| The Democratic fight over health care is moving to Minnesota. Just days after Michigan Democratic voters handed a primary victory to a Medicare-for-all advocate, Minnesota Democrats are now weighing two visions for the party’s approach to health care. → The race, set for a vote on Tuesday, pits Rep. Angie Craig, a pragmatic Democrat who has built her brand around winning in a swing district, against Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, a progressive backed by the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL) and progressive figures including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts). Why it matters: For Democrats, there are high stakes as they try to win back control of the Senate. Craig’s campaign website blares that “Democrats’ only path to Senate control relies on keeping Minnesota blue.” But the party also has to hold onto states including Michigan and Georgia — both of which, unlike Minnesota, went for President Donald Trump in 2024 — as well as force some GOP upsets in states such as Maine and Texas in order to come out on top. Read more on this: “Eleventh-hour primary upsets muddy the race for control of Congress.” As of right now, it’s expected that the Minnesota Senate seat is likely to remain in Democratic hands, although Republicans are targeting it as a potential pickup opportunity. Either way, the race could set up yet another scenario of how supportive voters are about universal health coverage for Americans. → Voters across the country have said that rising health care costs rank highest among their concerns. The 2026 midterms could be the first tangible test of whether people support the idea of expanding Medicare to everyone. The health care coverage question: Flanagan has made Medicare-for-all a centerpiece of her campaign, calling health care a human right and pledging to expand coverage and rein in insurers. Craig is running on a more incremental affordability agenda, including a government-sponsored health insurance option and legislation that punishes health insurers with high care-denial rates. That puts the race in an interesting position following Michigan’s similar Democratic primary last Tuesday. Some recent polling shows Flanagan in the lead, but Craig’s campaign is touting other surveys showing her favored among swing voters. “When you look at the trajectory of primaries this year, the more progressive candidate has typically had the edge,” Jessica Taylor, the senate and governors editor at Cook Political Report, tells me. “But I think the polling miss in Michigan has caused some people, including myself, to be more wary about where this race may be.” → Abdul El-Sayed, a physician and Medicare-for-all advocate, beat the establishment favorite, Rep. Haley Stevens, in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary despite a multimillion-dollar outside spending campaign against him. His victory was much narrower than pre-election polling suggested: El-Sayed beat Stevens by less than a percentage point. The result has prompted Mike Rogers, the GOP nominee, to try to win over Stevens voters as he prepares for a general election. Read more on this: “After bitter primary, El-Sayed faces daunting task of unifying Democrats.” How Michigan fits into the picture: Taylor says that Michigan is the “best test of Medicare-for-all and how it can play in a swing state,” as El-Sayed has been incorporating it into his advertisements and stump speeches. Meanwhile, Trump won Michigan in the last election cycle — as did Democratic moderate Sen. Elissa Slotkin. The Trump administration has signed an executive order that would sharply reshape the nation’s childhood vaccine schedule and call on states to reconsider school vaccination requirements, report Lena H. Sun, Rachel Roubein and Dan Diamond in The Washington Post newsroom. Here are the key points: - It aims to reduce the number of vaccines recommended for all children from 18 to 11, including measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), polio and whooping cough.
- Others, including shots for hepatitis A and B and meningococcal disease, would be reserved for high-risk children — or left to parents and doctors to decide. Flu and covid vaccines would also fall into the shared-decision category.
- The order calls on vaccine makers to separate the combined MMR vaccine into three individual shots, which has long been a priority for Trump. The White House is also recommending that providers spread out the vaccines in separate medical visits “to give parents more options regarding the timing and frequency of this vaccine administration.”
- It also pushes the development of alternatives to aluminum-based vaccine adjuvants and “conduct comparative safety and efficacy studies,” despite concerns from FDA officials that removing aluminum from vaccines would be impractical on a reasonable timeline.
Read the executive order: “Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine Recommendations.” The changes are likely to rankle medical professionals, some of whom sued Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over his vaccine advisory panel picks and previous overhaul of the childhood vaccine schedule they’d claimed were unlawful. A federal judge blocked those changes in March. → The order acknowledges that litigation and directs agencies to advance the changes “to the fullest extent allowable by law.” It gives the Task Force on Safer Childhood Vaccines, housed within the Department of Health and Human Services, 90 days to recommend changes to the timing and sequencing of childhood shots. Richard H. Hughes IV, an attorney for the plaintiffs at Epstein Becker & Green, tells me the groups are “evaluating our next steps” following the executive order. In a call with reporters, an administration official on Monday said the executive order “complies fully with the existing court orders and injunctions,” adding that Trump is “well within his authorities to do this” as a way to inform states coming up with their own rules. Read the full story: “Trump demands major changes to childhood vaccine recommendations.” Another administration official said that the government would “work with the private sector” to make individual MMR shots available. Both administration officials spoke on the condition of anonymity in the call with reporters. Merck, which makes an MMR vaccine, defended the combined shot in a statement that underscored decades of evidence and ongoing safety monitoring. “Merck remains committed to supporting immunization policies rooted in rigorous, evidence-based science,” a company spokesperson tells me. “To date, there has been no published scientific evidence that shows any benefit in separating the combination MMR vaccine into three individual shots. Use of the individual components of combination vaccines increases the number of injections for the individual, and may result in delayed or missed immunizations.” → As I reported last October, when then-top health official Jim O’Neill posted on social media about separating the MMR vaccine: The effort would likely require years of vaccine development, including hundreds of millions of dollars in new investments and several hundred parents willing to subject their children to clinical trials. Thought bubble: The Senate recently confirmed Erika Schwartz, Trump’s new director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who had to overcome concerns from some lawmakers about her ability to stand up to the administration’s changes to vaccine policy. The Trump administration has moved to tighten a decades-old loophole that allows food companies to add certain chemicals and substances to products without notifying the Food and Drug Administration, The Post’s Rachel Roubein reports. The “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, designation allows companies to determine for themselves that a substance is safe for its intended use. Under the FDA’s proposed rule, companies would have to notify the agency when making such determinations and provide evidence supporting their conclusions. “Shifting to a mandatory notification system closes a decades-old information gap,” acting FDA commissioner Kyle Diamantas told reporters. He said the proposal would improve transparency while respecting the agency’s legal authority, adding that officials would work with Congress to further address the loophole. → What had originated as a way for ingredients such as vinegar and spices to easily be added to foods has become a pathway for companies to add substances such as preservatives, emulsifiers and low-calorie sweeteners without notifying the FDA. - Under the proposal, the FDA would conduct an initial review of company submissions within 45 days and a more substantive review within 180 days.
- Companies could continue using the substances during that process, and FDA approval would not be required.
- The FDA estimates that the proposal would cost about $6 million per year to implement.
Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, called the move the “first step toward meaningful reform.” “True GRAS reform requires more than mandatory notification,” Benesh said in a statement. “It must also include strong, science-based safety standards and thorough, independent FDA review before chemicals are allowed in our food. And it must address the thousands of substances already on the market that have not been meaningfully reviewed in decades.” Read the story: “RFK Jr. is targeting a decades-old loophole allowing chemicals in food supply.” “RFK Jr. questions scie | 
