Decline in preschool access continues in Virginia, despite legislative efforts
Virginia has provided thousands of children access to preschool over a year's time, but the commonwealth continues to trail other states, which are expanding services and providing more kids a chance at early learning.
According to the National Institute for Early Education Research's State of Preschool Yearbook, Virginia has dropped by three spots to 26th in the country in offering preschool access for 3-year-olds, but maintained its 30th place ranking for preschool access for 4-year-olds.
Last year, nearly 10,000 parents in the commonwealth were seeking early childhood care and education services, primarily in the southern and central regions. However, Virginia has made strides enrolling an additional 824 students to its Virginia Preschool Initiative (VPI) and Mixed Delivery programs.
VPI is offered for free for four-year-old children and Mixed Delivery offers funding to private, community-based preschools to serve children at risk of entering school without the necessary skills.
Angela Mancipe, a parent of two from Chesterfield County, said finding a preschool spot for her oldest child during the pandemic was a challenge for her and her husband, considering the waitlist amid nationwide health concerns. While her son was able to land a spot six months later, Mancipe's life changed after losing her job and becoming pregnant with her daughter, who was also able to be enrolled in a preschool program.
Mancipe recently accepted a part-time assistant teacher position at her daughter's preschool to help bring in some income, which is housed within a church daycare. She's fearful of losing her daughter's spot, saying that when they were first searching for a preschool for her, some of their calls went unanswered. Like many families, the cost of their children's care and early education is also a persistent challenge.
'It's insane how much it costs to have your child in daycare,' Mancipe said. 'We are very fortunate when it comes to being able to even live off of one income, but to pay double your mortgage to have your children in a safe and well cared for facility with good providers where they'll get quality care and education, it shouldn't be double your mortgage.'
The National Institute for Early Education Research said in a statement that state initiatives 'propelled' early childhood education in the United States to 'historic highs' during the 2023-2024 school year, as preschools recovered from the impacts of the pandemic.
'Yet, progress has been highly uneven from state to state. While many states advanced by enrolling more children in quality preschool, others lagged, funding no preschool or only low quality programs,' researchers stated. 'As federal cutbacks in education and elsewhere are being implemented, it is notable that federal COVID-19 recovery funding played a crucial role in sustaining and advancing preschool, and other federal funds underpin state programs and decrease inequality among the states in access to quality preschool education.'
According to the report, the institute determined the commonwealth's Virginia Preschool Initiative (VPI) program met five of the 10 quality standard benchmarks, and Mixed Delivery programs, which offer services for infants to preschoolers, met four out of 10.
Virginia met the benchmarks for both programs by conducting a process to observe student and teacher behaviors in the classroom, meeting the staff-to-child ratio of 1:10 for 3- and 4-year-olds, and following a 'comprehensive, aligned, supported and culturally sensitive' set of development standards.
The programs fell short of the requirements, including: that the lead teacher must have a minimum of a bachelor's degree and specialized training in Pre-K; the assistant teacher must have a minimum of a Child Development Associate (CDA) degree; and the teachers must receive at least 15 hours per year of in-service professional development and training, individualized annual professional development plans and coaching.
Allison Gilbreath, senior director of policy and programs at Voices for Virginia's Children, said in a statement to the Mercury that the report indicating the decline in preschool access is concerning, given that Virginia's two preschool programs enrolled nearly 25,000 children last year.
'Investments in four-year-old classrooms are important — but they're only one piece of the puzzle,' Gilbreath said. 'To truly support families and providers, we need a coordinated early childhood system that strengthens access and sustainability across all age groups. A holistic approach is essential to meet the needs of children from birth to five.'
With the uncertainty regarding the national climate lawmakers and advocates are concerned that federal government funding cuts could jeopardize other early childhood care and education initiatives.
'I am very concerned that progress made at the state level could be affected by cuts at the federal level,' said Del. David Bulova, D-Fairfax. 'Early childhood care and education sets the foundation for years of learning and becoming a productive member of society. It is an investment worth protecting and expanding.'
Bulova carried a successful budget amendment to address the early childhood care and education program waitlist in January. Although the amendment did not eliminate the waitlist for the programs entirely, Bulova said it did make significant progress by reducing the Child Care Subsidy Program (CCSP) waitlist by 5,437 since the start of the year.
The waitlist currently stands at 3,278.
Mancipe said she and other parents appreciate the legislature's work but would like to see it go further. One area she recommended lawmakers continue to address is creating a stable, adequate funding for childcare to support families and providers due to the high costs and staffing shortages.
'We are very thankful for their commitment for what they are doing and the efforts they are making,' Mancipe said. 'I think we still have a long way to go.'
During this year's two-month legislative session, the General Assembly and Gov. Glenn Youngkin approved proposals directing the state to develop a plan for mental health screenings and services for children under the age of 5, clarifying how publicly funded early childhood programs are excluded from specific oversight requirements and expanding the Early Childhood Care and Education Commission by one member, bringing the total to 32.
The commission is tasked with providing recommendations for and tracking progress on financing Virginia's comprehensive birth-to-five early childhood care and education system, or VQB5, to improve children's school readiness and expand access to parents and support providers.
Lawmakers attempted to launch a $25 million Employee Child Care Assistance Pilot Program to expand access to childcare. However the amendment to the biennium budget measure was vetoed by Youngkin earlier this month.
Youngkin said while the commonwealth has made 'historical investments' in early learning and child care this biennium, the effort is best considered 'in a bill and at a smaller scale to determine program effectiveness and scalability.'
Another failed measure would have strengthened incentives for childcare providers to remain open during 'nontraditional' working hours to better serve health care professionals, hospitality workers, first responders, military families, and others with unique needs, said Del. Phil Hernandez, D-Norfolk, who carried the bill.
'There was strong interest in this bill, but it did not advance due to the fiscal impact. We'll return to this issue in the future,' Hernandez said in a statement to the Mercury.
Other proposals that failed to pass during the short session earlier this year would have increased funding for kindergarten readiness programs, expanded child care to certain qualifying child care providers at no charge and improved retention and recruitment of child care educators designating them as a priority group for the CCSP.
Del. Elizabeth Bennett-Parker, D-Alexandria, who carried the retention bill, said as a mother of a 2-year-old she understands the challenge of finding affordable, quality childcare.
'I want all Virginia families to be able to access affordable, quality early childhood education and care from birth. While we are not there yet, we have also made a lot of progress,' Bennett Parker said in a statement.
She said one area the NIEER report does not cover is the additional 1,000 subsidy slots lawmakers added over two years in the biennium budget.
One program that concerns advocates and lawmakers is Head Start. This program aims to provide all-inclusive education, health, and nutrition services to children whose families fall below the federal poverty line, which is currently around $30,000 for a family of four.
However, on Wednesday, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert Kennedy Jr. testified that President Donald Trump's budget would not eliminate the program. Yet some regional offices have been closed and funding has been frozen.
'Protecting and expanding Head Start is a foundational investment,' said Dawn Ault, executive director of the Virginia Head Start Association. 'Any reduction or disruption would create childcare deserts where working parents would face impossible choices: leaving the workforce, relying on unreliable care, or falling into deeper financial hardship.'
Head Start was also one of the programs recommended to be eliminated by the authors of Project 2025, a conservative plan for how the country should operate if a Republican won the recent presidential election. In 2021, the authors wrote that the program negatively affected children and that the federal government should discontinue it.
However, Ault said an investment in Head Start benefits families and taxpayers. According to the Virginia Head Start Association, Virginia offers 52 Head Start and Early Head Start programs.
'For every $1 invested in Head Start, we see up to $9 in long-term returns,' Ault said. 'That's not frivolous spending — it's smart, conservative investing in our future.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Here's Exactly What to Eat for All-Day Energy
Credit - Martin Barraud—Getty Images, MirageC/Getty Images (2),, Penpak Ngamsathain—Getty Images, Lourdes Balduque—Getty Images Do you ever feel your energy crash halfway through the day? The foods you eat, and the way you eat them, play a massive role in whether your energy levels feel steady or like a roller coaster. 'Calories are quite literally energy for our bodies—and the foods you choose can directly influence your energy levels,' says Mackenzie Burgess, a registered dietitian nutritionist and recipe developer at Cheerful Choices. 'Nutritious, balanced meals and snacks help provide steady fuel, while overly sugary, ultra-processed foods can cause spikes and crashes, leaving you tired and groggy.' You can train your energy levels to become more consistent. The key is regularly fueling your body with the right balance of protein, healthy fats, fiber, and complex carbs. Here's what three experts recommend people eat to stay energized. Breakfast 'breaks the fast' after hours of sleep and replenishes glucose, which is the main source of energy for your brain and muscles. 'A balanced breakfast with protein and fiber boosts focus, stabilizes blood sugar, and prevents mid-morning crashes,' says Kelly-Marie Andersen, a clinical dietitian at NYU Langone Health. Burgess recommends a breakfast wrap with a plant-based protein, scrambled eggs, and sautéed veggies for a mix of protein, complex carbs, and fiber, or a cup of Greek yogurt with fruit. Read More: When It's This Hot, What Should You Eat? If your mornings are a blur, breakfast doesn't have to be elaborate. 'It can be as simple as eggs, yogurt, oatmeal, or whole-grain toast,' says Andersen. 'Skipping it can lead to low energy, overeating, and make it harder to meet daily nutrient needs. One of my professors left me with an adage that's always stuck: 'Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, dinner like a pauper.'' The key is avoiding the temptation to grab only refined carbs, like a bagel or pastry. The body digests these quickly, spiking blood sugar and setting you up for a crash by about 10 a.m., Burgess says. Think of your blood sugar like a fuel line to the body. Stable levels mean steady energy, and big swings cause energy crashes. 'When we eat a balanced meal with protein, carbs, and fat, our blood sugar rises and falls gently—more like a smooth hill,' says Burgess. 'Eating something made up of simple carbs, like a pastry alone, will make blood sugar shoot up fast and crash, leaving you feeling drained.' Research shows that even healthier carbs eaten alone, like a big fruit smoothie without protein or fat, can cause the same spike-and-crash pattern. Pairing carbs with protein has been shown to slow digestion and help maintain stable glucose levels for hours. Read More: Pre-Workout Powders Are Gaining Popularity. Do They Work? To keep your blood sugar stable, Andersen recommends pairing carbs with protein or fat at every meal and snack, choosing whole grains over refined grains, and avoiding going more than four or five hours without eating. Some energy-stabilizing combos include apple slices with peanut butter, whole-grain toast with eggs, or a small baked potato topped with Greek yogurt. 'These combos give you immediate fuel plus lasting power, keeping you energized and satisfied for hours,' Andersen adds. Snacks are your secret weapon against the dreaded afternoon slump—if you choose wisely. Protein is key. A 2019 study suggests that snacks should contain at least 10 grams of protein for optimal satiety and to prevent overeating later in the day. In other words, a protein-rich snack isn't just good for your energy—it can help you make better choices at your next meal. Jordan Hill, a sports dietitian at Top Nutrition Coaching in Los Angeles, has a few favorite energy-focused snacks: Greek yogurt with berries, apple slices with peanut butter, hard-boiled eggs with avocado, walnuts and dried fruit, veggies with hummus, and cheese with whole-grain crackers. And remember, snacking doesn't have to mean packaged foods. Leftovers from dinner, a small salad with tuna, or roasted chickpeas can be just as quick—and far more nutrient-dense—than a granola bar, Hill adds. Creating a balanced meal keeps your energy humming. Burgess suggests following an energy-boosting meal template like this: 1 cup fiber-filled carbs (quinoa, sweet potatoes, corn, fruit) 4 oz protein (chicken, salmon, tofu, beans, eggs) 1+ cups veggies (leafy greens, broccoli, peppers) ¼ cup healthy fats (avocado, nuts, olive oil, hummus) The USDA's MyPlate guidelines echo this ratio—half your plate goes to fruits and vegetables, a quarter is for protein, a quarter for whole grains, plus a smattering of dairy and healthy fats. This combination ensures you're getting quick fuel from carbs, steady energy from protein, and sustained fuel from fats. Read More: The Surprising Health Benefits of Spicy Food To keep things interesting, Burgess recommends rotating your proteins and produce each week. Try swapping salmon for chickpeas in a grain bowl or replacing spinach with roasted Brussels sprouts. Research shows that variety in meals not only increases nutrient intake but also boosts satisfaction, making it easier to stick with healthy eating long term. Macronutrients—carbohydrates, protein, and fat—play unique and essential roles in keeping your energy steady throughout the day. Carbohydrates are the body's primary and preferred source of energy. 'This is because they are easily digested and absorbed into glucose, the nutrient that provides the brain and body with energy,' says Hill. While all carbs convert to glucose, complex carbs—like oats, quinoa, brown rice, and starchy vegetables—contain more fiber, which slows digestion. 'Eating complex carbs, which are just carb choices with more fiber, encourages a slower rise and fall in blood sugars, keeping energy more stable,' Hill adds. Protein is the macronutrient that does double duty, supporting muscle repair while also helping manage blood sugar. 'Protein slows digestion, prevents rapid blood sugar spikes, and keeps you full longer,' Hill explains. 'Whether it's eggs at breakfast, chicken or tofu at lunch, or Greek yogurt as a snack, adding protein to your meals ensures your energy release is steadier and your hunger is kept in check.' Read More: Do You Really Need a Water Filter? Fat is often misunderstood, but it's just as important for energy as carbs and protein. 'Fat provides long-lasting energy because it is higher in calories per gram compared to carbs and protein,' says Hill. 'It also slows digestion, preventing rapid blood sugar spikes similar to what protein does.' Healthy fats—like those found in nuts, seeds, avocado, and olive oil—not only fuel you for the long haul; they also help your body absorb key fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K. A truly balanced diet includes all three macronutrients in the right proportions. Cutting any one too drastically can lead to fatigue, nutrient deficiencies, and intense cravings. In fact, research on overly restrictive diets—like extremely low-carb or low-fat plans—has found they often result in decreased physical performance and increased tiredness. When carbs, protein, and fat work together, they create a steady, reliable energy supply that supports both mental clarity and physical stamina. Even mild dehydration—just 1–2% loss of body weight in fluids—can make you feel sluggish, unfocused, and moody, Hill adds. Aim to drink about half of your body weight in ounces of fluids daily, and include water-rich foods like cucumber, oranges, and watermelon in your diet. For all-day energy, spread fluid intake evenly through the day to avoid 'catch-up chugging' in the evening. And remember: hydration isn't just about water. Herbal tea, sparkling water, smoothies, and milk count toward your daily total. Contact us at letters@
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
COVID Revenge Is Supercharging the Anti-Vaccine Agenda
Four and a half years ago, fresh off the success of Operation Warp Speed, mRNA vaccines were widely considered—as President Donald Trump said in December 2020 —a 'medical miracle.' Last week, the United States government decidedly reversed that stance when Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. canceled nearly half a billion dollars' worth of grants and contracts for mRNA-vaccine research. With Kennedy leading HHS, this about-face is easy to parse as yet another anti-vaccine move. But the assault on mRNA is also proof of another kind of animus: the COVID-revenge campaign that top officials in this administration have been pursuing for months, attacking the policies, technologies, and people that defined the U.S.'s pandemic response. As the immediacy of the COVID crisis receded, public anger about the American response to it took deeper root—perhaps most prominently among some critics who are now Trump appointees. That acrimony has become an essential tool in Kennedy's efforts to undermine vaccines. 'It is leverage,' Dorit Reiss, a vaccine-law expert at UC Law San Francisco, told me. 'It is a way to justify doing things that he wouldn't be able to get away with otherwise.' COVID revenge has defined the second Trump administration's health policy from the beginning. Kennedy and his allies have ousted prominent HHS officials who played key roles in the development of COVID policy, as well as scientists at the National Institutes of Health, including close colleagues of Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (and, according to Trump, an idiot and a 'disaster'). In June, Kennedy dismissed every member of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which has helped shape COVID-vaccine recommendations, and handpicked replacements for them. HHS and ACIP are now stacked with COVID contrarians who have repeatedly criticized COVID policies and minimized the benefits of vaccines. Under pressure from Trump officials, the NIH has terminated funding for hundreds of COVID-related grants. The president and his appointees have espoused the highly disputed notion that COVID began as a leak from 'an unsafe lab in Wuhan, China'—and cited the NIH's funding of related research as a reason to restrict federal agencies' independent grant-awarding powers. This administration is rapidly rewriting the narrative of COVID vaccines as well. In an early executive order, Trump called for an end to COVID-19-vaccine mandates in schools, even though few remained; earlier this month, HHS rolled back a Biden-era policy that financially rewarded hospitals for reporting staff-vaccination rates, describing the policy as ' coercive.' The FDA has made it harder for manufacturers to bring new COVID shots to market, narrowed who can get the Novavax shot, and approved the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for only a limited group of children, over the objections of agency experts. For its part, the CDC softened its COVID-shot guidance for pregnant people and children, after Kennedy—who has described the shots as 'the deadliest vaccine ever made'—tried to unilaterally remove it. Experts told me they fear that what access remains to the shots for children and adults could still be abolished; so could COVID-vaccine manufacturers' current protection from liability. (Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesperson, said in an email that the department would not comment on potential regulatory changes.) The latest assault against mRNA vaccines, experts told me, is difficult to disentangle from the administration's pushback on COVID shots—which, because of the pandemic, the public now views as synonymous with the technology, Jennifer Nuzzo, the director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University School of Public Health, told me. Kennedy justified the mRNA cuts by suggesting—in contrast to a wealth of evidence—that the vaccines' risks outweigh their benefits, and that they 'fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu.' And he insisted, without proof, that mRNA vaccines prolong pandemics. Meanwhile, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya argued that the cancellations were driven by a lack of public trust in the technology itself. In May, the Trump administration also pulled more than $700 million in funds from Moderna that had initially been awarded to develop mRNA-based flu vaccines. The mRNA funding terminated so far came from HHS's Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority; multiple NIH officials told me that they anticipate that similar grant cuts will follow at their agency. (In an email, Kush Desai, a spokesperson for the White House, defended the administration's decision as a way to prioritize funding with 'the most untapped potential'; Nixon echoed that sentiment, casting the decision as 'a necessary pivot in how we steward public health innovations in vaccines.') COVID is a politically convenient entryway to broader anti-vaccine sentiment. COVID shots are among the U.S.'s most politicized vaccines, and many Republicans have, since the outbreak's early days, been skeptical of COVID-mitigation policies. Although most Americans remain supportive of vaccines on the whole, most Republicans—and many Democrats—say they're no longer keen on getting more COVID shots. 'People trust the COVID vaccines less,' Nuzzo told me, which makes it easy for the administration's vaccine opponents to use attacks on those vaccines as purchase for broader assaults. For all their COVID-centric hype, mRNA vaccines have long been under development for many unrelated diseases. And experts now worry that the blockades currently in place for certain types of mRNA vaccines could soon extend to other, similar technologies, including mRNA-based therapies in development for cancer and genetic disease, which might not make it through the approval process at Kennedy's FDA. (Nixon said HHS would continue to invest in mRNA research for cancer and other complex diseases.) Casting doubt on COVID shots makes other vaccines that have been vetted in the same way—and found to be safe and effective, based on high-quality data—look dubious. 'Once you establish that it's okay to override something for COVID,' Reiss told me, 'it's much easier to say, 'Well, now we're going to unrecommend MMR.'' (Kennedy's ACIP plans to review the entire childhood-immunization schedule and assess its cumulative effects.) Plenty of other avenues remain for Kennedy to play on COVID discontent—fear of the shots' side effects, distaste for mandates, declining trust in public health and medical experts —to pull back the government's support for vaccination. He has announced, for instance, his intention to reform the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which helps protect manufacturers from lawsuits over illegitimate claims about a vaccine's health effects, and his plans to find 'ways to enlarge that program so that COVID-vaccine-injured people can be compensated.' Some of the experts I spoke with fear that the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee—the agency's rough equivalent of ACIP—could be remade in Kennedy's vision. The administration has also been very willing to rescind federal funding from universities in order to forward its own ideas: Kennedy could, perhaps, threaten to withhold money from universities that require any vaccines for students. Kennedy has also insisted that 'we need to stop trusting the experts'—that Americans, for instance, shouldn't have been discouraged from doing their own research during the pandemic. He could use COVID as an excuse to make that maxim Americans' reality: Many public-health and infectious-disease-focused professional societies rely on at least some degree of federal funding, Nirav D. Shah, a former principal deputy director of the CDC, told me. Stripping those resources would be 'a way to cut their legs off'—or, at the very least, would further delegitimize those expert bodies in the public eye. Kennedy has already barred representatives from professional societies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, from participating in ACIP subcommittees after those two societies and others collectively sued HHS over its shifts in COVID policy. The public fight between medicine and government is now accelerating the nation onto a path where advice diverges over not just COVID shots but vaccines generally. (When asked about how COVID resentment was guiding the administration's decisions, Desai said that the media had politicized science to push for pandemic-era mandates and that The Atlantic 'continues to fundamentally misunderstand how the Trump administration is reversing this COVID era politicization of HHS.') The coronavirus pandemic began during the first Trump presidency; now its legacy is being exploited by a second one. Had the pandemic never happened, Kennedy would likely still be attacking vaccines, maybe even from the same position of power he currently commands. But without the lightning rod of COVID, Kennedy's attacks would be less effective. Already, one clear consequence of the Trump administration's anti-COVID campaign is that it will leave the nation less knowledgeable about and less prepared against all infectious diseases, Gregory Poland, a vaccinologist and the president of Atria Research Institute, told me. That might be the Trump administration's ultimate act of revenge. No matter who is in charge when the U.S. meets its next crisis, those leaders may be forced into a corner carved out by Trump and Kennedy—one from which the country must fight disease without adequate vaccination, research, or public-health expertise. This current administration will have left the nation with few other options.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
NIAID acting director's view of ‘risky research'
THE LAB Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger, acting director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says conducting so-called gain-of-function research shouldn't be dismissed. He discussed the controversial topic with his boss, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, on the latter's 'Director's Desk' podcast this week. What is it? Gain-of-function involves genetically altering pathogens to make them deadlier or more transmissible to better study them. But the research is a lightning rod issue for President Donald Trump and many Republicans in Congress who believe the Covid-19 pandemic was caused by a lab leak stemming from gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, where the virus first emerged. That thinking puts them at odds with most of the scientific community who believe the virus most likely spilled over from animals into humans. In May, Trump signed an executive order banning all 'present and all future' federal funding for gain-of-function research in countries like China,which Trump said has insufficient research oversight. He also ordered the National Institutes of Health to review and possibly halt experiments the administration believes could endanger Americans' lives. In Congress, Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) Risky Research Review Act, which hasn't yet been taken up by the full Senate, would create a panel to review funding for gain-of-function research. Not black and white: During the podcast, Bhattacharya asked Taubenberger how the institute should approach gain-of-function research. 'It's not a simple black-and-white issue,' replied Taubenberger, a senior investigator in virology who's a leading expert on the 1918 flu pandemic and sequenced the virus that caused it. He's also co-leading the effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, backed with $500 million from the Trump administration. 'Very reasonable, very well-informed people could fall on opposite sides of the line, wherever you draw the line,' he said. 'Having a wide variety of people with different levels of expertise — not just logic expertise, but safety, national security, all sorts of other questions — having them weigh in on this is really important.' Regardless of where people fall, gain-of-function work shouldn't be shut down, he said. 'Work on nasty bugs that have the potential to kill people, for which we want to develop better therapeutics, diagnostics, prognostics, treatments and preventatives, needs to happen. That's important for global health. It's important for U.S. health,' Taubenberger said. But that research has to be done very carefully, with oversight and should be evaluated on a risk-benefit basis, he warned. While the pandemic turbocharged the issue, the controversy over gain-of-function predates Covid-19. The government paused funding for the research roughly a decade ago, Taubenberger pointed out, while they put stronger oversight mechanisms in place. 'I favor this kind of work being done, where possible, in U.S. government labs, by U.S. government scientists, monitored by U.S. government safety officials and regulators — with openness and transparency.' What didn't come up in conversation: The implementation of Trump's executive order hasn't gone as smoothly as the podcast discussion might have suggested. A July post on the NIH's X account implied that staff at the NIAID had acted inappropriately by omitting certain grants while compiling a list of potentially dangerous gain-of-function research experiments in compliance with the order. Contacted by POLITICO at the time, an official at HHS described the behavior as 'malicious compliance' and said the administration wouldn't tolerate it. NIH Principal Deputy Director Matt Memoli, according to The Washington Post, overrode staff by classifying tuberculosis studies NIH reviewers deemed safe as potentially dangerous gain-of-function research. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) described undergoing mental health treatment with the psychedelic drug ibogaine to the New York Times. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. TECH MAZE Under Gov. Gavin Newsom, California has moved faster than other states to regulate artificial intelligence, including signing a bill last year barring health insurers in the state from using AI to deny claims. Now, a prominent AI company is urging the Democratic governor to consider a less rigid regulatory approach. In a letter to Newsom, obtained by our POLITICO colleagues at California Decoded, OpenAI suggests that California should consider AI companies that sign onto national and international AI agreements as compliant with state AI rules. The letter, dated Monday, from OpenAI's Chief Global Affairs Officer Chris Lehane, comes as Sacramento continues to debate key AI legislation, including Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener's bill SB 53, which would require large AI developers to publish safety and security protocols on their websites. Lehane recommended that 'California take the lead in harmonizing state-based AI regulation with emerging global standards' when it comes to the technology, dubbing it the California Approach. World view: OpenAI and other developers have already signed, or plan to sign, onto the EU's AI code of practice and have committed to conducting national security-related assessments of their programs. Lehane said that 'we encourage the state to consider frontier model developers compliant with its state requirements when they sign onto a parallel regulatory framework like the [European Union's] CoP or enter into a safety-oriented agreement with a relevant US federal government agency.' Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos said, 'We have received the letter. We don't typically comment on pending legislation.' Worth noting: The EU code is a voluntary way for companies to comply with the bloc's AI Act and is nonbinding in the U.S., which has no equivalent. Commitments to work with federal regulators don't necessarily cover all the areas, like deepfakes or chatbots, where Sacramento wants to regulate AI. But the letter offers Newsom something of an off-ramp, after he vetoed Wiener's broader AI safety bill last year that would have required programs to complete prerelease safety testing. Last week, Newsom spoke with cautious positivity about Wiener's effort this year, saying it was in the spirit of an expert report on AI regulation he commissioned. But SB 53 — which would establish whistleblower protections for AI workers and require companies to publish their own internal safety testing — still faces opposition from the tech industry. Lehane's letter puts an industry-sponsored solution on the governor's desk. He framed the simplified California Approach as a way to give 'democratic AI' an edge in the race with Chinese-built programs by removing unnecessary regulation, a key priority for the Trump administration. 'Imagine how hard it would have been during the Space Race had California's aerospace and technology industries been encumbered by regulations that impeded rapid innovation,' Lehane wrote.
