A study in Nature finds that "Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide."
My only knowledge of Kennewick man comes from a single paragraph in Charles Mann's 1491 (The controversy that arose from its "caucasoid" features is used as an example of how archaeologists and anthropologists had trouble repelling baseless speculation when their last big theory, Clovis-First, was falling out of style). How has our understanding of Kennewick Man changed since its discovery? Does this new study do anything to change that understanding?
There was never really any doubt in the archaeological community (except a few fringes) that Kennewick man was an ancestor to Native Americans. The confusion, as you note, really stems from segments of the media and public not understanding that the term "caucasoid" doesn't mean that a person necessarily has European or Middle Eastern ancestry. The Nature article is good because it settles the issue for people in the public who persist in claiming that Kennwick man is of European descent (like certain Neo-Nazi groups). That said, it really is just confirmation of what archaeologists already knew was most likely going to be the outcome of any genetic testing, so it doesn't really change any of our interpretations about history in the Americas.