This News is not really a surprise.

The ships are very expensive, and making 2 different models is expensive.

My guess would be that the trimaran LCS-2 is toast. It’s more expensive, and Aluminum rather than steel, like the monohull LCS-1, which raises durability issues, even if it might be a bit more stingy with a gallon of gas, and has a much wider and more stable flight deck.

They are both designed to perform multiple roles with modular mission packages (surface warfare, mine warfare, special ops insertion, etc.) that can swapped out as the situation demands, which is, I think, a losing proposition anyway.

The modules create compromises which means that both ships are under-armed for their size.

The Israelis have rejected the ship, at one point, Lockheed-Martin proposed a modified ship without the mission modules to get the bang for the buck that the Israelis wanted, and the Israelis rejected that, and are not looking at other designs, most notably the MEKO A-100, which are smaller, lighter, and cheaper, for their needs, which among other things, do not require the relatively long range, or extremely high speeds (40kts +) of the LCS.