in my mind that we need to do that. We need to act on it.

My frustration is nothing moves quick, and my frustration is instead of being proactive or preemptive, what’s going to happen is we’re going to have a tragedy happen, and then all of a sudden, we’re going to end up over-regulating this, when, if we just did our job, we could do this now.

The problem gets into First Amendment rights. … I mean, I’m all for First Amendment rights. I’m all for the property rights. I’m all for that. But at the end of the day, if there’s a threat, I want my local police officers to be able to protect me and the 1.3 million people that are in a 13-mile radius to keep us safe. I think if the public knew how dangerous it was, they would be lobbying us a lot more to take care of this.

Q: Where is your bill on this? Is it in committee?

McClain: We’ve had a couple bills on it, but it gets stalled because they get hung up on one little thing.

And remember, you got to have 60 votes in the Senate, and we have a whole pocket of people that aren’t real pro-law enforcement. It’s not me, and it’s not a lot of my colleagues, but they’re out there. So we got to make sure that we raise awareness to this. … It’s a very important subject that the sheriff and I have been working on.

Bouchard: It’s one of the issues that Police Week kind of gives us a chance to talk about it. What are the threats we see and what are the ways that the federal government, in particular Congress, can help us face those? Some of it, it’s not money. It’s partnership or authorization or integration of effort, things like that.

Q: In the Senate, Gary Peters is on the Homeland Security Committee. He used to be the committee’s chair, and he has an interest in this drone issue and a bill on this.

Bouchard: Yeah, we supported his bill. And the senator who kind of tied things up was (Kentucky Republican Sen.) Rand Paul, which makes our leap a little harder. (Paul is now the committee chair.)

I think a lot of it is some of the members are so busy, they don’t take the moment to sit down and listen to somebody that’s actually on the ground doing the job. It’s very different to imagine than it is to operate. And the concerns about civil liberties or spying or First Amendment, they vanish when we tell them how it’s utilized.

It’s not utilized to spy or to do surveillance because battery life, No. 1, is very small. If you’re going to do surveillance, you’re going to do it from a high-altitude, crewed aircraft that has loiter capability. If you’re swapping batteries every 15 to 20 minutes, and the law requires us, like anybody else, to be 400 feet or below ― that’s visible, and it can even be heard most of the time. So it’s not a surveillance tool. We use it for emergencies or to keep an eye on a situation as it develops.

The second thing is intervention would only come when the drone is a danger or it’s breaking the law. People say, ‘What if it’s being used to monitor the police?’ We don’t care. We’re the most monitored profession on the planet. We have body cameras. We have dash cameras.

McClain: Everybody’s out there with their cellphone.

Bouchard: Everybody’s got a cellphone. There’s cameras on every corner. That’s not our concern. If we’re doing something wrong, we own it and have to fix it, and we should be held accountable. We get that.

But the drone would never be interfered with because you’re watching us. It would only be interfered with if it was breaking the law or was an immediate threat. That’s it. The other misnomer is that, well, what if you’re going to intercept the video feed? There’s no technology to do that. That’s not why we would intervene. And why do we need your feed if we have our own air assets?

Q: Wasn’t there a Green Day concert last year at Comerica Park where drones were an issue?

Bouchard: There were two events in Michigan where they rushed people off the stage, and people panicked, because of a drone. Thankfully, it was not an adversary but a hobbyist that did stupid things. So far, we’ve been lucky, because they’ve been people that are either uneducated about the law or don’t care. But they’re not adversarial.

Take, for example, President Trump’s assassination attempt last summer. We did a lot of the drone detection and drone work around the (presidential candidate) visits to Michigan, because we have one of the most advanced air capabilities in the country.

That individual flew a drone for pre-op surveillance of where the president was going to speak and probably determined the line-of-sight location that he chose to shoot from. What if instead, he did a pre-op surveillance with that drone and geo-marked that stage and then went back a half a mile or a mile, and waited for the president to take the stage, as he could see on live TV, and launched a drone that was explosive-bearing right to the stage?

These are all things I wake up in the night going, this is not if, it’s when, and we need to do something. And you can take it to everyday examples: UM and Michigan Stadium and Spartan Stadium, Comerica Park are having games every day.

And if you have these new pilot programs ― pick which one of the three you want to be at. You only get one.

By Breana Noble, The Detroit News

Hundreds of used vehicles rolled through the auction aisles of Manheim Detroit on Thursday as dealers in person and online scrambled to make their bids to shore up inventories in anticipation of price increases.

Average used vehicle list prices are up slightly year-over-year at $25,547, according to Cox Automotive Inc., a dealer digital services provider that owns Manheim and its 79 U.S. auction sites, which handle more than 7 million vehicles per year. The increase represents a reversal as used prices had fallen over the past couple of years after hitting a peak during the pandemic. But President Donald Trump’s tariffs have spooked buyers, prompting a surge in new and used vehicle purchases with consumers hoping to get ahead of larger price increases.

“We’re trying to get caution out there, but we’re not trying to spread any kind of concern that there’s a collapse coming,” said Charlie Chesbrough, a senior economist at Cox, which is forecasting a 1% increase in used vehicle sales in 2025 compared to last year. “It’s just going to be a challenging couple of months here over the summer.”

The Manheim Used Vehicle Value Index that assesses the wholesale prices of used vehicles at Manheim auctions reversed course in April after declining in February and March. It spiked 2.7% month-over-month compared to a typical monthly movement of about 0.3%, as prices rose almost 5% on average. The frenzy has slowed a bit since April with the index falling 1.1% in a mid-May report shared this week. But the index still remains 4.4% higher than it was a year ago.

It typically takes four to six weeks before changes at auction are reflected in retail transactions, Chesbrough said: “Our expectation is over the course of the summer, those prices are going to rise even more quickly.”

In Carleton on Thursday morning, auctioneers rambled 250 to 400 words per minute to secure bids within 1 minute from dealers across the country for used vehicles from automakers like Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co., rental car companies, banks and other dealers. About 72% of Manheim’s vehicle sales are done online.

Established in 1992, the 250-acre Manheim Detroit has three sales days per week for licensed dealers. Whether a company vehicle, a trade-in, a repossession or a fleet retirement, 1,800 vehicles or more hit the block each of those days. Vehicles sell anywhere from $200 to salvage dealers to $450,000 for a Lamborghini recently. Most vehicles passing through are about three years old.

“Every car will sell,” said Keith Winningham, assistant general manager at Manheim Detroit. “It may not be today. Maybe it’s next week. The market’s constantly changing.”

Manheim Detroit is unique because of the business it does with manufacturers and the Canadian dealers that sell in its auction. Despite tariffs and trade tensions between the United States and Canada, sales from Canadian dealers are up this year, said Noel Kitsch, general manager of Manheim Detroit Market Center.

Most vehicles sold in Canada are made in the United States (designated by their vehicle identification numbers beginning with a one, four or five). Those can return to the United States tariff-free, Kitsch said, while more Canadian- and Mexican-built vehicles are staying in Canada because of Trump’s 25% auto tariff.

“They started adjusting in October,” Kitsch said about the Canadian sellers. “We have not seen a decrease in Canadian vehicles. As a matter of fact, we’re up year over year in Canadian sales in the Michigan area.”

High interest rates, improved new-vehicle inventories and inflation on other goods contributed to falling used vehicle prices over the past couple of years. The spring usually sees an increase in demand with tax returns hitting consumer pockets, Chesbrough said, and prices have stayed high.

“The used vehicle market is still looking very, very strong in terms of sales out there,” he said. “But the inventory has been drawn down, and that’s creating a situation where the inventory is lean on dealer lots, and they’re going to be less likely to make a deal, because their sales have been going quite well, and their existing inventory is now worth more money, because they know the incoming replacement inventory is going to cost a little bit more.”

Days of used-vehicle supply nationwide is in the 40s, he said, which is down about 20% from recent weeks.

More than a third — 34% — of Americans plan to buy a car in the next 12 months, the highest since 2023, according to auto lender Santander Consumer USA’s Paths to Prosperity survey. Some have pulled ahead those purchases in anticipation of increased prices, said Betty Jotanovic, the lender’s president of auto relationships.

But this comes as auto loan delinquency rates have returned to pre-COVID levels. Default rates remain below the norm, but it’s an indication of consumer economic stress, Jotanovic said.

“The consumer is getting behind on their payments,” she said, “but still prioritizing the auto loan over their mortgage or credit card.”

Adding in the uncertainty around tariffs, buyers may adjust their purchases, Jotanovic said: “You’re going to see a shift where maybe your typical new buyer goes to a one- or two-year-old used car, or maybe that one- or two-year-old used buyer goes to a three- or four-year-old used vehicle.”

Fewer younger vehicles are returning to dealer lots in 2025. A sharp drop in leasing through 2022 and 2023 amid a microchip shortage and other supply-chain disruptions, Ivan Drury, director of insights for auto information website Edmunds.com Inc., wrote in a report released Thursday.

In the first three months of 2025, the average sales price of a three-year-old used vehicle surpassed $30,000 for the first time since the second quarter of 2023.

“Due to unexpected market swings,” Drury wrote, “3-year-old lease-return values are coming in higher than automakers originally forecasted — offering some drivers unexpected trade-in advantages.”

That’s incentive for vehicle sellers to send their inventory to auction, and it’s keeping the 320 Manheim Detroit employees busy. The facility has a mechanic shop, a body shop to repair dented and scratched panels, and a paint shop able to spruce up as many as 50 vehicles per day. Manheim inspects about 150 vehicles to grant AAA certification daily.

“If there’s heavy collision on a vehicle, most of those assets are going to be sold as is,” Winningham said. “Most of what we do are cosmetic repairs. If a dealer is out in the lanes, and they’re looking at the car, and the bumper is scratched, it’s got a dent in the door, he’s got to calculate in his head what he’s got to spend on that car No. 1. No. 2, he has to get it repaired. Most body shops at most dealerships are very, very busy. And for him to have to get that into a shop and get it sold takes time. Obviously when they buy a car, the whole concept is to sell it as quickly as possible.”

Ninety-five percent of auctioned vehicles here are detailed on-site. Fixed imaging tunnels leverage 44 cameras and artificial intelligence to help identify damage on the vehicles and pick the best dozen of 2,000 photos captured as the vehicle travels under 10 mph through the tunnel. The chosen images are uploaded within minutes to Manheim’s website for dealers to check out.

Vehicles on average spend less than 30 days at Manheim before heading to a buyer. If a vehicle doesn’t sell, it might go to an auction next week or at another location. Certain electric vehicles stick around longer because of lower demand and to balance out losses for the seller, Kitsch said.

Whether buying at auction or from a trade-in, dealers like Walt Tutak, general manager at Matthew Hargreaves Chevrolet in Royal Oak, have upped their supply of used vehicles. Tutak is at 200 vehicles and could increase his stock to 225, up from a typical 150, in anticipation of tariffs affecting new-vehicle inventories.

“It hasn’t affected (demand) for used cars,” Tutak said about tariffs. “But we need to pay our bills one way or another. If inventories are going to get lowered, we want to be covered selling used cars.”

Tutak isn’t the only one thinking like that, and he recognized that used car prices are going up. But he said he’s willing to compromise on margins per vehicle if he’s selling more of them, he noted, seeing it as a long-term investment in the business.

“They’re going to come back to our dealership,” he said, “and tell friends and family and come to our service department and body shop and parts department. It’s a snowball effect.”

By Jackie Fortiér and Arthur Allen, KFF Health News

In the dim basement of a Salt Lake City pharmacy, hundreds of amber-colored plastic pill bottles sit stacked in rows, one man’s defensive wall in a tariff war.

Independent pharmacist Benjamin Jolley and his colleagues worry that the tariffs, aimed at bringing drug production to the United States, could instead drive companies out of business while raising prices and creating more of the drug shortages that have plagued American patients for several years.

Jolley bought six months’ worth of the most expensive large bottles, hoping to shield his business from the 10% across-the-board tariffs on imported goods that President Donald Trump announced April 2. Now with threats of additional tariffs targeting pharmaceuticals, Jolley worries that costs will soar for the medications that will fill those bottles.

In principle, Jolley said, using tariffs to push manufacturing from China and India to the U.S. makes sense. In the event of war, China could quickly stop all exports to the United States.

“I understand the rationale for tariffs. I’m not sure that we’re gonna do it the right way,” Jolley said. “And I am definitely sure that it’s going to raise the price that I pay my suppliers.”

Squeezed by insurers and middlemen, independent pharmacists such as Jolley find themselves on the front lines of a tariff storm. Nearly everyone down the line — drugmakers, pharmacies, wholesalers, and middlemen — opposes most tariffs.

Slashing drug imports could trigger widespread shortages, experts said, because of America’s dependence on Chinese- and Indian-made chemical ingredients, which form the critical building blocks of many medicines. Industry officials caution that steep tariffs on raw materials and finished pharmaceuticals could make drugs more expensive.

“Big ships don’t change course overnight,” said Robin Feldman, a UC Law San Francisco professor who writes about prescription drug issues. “Even if companies pledge to bring manufacturing home, it will take time to get them up and running. The key will be to avoid damage to industry and pain to consumers in the process.”

Trump on April 8 said he would soon announce “a major tariff on pharmaceuticals,” which have been largely tariff-free in the U.S. for 30 years.

“When they hear that, they will leave China,” he said. The U.S. imported $213 billion worth of medicines in 2024 — from China but also India, Europe, and other areas.

Trump’s statement sent drugmakers scrambling to figure out whether he was serious, and whether some tariffs would be levied more narrowly, since many parts of the U.S. drug supply chain are fragile, drug shortages are common, and upheaval at the FDA leaves questions about whether its staffing is adequate to inspect factories, where quality problems can lead to supply chain crises.

On May 12, Trump signed an executive order asking drugmakers to bring down the prices Americans pay for prescriptions, to put them in line with prices in other countries.

Meanwhile, pharmacists predict even the 10% tariffs Trump has demanded will hurt: Jolley said a potential increase of up to 30 cents a vial is not a king’s ransom, but it adds up when you’re a small pharmacy that fills 50,000 prescriptions a year.

“The one word that I would say right now to describe tariffs is ‘uncertainty,’” said Scott Pace, a pharmacist and owner of Kavanaugh Pharmacy in Little Rock, Arkansas.

To weather price fluctuations, Pace stocked up on the drugs his pharmacy dispenses most.

“I’ve identified the top 200 generics in my store, and I have basically put 90 days’ worth of those on the shelf just as a starting point,” he said. “Those are the diabetes drugs, the blood pressure medicines, the antibiotics — those things that I know folks will be sicker without.”

Pace said tariffs could be the death knell for the many independent pharmacies that exist on “razor-thin margins” — unless reimbursements rise to keep up with higher costs.

Unlike other retailers, pharmacies can’t pass along such costs to patients. Their payments are set by health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers largely owned by insurance conglomerates, who act as middlemen between drug manufacturers and purchasers.

Neal Smoller, who employs 15 people at his Village Apothecary in Woodstock, New York, is not optimistic.

“It’s not like they’re gonna go back and say, well, here’s your 10% bump because of the 10% tariff,” he said. “Costs are gonna go up and then the sluggish responses from the PBMs — they’re going to lead us to lose more money at a faster rate than we already are.”

Smoller, who said he has built a niche selling vitamins and supplements, fears that FDA firings will mean fewer federal inspections and safety checks.

“I worry that our pharmaceutical industry becomes like our supplement industry, where it’s the wild West,” he said.

Narrowly focused tariffs might work in some cases, said Marta Wosińska, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center on Health Policy. For example, while drug manufacturing plants can cost $1 billion and take three to five years to set up, it would be relatively cheap to build a syringe factory — a business American manufacturers abandoned during the covid-19 pandemic because China was dumping its products here, Wosińska said.

It’s not surprising that giants such as Novartis and Eli Lilly have promised Trump they’ll invest billions in U.S. plants, she said, since much of their final drug product is made here or in Europe, where governments negotiate drug prices. The industry is using Trump’s tariff saber-rattling as leverage; in an April 11 letter, 32 drug companies demanded European governments pay them more or face an exodus to the United States.

Brandon Daniels, CEO of supply chain company Exiger, is bullish on tariffs. He thinks they could help bring some chemical manufacturing back to the U.S., which, when coupled with increased use of automation, would reduce the labor advantages of China and India.

“You’ve got real estate in North Texas that’s cheaper than real estate in Shenzhen,” he said at an economic conference April 25 in Washington, referring to a major Chinese chemical manufacturing center.

But Wosińska said no amount of tariffs will compel makers of generic drugs, responsible for 90% of U.S. prescriptions, to build new factories in the U.S. Payment structures and competition would make it economic suicide, she said.

Several U.S. generics firms have declared bankruptcy or closed U.S. factories over the past decade, said John Murphy, CEO of the Association for Accessible Medicines, the generics trade group. Reversing that trend won’t be easy and tariffs won’t do it, he said.

“There’s not a magic level of tariffs that magically incentivizes them to come into the U.S.,” he said. “There is no room to make a billion-dollar investment in a domestic facility if you’re going to lose money on every dose you sell in the U.S. market.”

His group has tried to explain these complexities to Trump officials, and hopes word is getting through. “We’re not PhRMA,” Murphy said, referring to the powerful trade group primarily representing makers of brand-name drugs. “I don’t have the resources to go to Mar-a-Lago to talk to the president myself.”

Many of the active ingredients in American drugs are imported. Fresenius Kabi, a German company with facilities in eight U.S. states to produce or distribute sterile injectables — vital hospital drugs for cancer and other conditions — complained in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer that tariffs on these raw materials could paradoxically lead some companies to move finished product manufacturing overseas.

Fresenius Kabi also makes biosimilars, the generic forms of expensive biologic drugs such as Humira and Stelara. The United States is typically the last developed country where biosimilars appear on the market because of patent laws.

Tariffs on biosimilars coming from overseas — where Fresenius makes such drugs — would further incentivize U.S. use of more expensive brand-name biologics, the March 11 letter said. Biosimilars, which can cost a tenth of the original drug’s price, launch on average 3-4 years later in the U.S. than in Canada or Europe.

In addition to getting cheaper knockoff drugs faster, European countries also pay far less than the United States for brand-name products. Paradoxically, Murphy said, those same countries pay more for generics.

European governments tend to establish more stable contracts with makers of generics, while in the United States, “rabid competition” drives down prices to the point at which a manufacturer “maybe scrimps on product quality,” said John Barkett, a White House Domestic Policy Council member in the Biden administration.

As a result, Wosińska said, “without exemptions or other measures put in place, I really worry about tariffs causing drug shortages.”

Smoller, the New York pharmacist, doesn’t see any upside to tariffs.

“How do I solve the problem of caring for my community,” he said, “but not being subject to the emotional roller coaster that is dispensing hundreds of prescriptions a day and watching every single one of them be a loss or 12 cents profit?”

---

©2025 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By Robbie Sequeira, Stateline.org

In the wake of President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to reinstate “common sense” school discipline, more states may follow and expand the authority of teachers and school officials to deal with disruptive students.

The order, signed in April, repeals prior federal guidance that encouraged schools to address racial disparities in discipline, arguing that such policies promoted “discriminatory equity ideology” and compromised school safety by pressuring administrators to underreport serious student misconduct.

In some states, new legislation already is trending toward giving teachers more authority to address student misbehavior.

In West Virginia, for example, a new law creates a structured process for responding to violent, threatening or disruptive behavior among students in grades K-6.

Under the law, a student exhibiting such behavior can be immediately removed from class, evaluated by counselors or behavioral specialists and placed on an individualized behavior plan. If there’s no improvement after two rounds of intervention, the student could be moved into a behavioral intervention program or an alternative learning environment.

West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, and supporters say the law empowers teachers to maintain safe classrooms.

“This legislation provides teachers with the tools to regain control of the classroom and ensure safe learning environments for our kids,” Morrisey said at the bill’s signing.

In April, the Texas House of Representatives passed a bill referred to as the “Teacher’s Bill of Rights” with a bipartisan vote of 124-20.

That bill, now sitting in the Senate’s education committee, would significantly expand the grounds for out-of-school suspensions, allowing students to be suspended for repeated disruptions or threats beginning in third grade. It would reverse earlier changes that limited suspensions for younger students. It also would mandate that students making terroristic threats or assaulting school employees be placed in alternative education programs for at least 30 days.

Texas civil rights groups argue that the bill would impose a one-size-fits-all punitive approach, rather than addressing students’ developmental and behavioral needs.

Alycia Castillo, associate director of policy at the Texas Civil Rights Project and a former teacher, said state lawmakers are taking the wrong approach by mandating sweeping discipline policies for a state as diverse as Texas.

During the 2020-21 school year, according to the latest data available from the U.S. Department of Education, Black students faced the highest rates of disciplinary action across all categories — suspension and expulsion — among all racial and ethnic groups.

They were 39% more likely than white students to receive in-school suspensions, 70% more likely to face out-of-school suspensions, and 71% more likely to be expelled.

The disparities were even starker for Black students with disabilities, who experienced suspension and expulsion rates far exceeding those of both their white peers and non-disabled students.

Reviving old, harsh disciplinary policies risks disproportionately harming students of color, students with disabilities and those from low-income backgrounds, Castillo said.

“What works in Austin may not work in West Texas,” Castillo said.

“Children are naturally disruptive — that’s part of their development,” she added. “Excluding them only harms their growth into functional adults.”

Restorative justice models

In recent years, some other states have passed laws promoting restorative practices in schools, in which students and teachers work through problems and focus on repairing the harm caused by disruptions or conflict.

Michigan’s 2017 law requires schools to consider restorative approaches before suspensions or expulsions, aiming to repair harm rather than exclude students. Nevada began mandating restorative justice approaches in 2019, but scaled back that approach in 2023.

This year, Maryland passed a law requiring the state to establish “restorative practices schools,” specific schools with trained educators who use the approach in everyday discipline.

Kimberly Hellerich, an assistant professor at Sacred Heart University and a former K-12 teacher, said discipline policies should go beyond punitive measures to foster accountability and community healing.

“Adding restorative practices to accompany codes of conduct can allow students to recognize the impact of their actions on themselves, peers, the teacher, the class and the school community,” Hellerich said.

In her own classrooms, Hellerich used what she called “community circles” to guide students in processing behavior, offering apologies and rebuilding trust. “The apology served as a way to restore the student’s relationship with the entire class community,” she said.

Calls for a cultural shift on expectations

While lawmakers debate discipline procedures, other education advocates warn that an even deeper issue is unfolding inside classrooms: the gradual erosion of behavioral expectations and academic rigor.

Jessica Bartnick, co-founder and CEO of the Dallas-based mentorship program Foundation for C.H.O.I.C.E., said that declining school discipline and lowered standards are quietly undermining educational outcomes.

“Discipline is the backbone of effective learning,” Bartnick, who supports the Texas legislation, told Stateline in an email. “Without it, classrooms become chaotic, instructional time is lost and teachers are forced to shift their focus from instruction to behavior management.”

Bartnick said efforts to promote equity sometimes inadvertently lower behavioral standards and deprive teachers of the tools they need to maintain safe learning environments.

She also criticized lenient grading policies and unlimited test retakes, arguing that they diminish the value of preparation, responsibility and resilience.

“If students are shielded from the discomfort of failure, they are also shielded from the growth that comes with it,” she wrote. “If we want to prepare students for a world that will not offer endless second chances, we must return to a classroom culture grounded in discipline, responsibility, and rigor.”

Stateline reporter Amanda Hernández contributed to this report. Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

©2025 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By Kevin Hardy, Stateline.org

In submitting her updated budget proposal in March, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs lamented the rising costs of the state’s school vouchers program that directs public dollars to pay private school tuition.

Characterizing vouchers as an “entitlement program,” Hobbs said the state could spend more than $1 billion subsidizing private education in the upcoming fiscal year. The Democratic governor said those expenses could crowd out other budget priorities, including disability programs and pay raises for firefighters and state troopers.

It’s a dilemma that some budget experts fear will become more common nationwide as the costs of school choice measures mount across the states, reaching billions of dollars each year.

“School vouchers are increasingly eating up state budgets in a way that I don’t think is sustainable long term,” said Whitney Tucker, director of state fiscal policy research at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank that advocates for left-leaning tax policies.

Vouchers and scholarship programs, which use taxpayer money to cover private school tuition, are part of the wider school choice movement that also includes charter schools and other alternatives to public schools.

Opponents have long warned about vouchers draining resources from public education as students move from public schools to private ones. But research into several programs has shown many voucher recipients already were enrolled in private schools. That means universal vouchers could drive up costs by creating two parallel education systems — both funded by taxpayers.

In Arizona, state officials reported most private school students receiving vouchers in the first two years of the expanded program were not previously enrolled in public schools. In fiscal year 2024, more than half the state’s 75,000 voucher recipients were previously enrolled in private schools or were being homeschooled.

“Vouchers don’t shift costs — they add costs,” Joshua Cowen, a professor of education policy at Michigan State University who studies the issue, recently told Stateline. “Most voucher recipients were already in private schools, meaning states are paying for education they previously didn’t have to fund.”

Voucher proponents, though, say those figures can be misleading. Arizona, like other states with recent expansions, previously had more modest voucher programs. So some kids who were already enrolled in private schools could have already been receiving state subsidies.

In addition to increasing competition, supporters say the programs can actually save taxpayer dollars by delivering education at a lower overall cost than traditional public schools.

One thing is certain: With a record number of students receiving subsidies to attend private schools, vouchers are quickly creating budget concerns for some state leaders.

The rising costs of school choice measures come after years of deep cuts to income taxes in many states, leaving them with less money to spend. An end of pandemic-era aid and potential looming cuts to federal support also have created widespread uncertainty about state budgets.

“We’re seeing a number of things that are creating a sort of perfect storm from a fiscal perspective in the states,” said Tucker, of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Last year, Arizona leaders waded through an estimated $1.3 billion budget shortfall. Budget experts said the voucher program was responsible for hundreds of millions of that deficit.

A new universal voucher program in Texas is expected to cost $1 billion over its next two-year budget cycle — a figure that could balloon to nearly $5 billion by 2030, according to a legislative fiscal note.

Earlier this year, Wyoming Republican Gov. Mark Gordon signed a bill expanding the state’s voucher program. But last week, he acknowledged his own “substantial concerns” about the state’s ability to fund vouchers and its public education obligations under the constitution.

“I think the legislature’s got a very tall task to understand how they’re going to be able to fund all of these things,” he said in an interview with WyoFile.

Voucher proponents, who have been active at the state level for years, are gaining new momentum with support from President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans.

In January, Trump ordered federal agencies to allow states, tribes and military families to access federal money for private K-12 education through education savings accounts, voucher programs or tax credits.

Last week, Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee voted in favor of making$20 billion available over the next four years for a federal school voucher program. Part of broader work on a bill to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, the measure would need a simple majority in the House and the Senate to pass.

Martin Lueken, the director of the Fiscal Research and Education Center at EdChoice, a nonprofit that advocates for school choice measures, argues school choice measures can actually deliver savings to taxpayers.

Lueken said vouchers are not to blame for state budget woes. He said public school systems for years have increased spending faster than inflation. And he noted that school choice measures make up a small share of overall state spending — nationally about 0.3% of total state expenditures in states with school choice, he said.

“Public schooling remains one of the largest line items in state budgets,” he said in an interview. “They are still the dominant provider of K-12 education, and certainly looking at the education pie, they still receive the lion’s share.

“It’s not a choice problem. I would say that it’s a problem with the status quo and the public school system,” he said.

Washington, D.C., and 35 states offer some school choice programs, according to EdChoice. That includes 18 states with voucher programs so expansive that virtually all students can participate regardless of income.

But Lueken said framing vouchers as a new entitlement program is misleading. That’s because all students, even the wealthiest, have always been entitled to a public education — whether they’ve chosen to attend free public schools or private ones that charge tuition.

“At the end of the day, the thing that matters most above dollars are students and families,” he said. “Research is clear that competition works. Public schools have responded in very positive ways when they are faced with increased competitive pressure from choice programs.”

Public school advocates say funding both private and public schools is untenable.

In Wisconsin, Republican lawmakers are considering a major voucher expansion that would alter the funding structure for vouchers, potentially putting more strain on the state’s general fund.

The state spent about $629 million on its four voucher programs during the 2024-2025 school year, according to the Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials, which represents employees in school district finance, human resources and leadership.

The association warns proposed legislation could exacerbate problems with the “unaffordable parallel school systems” in place now by shifting more private schooling costs from parents of those students to state taxpayers at large.

Such expansion “could create the conditions for even greater funding challenges for Wisconsin’s traditional public schools and the state budget as a whole,” the association’s research director wrote in a paper on the issue.

In Arizona, Hobbs originally sought to eliminate the universal voucher program — a nonstarter in the Republican-controlled legislature. She has since proposed shrinking the program by placing income limits that would disqualify the state’s wealthiest families.

That idea also faced Republican opposition.

Legislators are now pushing to enshrine access to vouchers in the state constitution.

Marisol Garcia, president of the Arizona Education Association, the state’s 20,000-member teachers union, noted that vouchers and public education funds are both sourced from the general fund.

“So it almost immediately started to impact public services,” she said of the universal voucher program.

While the union says vouchers have led to cutbacks of important resources such as counselors in public schools, Garcia said the sweeping program also affects the state’s ability to fund other services like housing, transportation and health care.

“Every budget cycle becomes where can we cut in order to essentially feed this out-of-control program?” she said.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

©2025 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By Robert Snell, The Detroit News

A band of alleged mail thieves stole $63 million worth of checks from the U.S. Postal Service and sold them on the black market, federal prosecutors said Friday.

Federal court records describe an inside job from October 2022 through December 2023 that involved four people, including a popular Metro Detroit rapper and two U.S. Postal Service employees accused of stealing checks as well as other “negotiable instruments” deposited in the mail. That included a large volume of IRS tax refund checks.

The checks were, in turn, given to co-conspirators on consignment before being sold on Telegram Messenger, a cloud-based instant messaging service. The checks were sold on two Telegram channels: “Whole Foods Slipsss” and “Uber Eats Slips.”

The stolen checks — known on the street as “slips” — were sold at a deep discount, often for pennies on the dollar, prosecutors allege.

“When public employees break the public trust, they enrich themselves at the expense of the American taxpayer and undermine the institution itself,” Interim U.S. Attorney Jerome Gorgon said in a statement. “We will find and prosecute those who exploit their position for personal gain.”

Four people were charged with conspiracy to aid and abet bank and wire fraud, a 30-year felony. They were charged in a criminal information, a type of federal charge that indicates a guilty plea is expected soon.

Those charged are:

∎ Rapper Jaiswan Williams, 31, of Rochester Hills, who prosecutors say was the administrator of the “Whole Foods Slipsss” channel, which advertised high-dollar stolen checks

∎ Daquan Foreman, 30, of Eastpointe, who was the “Uber Eats Slips” channel administrator, according to the government.

∎ Vanessa Hargrove, 39, of Detroit, a mail processing clerk at the postal service’s Detroit Processing & Distribution Center.

∎ Ohio resident Crystal Jenkins,31, of Detroit, a mail processing clerk at the postal service’s Dayton Processing & Distribution Center in Ohio.

Williams’ lawyer, Steve Fishman, declined comment Friday. Lawyers for the others were not listed in court records.

Subscribers to the Telegram channels would buy the checks using various methods, including the mobile financial services platforms Cash App and Apple Pay and Bitcoin.

“The total face value of the checks posted to ‘Whole Foods Slipsss’ and ‘Uber Eats Slips’ during the time period covered by the information was over $63 million,” according to the criminal case.

People who bought the checks would try to deposit them at banks and use information found on the checks to create counterfeit checks, according to the government.

Williams also is accused of laundering money generated by the conspiracy and wire fraud by illegally obtaining pandemic assistance.

By Aya Fayad, The Detroit News

At only 25, after having served his country in the Vietnam War, James McMahon decided to become a police officer in Southfield, graduating the academy as class president while balancing the roles of oldest brother and son.

In 1971, only two months into his service, the Michigan native died while on duty. On Friday, 54 years after his death, city officials honored the fallen officer in a Memorial Day ceremony to show how his sacrifice, and that of others dedicated to service, is not forgotten.

“He was so loved,” said Dennis McMahon, James McMahon’s younger brother, who attended. “He was so young when he died, when he served his country.”

On Jan. 23, 1971, James McMahon was hit by an intoxicated driver while setting up road flares on Telegraph Road near what is now known as Interstate 696, city officials said.

He is one of two fallen police officers in Southfield’s history.

“He was so loved,” said Dennis McMahon, James McMahon’s younger brother, who was in attendance. “He was so young when he died, when he served his country.”

Held at the city’s Council Chambers early Friday, the ceremony kicked off with a presentation of colors by the Southfield Fire Department Color Guard, and a speech from Police Chief Barren, a Vietnam War veteran who touted the “brave soldiers who served their country,” urging the community not to take their service for granted.

“It’s a service that sacrifices out of love,” Barren said. “I’m excited to be a part of the city of Southfield, because it’s a city that recognizes the importance of honoring our veterans. We make these commitments like ‘never forgotten,’ and that means, annually, recognizing the lives that were lost and sacrificed.”

During the ceremony, Dennis McMahon attended and accepted a special plaque on his brother’s behalf.

James McMahon, born to Anna Mae and James L. McMahon, a retired Detroit police officer, was the oldest of five, including siblings Julie, Kathleen and Eileen.

Prior to his Southfield police tenure, he had also served in the Navy during the Vietnam War, according to officials.

“My brother was a great guy. He was a great older brother and a great police officer who really cared about his community,” Dennis McMahon said. “This is for the community, for them to remember not only my brother, but all the veterans and officers that serve this country and gave their lives for it.”

Southfield Mayor Kenson Siver described the event as significant.

The city, he said, has “two fallen police officers, and may we never have more, but we continue to keep their memory. The city of Southfield wants to honor those who served and those who fell in service, to show our thanks to them.”

Joseph Person, chair of the Southfield Lathrup Village Democratic Club and a U.S. Army veteran, said such remembrances are important to “honor who we’ve lost and recognize whose shoulders (the country) stands on.”

“Even we veterans stand on the soldiers of great veterans who came before us, those who served in the Vietnam era, the Korean War era, World War II, World War I,” Person said. “They are so deserving of this honor and respect.”

The ceremony also included an invocation and benediction provided by Rev. Steve Bancroft of St. David’s Episcopal Church in Southfield and a speech by chairperson of the Southfield Veteran’s Commission, Rodney Caruthers, who lauded “the brave souls who step up for their country.”

“We just want to make sure we honor, give back to those who served us,” Caruthers said.

Jennifer Young, Dennis McMahon’s wife, said her family appreciated Southfield’s efforts.

“We are so, so grateful,” the Dearborn resident said. “It’s so important to remember these people who gave their lives, who sacrificed so much for the country, just like (James). They deserve to be remembered.”

By Tony Leys, KFF Health News

SPENCER, Iowa — This town’s hospital is a holdout on behalf of people going through mental health crises. The facility’s leaders have pledged not to shutter their inpatient psychiatric unit, as dozens of other U.S. hospitals have.

Keeping that promise could soon get tougher if Congress slashes Medicaid funding. The joint federal-state health program covers an unusually large share of mental health patients, and hospital industry leaders say spending cuts could accelerate a decades-long wave of psychiatric unit closures.

At least eight other Iowa hospitals have stopped offering inpatient mental health care since 2007, forcing people in crisis to seek help in distant facilities. Spencer Hospital is one of the smallest in Iowa still offering the service.

CEO Brenda Tiefenthaler said 40% of her hospital’s psychiatric inpatients are covered by Medicaid, compared with about 12% of all inpatients. An additional 10% of the hospital’s psychiatric inpatients are uninsured. National experts say such disparities are common.

Tiefenthaler vows to keep her nonprofit hospital’s 14-bed psychiatric unit open, even though it loses $2 million per year. That’s a significant loss for an organization with an overall annual budget of about $120 million. But the people who use the psychiatric unit need medical care, “just like people who have chest pains,” Tiefenthaler said.

Medicaid covers health care for about 72 million Americans with low incomes or disabilities. Tiefenthaler predicts that if some of them are kicked off the program and left without insurance coverage, more people would delay treatment for mental health problems until their lives spin out of control.

“Then they’re going to enter through the emergency room when they’re in a crisis,” she said. “That’s not really a solution to what we have going on in our country.”

Republican congressional leaders have vowed to protect Medicaid for people who need it, but they also have called for billions of dollars in cuts to areas of the federal budget that include the program.

The U.S. already faces a deep shortage of inpatient mental health services, many of which were reduced or eliminated by private hospitals and public institutions, said Jennifer Snow, director of government relations and policy for the National Alliance on Mental Illness. At the same time, the number of people experiencing mental problems has climbed.

“I don’t even want to think about how much worse it could get,” she said.

The American Hospital Association estimates nearly 100 U.S. hospitals have shuttered their inpatient mental health services in the past decade.

Such closures are often attributed to mental health services being more likely to lose money than many other types of health care. “I’m not blaming the hospitals,” Snow said. “They need to keep their doors open.”

Medicaid generally pays hospitals lower rates for services than they receive from private insurance or from Medicare, the federal program that mostly covers people 65 or older. And Medicaid recipients are particularly likely to need mental health care. More than a third of nonelderly Medicaid enrollees have some sort of mental illness, according to a report from KFF, a nonprofit health policy organization that includes KFF Health News. Iowa has the highest rate of mental illness among nonelderly Medicaid recipients, at 51%.

As of February, just 20 of Iowa’s 116 community hospitals had inpatient psychiatric units, according to a state registry. Iowa also has four freestanding mental hospitals, including two run by the state.

Iowa, with 3.2 million residents, has a total of about 760 inpatient mental health beds that are staffed to care for patients, the state reports. The Treatment Advocacy Center, a national group seeking improved mental health care, says the “absolute minimum” of such beds would translate to about 960 for Iowa’s population, and the optimal number would be about 1,920.

Most of Iowa’s psychiatric beds are in metro areas, and it can take several days for a slot to come open. In the meantime, patients routinely wait in emergency departments.

Sheriff’s deputies often are assigned to transport patients to available facilities when treatment is court-ordered.

“It’s not uncommon for us to drive five or six hours,” said Clay County Sheriff Chris Raveling, whose northwestern Iowa county includes Spencer, a city of 11,000 people.

He said Spencer Hospital’s mental health unit often is too full to accept new patients and, like many such facilities, it declines to take patients who are violent or charged with crimes.

The result is that people are held in jail on minor charges stemming from their mental illnesses or addictions, the sheriff said. “They really shouldn’t be in jail,” he said. “Did they commit a crime? Yes. But I don’t think they did it on purpose.”

Raveling said authorities in many cases decide to hold people in jail so they don’t hurt themselves or others while awaiting treatment. He has seen the problems worsen in his 25 years in law enforcement.

Most people with mental health issues can be treated as outpatients, but many of those services also depend heavily on Medicaid and could be vulnerable to budget cuts.

Jon Ulven, a psychologist who practices in Moorhead, Minnesota, and neighboring Fargo, North Dakota, said he’s particularly worried about patients who develop psychosis, which often begins in the teenage years or early adulthood. If they’re started right away on medication and therapy, “we can have a dramatic influence on that person for the rest of their life,” he said. But if treatment is delayed, their symptoms often become harder to reverse.

Ulven, who helps oversee mental health services in his region for the multistate Sanford Health system, said he’s also concerned about people with other mental health challenges, including depression. He noted a study published in 2022 that showed suicide rates rose faster in states that declined to expand their Medicaid programs than in states that agreed to expand their programs to cover more low-income adults. If Medicaid rolls are reduced again, he said, more people would be uninsured and fewer services would be available. That could lead to more suicides.

Nationally, Medicaid covered nearly 41% of psychiatric inpatients cared for in 2024 by a sample of 680 hospitals, according to an analysis done for KFF Health News by the financial consulting company Strata. In contrast, just 13% of inpatients in those hospitals’ cancer programs and 9% of inpatients in their cardiac programs were covered by Medicaid.

If Medicaid participants have mental crises after losing their coverage, hospitals or clinics would have to treat many of them for little or no payment. “These are not wealthy people. They don’t have a lot of assets,” said Steve Wasson, Strata’s chief data and intelligence officer. Even though Medicaid pays hospitals relatively low rates, he said, “it’s better than nothing.”

Birthing units, which also have been plagued by closures, face similar challenges. In the Strata sample, 37% of those units’ patients were on Medicaid in 2024.

Spencer Hospital, which has a total of 63 inpatient beds, has maintained both its birthing unit and its psychiatric unit, and its leaders plan to keep them open. Amid a critical shortage of mental health professionals, it employs two psychiatric nurse practitioners and two psychiatrists, including one providing care via video from North Carolina.

Local resident David Jacobsen appreciates the hospital’s efforts to preserve services. His son Alex was assisted by the facility’s mental health professionals during years of struggles before he died by suicide in 2020.

David Jacobsen knows how reliant such services are on Medicaid, and he worries that more hospitals will curtail mental health offerings if national leaders cut the program. “They’re hurting the people who need help the most,” he said.

People on Medicaid aren’t the only ones affected when hospitals reduce services or close treatment units. Everyone in the community loses access to care.

Alex Jacobsen’s family saw how common the need is. “If we can learn anything from my Alex,” one of his sisters wrote in his obituary, “it’s that mental illness is real, it doesn’t discriminate, and it takes some of the best people down in its ugly swirling drain.”

©2025 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By Arthur Allen, KFF Health News

The Trump administration’s unprecedented $500 million grant for a broadly protective flu shot has confounded vaccine and pandemic preparedness experts, who said the project was in early stages, relied on old technology and was just one of more than 200 such efforts.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shifted the money from a pandemic preparedness fund to a vaccine development program led by two scientists whom the administration recently named to senior positions at the National Institutes of Health.

While some experts were pleased that Kennedy had supported any vaccine project, they said the May 1 announcement contravened sound scientific policy, appeared arbitrary, and raised the kinds of questions about conflicts of interest that have dogged many of President Donald Trump’s actions.

Focusing vast resources on a single vaccine candidate “is a little like going to the Kentucky Derby and putting all your money on one horse,” said William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University professor and past president of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “In science we normally put money on a number of different horses because we can’t be entirely sure who’s going to win.”

Others were mystified by the decision, since the candidate vaccine uses technology that was largely abandoned in the 1970s and eschews techniques developed in recent decades through funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Defense Department.

“This is not a next-generation vaccine,” said Rick Bright, who led HHS’ Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, in the first Trump administration. “It’s so last-generation, or first-generation, it’s mind-blowing.”

The vaccine is being developed at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases by Jeffery Taubenberger, whom Trump named as acting chief of the institute in late April, and his colleague Matthew Memoli, a critic of U.S. COVID-19 policy whom Trump picked to lead the NIH until April 1, when Jay Bhattacharya took office. Bhattacharya named Memoli his principal deputy.

Taubenberger gained fame as an Armed Forces Institute of Pathology scientist in 1997 when his lab sequenced the genome of the 1918 pandemic influenza virus, using tissue samples from U.S. troops who died in that plague. He joined the NIH in 2006.

In a May 1 news release, HHS called the Taubenberger-Memoli vaccine initiative “Generation Gold Standard,” saying it represented “a decisive shift toward transparency, effectiveness, and comprehensive preparedness.” Bhattacharya said it represented a “paradigm shift.”

But the NIH vaccine-makers’ goal of creating a shot that protects against multiple or all strains of influenza — currently vaccines must be given each year to account for shifts in the virus — is not new.

Then-NIAID Director Anthony Fauci launched a network of academic researchers in pursuit of a broadly protective flu vaccine in 2019. In addition to that NIH-led consortium, more than 200 flu vaccines are under development in the U.S. and other countries.

Many use newer technologies, and some are at more advanced stages of human testing than the Taubenberger vaccine, whose approach appears basically the same as the one used in flu vaccines starting in 1944, Bright said.

In the news release, HHS described the vaccine as “in advanced trials” and said it would induce “robust” responses and “long-lasting protection.” But Taubenberger and his colleagues haven’t published a complete human study of the vaccine yet. A study showing the vaccine protected mice from the flu appeared in 2022.

For Operation Warp Speed, which led to the creation of the COVID vaccine during Trump’s first term, government scientists reviewed detailed plans and data from academic and commercial laboratories vying for federal money, said Greg Poland, a flu expert and president of the Atria Health Academy of Science and Medicine. “If that’s happening here, it’s opaque to me,” he said.

When asked what data beyond its press release supported the decision, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon pointed to the agency’s one-page statement. Asked whether the decision would curtail funding for the Fauci-created consortium or other universal vaccine approaches, Nixon did not specifically respond. “Generation Gold Standard is the most promising,” he said in an email.

Taubenberger did not respond to a request for comment. Nixon and NIH spokesperson Amanda Fine did not respond to requests for an interview with Taubenberger or Memoli.

The HHS statement stressed that by developing the vaccine in-house, the government “ensures radical transparency, public accountability, and freedom from commercial conflicts of interest.” While any vaccine would eventually have to be made commercially, NIH involvement through more stages of development could give the government greater influence on any vaccine’s eventual price, Schaffner said.

If the mRNA-based COVID shots produced by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech represented the cutting edge of vaccine technology, applying ultra-sophisticated approaches never before seen in an inoculation, the approach by Taubenberger and Memoli represents a blast from the past.

Their vaccine is made by inactivating influenza viruses with a carcinogenic chemical called beta-propiolactone. Scientists have used the chemical to neutralize viruses since at least the 1950s. This whole-virus inactivation method, mostly using other chemicals, was the standard way to make flu vaccines into the 1970s, when it was modified, partly because whole-virus vaccines caused high fevers or even seizures in children.

The limited published data from the Taubenberger vaccine, from an initial safety trial involving 45 patients, showed no major side effects. The scientists are testing the vaccine as a regular shot and as an intranasal spray with the idea of stopping the virus in the respiratory tract before it causes a broad infection.

“The notion of a universal influenza A pandemic vaccine is a good one,” said Poland, who called Taubenberger an excellent scientist. But he added: “I’m not so sure about the platform, and the dollar amount is a puzzler. This vaccine’s in very early development.”

Paul Friedrichs, a retired Air Force general who led the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy in President Joe Biden’s White House, said that “giving $500 million upfront with very little data to support it is unlike anything I’ve ever seen.”

“The technology for developing vaccines has tremendously evolved over many decades,” Friedrichs said. “Why would we go back to an approach historically associated with greater or more frequent adverse events?”

The government appeared to be transferring the money for the Taubenberger vaccine development from an existing $1.3 billion vaccine fund at Project NextGen, a mostly COVID-focused program at BARDA, Friedrichs said. Most of that money was earmarked to support advanced research on COVID and other viral vaccines, including those protecting against emerging diseases.

It is “very concerning that we’re de-emphasizing COVID, which we may live to regret,” Poland said. “It assumes we won’t have a COVID variant that escapes the current moderately high levels of COVID immunity.”

Nixon said Project NextGen, for which some funds were earmarked for mRNA research, is under review. Kennedy is critical of mRNA vaccines, once claiming, falsely, that they are the deadliest vaccines in history.

Ted Ross, director of global vaccine development at the Cleveland Clinic, said he was “happy to see them investing in respiratory vaccines, including a universal flu vaccine, with all the programs they’ve been cutting.”

“But I don’t think this is the only approach,” Ross said. “Other universal flu vaccines are in progress, and their success and failure are not known yet.”

His team, part of the NIAID-funded flu vaccine consortium, is using artificial intelligence and computer modeling to design vaccines that produce the broadest immunity to influenza, including seasonal and pandemic strains.

As interim director, Memoli oversaw the start of the administration’s massive cuts at the NIH, with the elimination of some 800 agency grants worth over $2 billion. More than 1,200 NIH employees have been fired, and many researchers, including Ross, are in limbo.

His lab is close to testing a candidate vaccine on people, Ross said, while waiting to find out about its NIH funding. “I’m not sure whether my contract is on the chopping block,” he said.

---

©2025 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By Henry Larweh, KFF Health News

Fentanyl, the deadly synthetic opioid driving the nation’s high drug overdose rates, is also caught up in another increasingly serious problem: misinformation.

False and misleading narratives on social media, in news reports, and even in popular television dramas suggesting people can overdose from touching fentanyl — rather than ingesting it — are now informing policy and spending decisions.

In an episode of the CBS cop drama “Blue Bloods,” for instance, Detective Maria Baez becomes comatose after accidentally touching powdered fentanyl. In another drama, “S.W.A.T.,” Sgt. Daniel “Hondo” Harrelson warns his co-workers: “You touch the pure stuff without wearing gloves, say good night.”

While fentanyl-related deaths have drastically risen over the past decade, no evidence suggests any resulted from incidentally touching or inhaling it, and little to no evidence that any resulted from consuming it in marijuana products. (Recent data indicates that fentanyl-related deaths have begun to drop.)

There is also almost no evidence that law enforcement personnel are at heightened risk of accidental overdoses due to such exposures. Still, there is a steady stream of reports — which generally turn out to be false — of officers allegedly becoming ill after handling fentanyl.

“It’s only in the TV dramas” where that happens, said Brandon del Pozo, a retired Burlington, Vermont, police chief who researches policing and public health policies and practices at Brown University.

In fact, fentanyl overdoses are commonly caused by ingesting the drug illicitly as a pill or powder. And most accidental exposures occur when people who use drugs, even those who do not use opioids, unknowingly consume fentanyl because it is so often used to “cut” street drugs such as heroin and cocaine.

Despite what scientific evidence suggests about fentanyl and its risks, misinformation can persist in public discourse and among first responders on the front lines of the crisis. Daniel Meloy, a senior community engagement specialist at the drug recovery organizations Operation 2 Save Lives and QRT National, said he thinks of misinformation as “more of an unknown than it is an anxiety or a fear.”

“We’re experiencing it often before the information” can be understood and shared by public health and addiction medicine practitioners, Meloy said.

Some state and local governments are investing money from their share of the billions in opioid settlement funds in efforts to protect first responders from purported risks perpetuated through fentanyl misinformation.

In 2022 and 2023, 19 cities, towns, and counties across eight states used settlement funds to purchase drug detection devices for law enforcement agencies, spending just over $1 million altogether. Two mass spectrometers were purchased for at least $136,000 for the Greeley, Colorado, police department, “to protect those who are tasked with handling those substances.”

Del Pozo, the retired police chief, said fentanyl is present in most illicit opioids found at the scene of an arrest. But that “doesn’t mean you need to spend a lot of money on fentanyl detection for officer safety,” he said. If that spending decision is motivated by officer safety concerns, then it’s “misspent money,” del Pozo said.

Fentanyl misinformation is affecting policy in other ways, too.

Florida, for instance, has on the books a law that makes it a second-degree felony to cause an overdose or bodily injury to a first responder through this kind of secondhand fentanyl exposure. Similar legislation has been considered by states such as Tennessee and West Virginia, the latter stipulating a penalty of 15 years to life imprisonment if the exposure results in death.

Public health advocates worry these laws will make people shy away from seeking help for people who are overdosing.

“A lot of people leave overdose scenes because they don’t want to interact with police,” said Erin Russell, a principal with Health Management Associates, a health care industry research and consulting firm. Florida does include a caveat in its statute that any person “acting in good faith” to seek medical assistance for someone they believe to be overdosing “may not” be arrested, charged, or prosecuted.

And even when public policy is crafted to protect first responders as well as regular people, misinformation can undermine a program’s messaging.

Take Mississippi’s One Pill Can Kill initiative. Led by the state attorney general, Lynn Fitch, the initiative aims to provide resources and education to Mississippi residents about fentanyl and its risks. While it promotes the availability and use of harm reduction tools, such as naloxone and fentanyl test strips, Fitch has also propped up misinformation.

At the 2024 Mississippi Coalition of Bail Sureties conference, Fitch said, “If you figure out that pill’s got fentanyl, you better be ready to dispose of it, because you can get it through your fingers,” based on the repeatedly debunked belief that a person can overdose by simply touching fentanyl.

Officers on the ground, meanwhile, sometimes are warned to proceed with caution in providing lifesaving interventions at overdose scenes because of these alleged accidental exposure risks. This caution is often evidenced in a push to provide first responders with masks and other personal protective equipment. Fitch told the crowd at the conference: “You can’t just go out and give CPR like you did before.” However, as with other secondhand exposures, the risk for a fentanyl overdose from applying mouth-to-mouth is negligible, with no clinical evidence to suggest it has occurred.

Her comments underscore growing concerns, often not supported by science, that officers and first responders increasingly face exposure risks during overdose responses. Her office did not respond to questions about these comments.

Health care experts say they are not against providing first responders with protective equipment, but that fentanyl misinformation is clouding policy and risks delaying critical interventions such as CPR and rescue breathing.

“People are afraid to do rescue breathing because they’re like, ‘Well, what if there’s fentanyl in the person’s mouth,’” Russell said. Hesitating for even a moment because of fentanyl misinformation could delay a technique that “is incredibly important in an overdose response.”

---

©2025 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.