

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) today welcomed the American College of Physicians' (ACP) endorsement of single-payer Medicare for All. The ACP, a national organization of 159,000 internists, is the largest medical specialty society and second-largest physician group in the U.S. after the American Medical Association (AMA).
The ACP announced its endorsement of Medicare for All in a special supplement to its official journal, the Annals of Internal Medicine, where the group also endorsed a "universal public choice" reform model.
The ACP endorsement coincides with the publication of an open letter signed by more than 2,000 physicians "prescribing" Medicare for All, an effort organized by advocates separately from the ACP. Among the "prescribers" are towering figures in American medicine, including Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine; Dr. Bernard Lown, developer of the defibrillator; Dr. Paul Farmer, infectious disease expert and founder of Partners in Health; and Dr. Mary Bassett, former New York City Health Commissioner. The letter will appear as an advertisement in the New York Times the week of January 20.
Along with the ACP's position paper, the Annals of Internal Medicine published an editorial by PNHP co-founders Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein. Drs. Woolhandler and Himmelstein, noting that organized medicine had opposed national health insurance for a century, called the ACP's new position "a sea change for the medical profession."
The ACP's endorsement of Medicare for All and the publication of the open letter reflects growing support for single-payer reform among physicians. Recent surveys have found that half of all doctors now favor national health insurance. Last June, the AMA's House of Delegates only narrowly defeated a resolution that would have rescinded its long-standing opposition to Medicare for All. Under pressure from Medicare for All supporters, the AMA then resigned from the dark money group Partnership for America's Health Care Future, which opposes single-payer reform.
"As physicians, we see daily the harm that our fragmented, private-insurance based system does to our patients," noted Dr. Adam Gaffney, President of PNHP and a pulmonary and critical care physician at Harvard Medical School and the Cambridge Health Alliance. "Patients go without the care they need, and physicians squander time and resources on wasteful billing and clerical tasks. Medicare for All would be a much better way -- for patients and doctors both."
According to Dr. Woolhandler, a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York at Hunter College and Lecturer in Medicine at Harvard Medical School, "When we started PNHP, doctors who supported single-payer reform were considered radicals, and reporters likened us to 'furriers for animal rights'. Now we're squarely in the mainstream of the medical profession. More and more doctors have realized - often from talking to our Canadian colleagues - that single payer is the only way to cut insurers' paperwork and profits that siphon hundreds of billions annually from care in the U.S." Dr. Woolhandler is a Fellow of the ACP, but not an official spokesperson for that organization.
Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 21,000 members and chapters across the United States.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."
In San Francisco, thousands of anti-Trump activists gathered on a local beach to form a human sign that read, "Trump must go now! No ICE, no wars, no lies, no kings."
Millions of American across all 50 states on Saturday rallied against President Donald Trump and his authoritarian agenda during nationwide No Kings protests.
The flagship No Kings rally in Minneapolis, which organizers Indivisible estimated drew over 200,000 demonstrators, featured speeches from Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and actress Jane Fonda, as well as a special performance from rock icon Bruce Springsteen, who performed "Streets of Minneapolis," a song he wrote in tribute of slain protesters Renee Good and Alex Pretti.
Organizers called it "the largest single-day nationwide demonstrations in US history," with an estimate 8 million people coming out for events in communities and cities nationwide.
From major cities to rural towns that have never seen mobilizations like this before, protesters made clear that in America, we don’t do kings," the No Kings coalition said in a statement.
"This is what it looks like when a movement grows—not just in size, but in reach, in courage, and in more people who see themselves as part of this movement," the organizers said. "The American people are fed up with this administration’s power grabs, an illegal war that Congress and the public haven’t approved, and the continued attempts to stifle our freedoms. We’re not waiting for change; we’re making it."
The rally in Minneapolis was one of more than 3,300 No Kings events across the US and internationally, and aerial video footage showed massive crowds gathered for demonstrations in cities including Washington, DC, New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, and San Diego.
Congratulations to all Americans who dared to take to the streets today and publicly expressed their stance and disagreement with the actions and policies of their president. #WeSayNoKings 👍👍👍 pic.twitter.com/f3UDpmsj3m
— Dominik Hasek (@hasek_dominik) March 28, 2026
In San Francisco, thousands of anti-Trump activists gathered on a local beach to form a human sign that read, "Trump must go now! No ICE, no wars, no lies, no kings."
WOW! Protesters in San Francisco, CA formed a MASSIVE human sign on Ocean Beach reading “Trump Must Go Now!” for No Kings Day (Video: Ryan Curry / S.F. Chronicle) pic.twitter.com/ItF7c7gvke
— Marco Foster (@MarcoFoster_) March 28, 2026
However, No Kings rallies weren't just held in major US cities. In a series of social media posts, Indivisible co-founder Leah Greenberg collected photos and videos of No Kings events in communities including Arvada, Colorado, Madison, New Jersey, and St. Augustine, Florida, as well as international No Kings events held in London and Madrid.
Attendance estimates for Saturday's No Kings protests were not available as of this writing. Polling analyst G. Elliott Morris estimated that the previous No Kings event, held in October, drew at least 5 million people nationwide, making it likely “the largest single-day political protest ever.”