The US and Israel Make a Farce of Landmark UN Nuclear Conference

As the US-Israeli war on Iran actively unravels 50 years of progress toward nuclear nonproliferation, this moment perfectly captured the backwardness of international nuclear policy.


United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres leaves the 11th Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on April 27, 2026.
(Photo by Angela Weiss / AFP via Getty Images)

Julian Cooper
May 29, 2026

Common Dreams



Less than three weeks after President Donald Trump threatened that “a whole civilization will die tonight” on Truth Social, representatives of the United States—the only country to ever deploy nuclear weapons on another country—took the mic at the United Nations headquarters to lecture the rest of the world about nuclear-weapons safety. As the US-Israeli war on Iran actively unravels 50 years of progress toward nuclear nonproliferation, this moment perfectly captured the backwardness of international nuclear policy.

From April 27 to May 22, representatives of over 200 countries and diplomatic organizations convened at the UN headquarters in New York City for the 11th review conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Signed in 1970, the NPT remains the pièce de résistance of international nuclear policy, and poses three main rules: States that do not have nuclear weapons will not seek to acquire them; states that do possess nuclear weapons will commit to disarmament instead of engaging in arms races; and all states have the right to utilize nuclear energy. These conferences are held by the UN roughly every five years to ensure the treaty’s tenets are upheld and encourage debate on any possible updates.

This year’s conference, if not the NPT itself, was a farce from the beginning thanks to the United States and Israel. Within the first three hours of the first meeting on April 27, the United States condemned Iran—a country it was actively attacking—for pursuing peaceful enrichment of uranium, the right to which it is guaranteed under the third tenet of the NPT.

From that point on, the contradictions only became more embarrassing. The United Kingdom and France, two other nuclear-armed states, immediately joined the United States in condemning the representative of non-nuclear Iran who had just been elected a vice president of the conference.

When the Africa Group—composed of 54 African nations—used the NPT conference as a platform to call for a new nuclear-free zone for the Middle East, that should be seen as perhaps the most promising proposal to come out of the conference.

When they attacked Iran in February, the United States and Israel sent a clear message to the world that utterly extinguishes any legitimacy of the NPT: The treaty-defined right to peaceful enrichment is a myth, and nuclear-armed states like the United States and Israel will wage wars of aggression and destruction to ensure the nuclear balance of power remains in their favor.

This message is just a reiteration of what the world has known since the beginning of the War on Terror, if not before: As long as the United States is involved, diplomacy is dead. Colin Powell killed it with his speech to the UN Security Council about fictitious WMDs in Iraq. Barack Obama killed it by bombing and seizing $30 billion from Libya, which had already abolished its nuclear weapons program and signed the NPT. And now Donald Trump has killed it again by attacking Iran’s civilian infrastructure, including nuclear facilities which are protected under the NPT.

With the United States as the presiding power, treaties and territorial sovereignty can be torn up at any time. These are the exact political conditions that led a country like North Korea to avoid signing the NPT altogether and develop nuclear weapons. If there is no incentive of safety for following the rules, then it becomes perfectly rational to not follow them.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the United States-based nuclear watchdog that hosts the famous “Doomsday Clock,” quickly responded to the fact that the legitimacy of the NPT was disintegrating in real time at the UN. Before the conference ended, they published the bluntly titled report Iran’s Positions at the NPT Review Conference Are Rational. Ignoring Them Would Weaken the Treaty. With this report, the international nuclear experts at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists are practically begging on their knees for the United States to adopt a nuclear policy that isn’t hellbent on illegal wars, mass punishment of civilians, and nullifying of international treaties.

There was good news at the NPT conference too. Although the illegal, bloodthirsty US-Israeli war on Iran has threatened the survival of the nonproliferation policy pushed by the UN, some non-nuclear states used the conference to propose more modest nuclear treaties that may ultimately prove to be more reliable.

In addition to the NPT, there are international treaties establishing “nuclear free zones” in five regions: Latin America and the Caribbean, signed in 1967; the South Pacific, signed in 1985; Southeast Asia, signed in 1995; Africa, signed in 1996; and Central Asia, signed in 2006. The Treaty of Tlatelolco, covering Latin America and the Caribbean, even predates the NPT by three years. These nuclear-free zones have arguably outperformed the NPT in producing nuclear-free outcomes in their respective sections of the globe.

Simply put, these treaties are underrated. Over the past 50 years, the United States has spread its nuclear arsenal to NATO allies including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. And just earlier this spring, Japan’s prime minister floated the possibility of hosting nuclear weapons on behalf of the United States too. Likewise, Russia stations nuclear weapons in its neighbor Belarus. This form of proliferation, dubbed “nuclear sharing,” is essentially a violation of the NPT—it puts nuclear weapons in states that otherwise wouldn’t have them. But while nuclear powers have destroyed the legitimacy of the NPT by engaging in nuclear sharing arms races, non-nuclear countries have shown real leadership on nuclear policy by establishing these nuclear-free zones that effectively and reliably curtail proliferation.

So when the Africa Group—composed of 54 African nations—used the NPT conference as a platform to call for a new nuclear-free zone for the Middle East, that should be seen as perhaps the most promising proposal to come out of the conference. With this suggestion, the Africa Group is stating the obvious: The United States and Israel, with their land-theft operation in Lebanon and their war of terror on Iran, are starting and escalating conflicts in the Middle East faster than the rest of the world can keep up with. The international community might as well try to keep nuclear weapons out of these conflicts.

There’s one problem with this proposal, and it’s not Iran’s alleged nuclear program.

Israel is reported to possess at least 90 nuclear warheads. Unlike Iran, Israel is not a cooperating party to the NPT, so its nuclear arsenal is not monitored by international watchdogs like the International Atomic Energy Agency. To this day, the United States does not acknowledge that Israel’s weapons exist at all.

A nuclear free zone in the Middle East will not be actualized any time soon because Israel is already violating it. But with this proposal the Africa Group is forcing the hand of the US and allies regarding Israel’s nuclear arsenal. This isn’t an adversarial action at all; it’s a necessary, good-faith move toward nuclear policy that is honest and proven to work. That same week, 30 members of Congress signed a letter demanding the United States acknowledge Israel’s warheads.

Even as the United States falsely claims to be eliminating a nuclear threat in the Middle East, it is simultaneously creating a new nuclear threat by proposing to station warheads in Japan, escalating toward a new war with China. Every single one of these escalations brings the world closer not only to all-out nuclear war, but also to imperialist wars of aggression backed by nuclear arsenals, such as the imperialist wars on Iraq, Libya, and Iran.

In 1992, Benjamin Netanyahu, then a member of the Zionist parliament for the Likud party, warned that Iran may develop a nuclear bomb within three to five years. The United States, its media, and its allies have believed and peddled these lies for over 30 years, but the rest of the world has caught up.



Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Julian Cooper
Julian Cooper is a Chicago-based journalist, an editorial intern for The Progressive, and a research intern for the Quincy Institute's Democratizing Foreign Policy program.
Full Bio >

Canada PM backs ‘fortress North America’ ahead of US trade talks


ByAFP
May 28, 2026


Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told financial leaders in New York that US-Canada economic integration remains crucial - Copyright AFP ANGELA WEISS

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stressed his country’s importance to the US economy on Thursday, urging closer cooperation as talks on revising the North American free trade agreement face roadblocks.

Carney’s address to financial leaders in New York comes amid persistent acrimony between his government and US President Donald Trump’s administration.

Carney has been one of the most prominent critics of Trump’s leadership, but on Thursday sought to emphasize the benefit of regional economic integration ahead of a July 1 deadline to revise the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

“Canada Strong will help Make America Great Again,” Carney told the Economic Club of New York, referencing both his and Trump’s campaign slogans.

“While Canada and the United States have had our differences over the centuries, we have always worked and eventually worked through them because we share values and our common interests run deep.”

He reminded the room packed with US financial leaders that “Canada is America’s largest customer,” buying more US goods “than China, Japan and Germany combined.”

Mexican officials on Wednesday announced the start of direct talks with the United States on revising the USMCA.

Trump’s top trade officials have made clear that progress with Canada has been slower and bristled at what they see as Carney’s anti-Trump grandstanding on the global stage, including the prime minister’s widely praised speech at January’s World Economic Forum where Carney declared a “rupture” in the US-led world order.

Deputy US Trade Representative Rick Switzer in a speech last month called Carney “superior” and suggested his “ego” was driving decisions.

He drew a contrast with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, who Switzer said was focused on having a positive economic relationship with the United States.

Since taking office last year, Carney has warned Canadians that their economic dependence on the United States had become a vulnerability and on Thursday reiterated his goal to double non-US exports over the coming decade.

But his government has maintained it wants as much free trade with the United States as possible.

“A fortress North America,” he said, “is in everyone’s interest.”

Indonesia’s Sovereignty at Risk: The Consequences of the ART Agreement With the United States

By Airlangga Pribadi Kusman

May 27, 2026

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

Demonstrators take part in an International Workers’ Day rally in Surabaya, Indonesia on 1 May 2023. (Juni Kriswanto/AFP)

More than sixty years ago, Indonesia’s first president, Sukarno, warned that political independence meant little without economic sovereignty. In his famous Trisakti doctrine, announced during the 1964 Independence Day speech, Sukarno argued that a truly independent nation must achieve three things: political sovereignty, economic self-reliance, and cultural dignity. He believed that former colonial powers would continue to dominate newly independent countries through economic dependency and political pressure, even after formal colonialism had ended.

Today, many Indonesian scholars and activists believe those warnings are becoming reality once again through the newly signed Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART) between Indonesia and the United States. Negotiated throughout 2025 and finalized in Washington, D.C. in February 2026, the agreement is scheduled to take effect in May 2026. Supporters present ART as a modern trade agreement designed to reduce tariffs and improve economic cooperation. Critics, however, argue that it represents a deeper restructuring of Indonesia’s political and economic sovereignty in favor of U.S. strategic interests.

At the center of the debate is a simple question: does ART create an equal partnership, or does it reinforce an unequal relationship in which Indonesia is expected to adapt to the priorities of a more powerful state?

An Unequal Partnership

On paper, ART covers familiar elements of contemporary trade agreements: tariffs, digital trade, export rules, investment regulations, security coordination, and implementation mechanisms. Yet the deeper concern raised by critics is that the agreement is not genuinely reciprocal. Instead, it establishes a framework in which Indonesia must align many of its economic and geopolitical policies with those of Washington, while the United States assumes few comparable obligations.

One of the most controversial provisions reportedly requires Indonesia to coordinate aspects of its foreign policy and trade practices with U.S. sanctions regimes and export-control systems. Indonesia would also be expected to consult Washington before entering certain trade arrangements with third countries if those agreements could affect U.S. interests. Critics argue that such clauses effectively extend American strategic influence into Indonesian policymaking.

For many observers in the Global South, this reflects a familiar historical pattern. Powerful countries often use trade agreements not only to facilitate commerce but also to shape the political and economic behavior of weaker states. The language of ‘cooperation’ and ‘good faith’ may appear neutral, but the balance of power embedded within such agreements can produce relationships of dependency rather than partnership.

This concern resonates strongly in Indonesia because the country has long sought to maintain an independent foreign policy. Since the Bandung Conference of 1955, Indonesia has portrayed itself as part of a broader movement of postcolonial nations seeking autonomy from great-power domination. ART, critics argue, risks undermining that legacy.

The Human Cost for Indonesia’s Working Classes

The social consequences of ART may be felt most sharply by ordinary Indonesians — especially workers, peasants, fishers, and small entrepreneurs.

For farmers, the agreement is expected to increase imports of heavily subsidized U.S. agricultural products, particularly soybeans. Indonesia would reportedly import millions of tons of American soybeans annually, creating intense competition for local producers. Similar pressures could affect horticultural sectors such as fruit farming. Small farmers, who already struggle with volatile prices and rising production costs, may find it increasingly difficult to survive against large-scale industrial agriculture from abroad.

Fishers face similar challenges. Although ART includes regulations concerning sustainable fisheries and illegal fishing practices, critics argue that the removal of tariffs on U.S. seafood imports could flood Indonesian markets with foreign products. Small-scale fishing communities — already vulnerable to climate change, fuel costs, and declining fish stocks — may struggle to compete.

Industrial workers are also likely to feel the impact. One provision reportedly weakens Indonesia’s Local Content Requirements (known domestically as TKDN), which were designed to encourage foreign companies to manufacture products locally and support domestic industries. Without such requirements, multinational corporations could increasingly export finished products directly into Indonesia without building factories or creating substantial local employment. This could accelerate deindustrialization and contribute to job losses in manufacturing sectors.

The digital economy presents another area of concern. ART reportedly protects corporate algorithms from government disclosure requirements. For ride-hailing drivers, delivery workers, and other gig-economy laborers, this could limit the Indonesian state’s ability to regulate platform companies and protect workers from algorithmic exploitation. Around the world, digital platforms increasingly control wages, working hours, and labor conditions through opaque systems that workers themselves cannot fully understand or challenge. Critics fear ART could strengthen these asymmetries of power.

Taken together, these pressures could ripple through Indonesia’s broader social fabric. Small traders, neighborhood businesses, and informal workers often depend on the spending power of farmers, factory workers, and fishers. When those groups suffer economic decline, entire local economies can weaken.

Indonesia’s Place in the Global Economy

Beyond its immediate social effects, ART may reshape Indonesia’s long-term development strategy.

Indonesia possesses some of the world’s most important reserves of critical minerals, particularly nickel, which is essential for electric vehicle batteries and the global energy transition. In recent years, Jakarta has attempted to use these resources to promote downstream industrialization — encouraging domestic processing and manufacturing rather than simply exporting raw materials.

Critics argue that ART could weaken this strategy by granting greater access to U.S. corporations while easing restrictions designed to ensure local value-added production. If Indonesia becomes primarily a supplier of raw materials while importing higher-value manufactured goods, the country could remain trapped in a dependent position within the global economy.

This reflects a broader historical problem faced by many developing nations. Colonial economies were often structured around the export of raw materials and the import of industrial products from richer countries. Postcolonial governments have long tried to escape this pattern through industrialization and economic planning. ART, opponents argue, risks reproducing those same unequal structures under the language of free trade.

The agreement also carries significant geopolitical implications. Indonesia has deep economic ties with China, which is one of its largest trading partners and a major investor in infrastructure and industrial projects. Some provisions of ART reportedly pressure Indonesia to align more closely with U.S. definitions of ‘market economies,’ potentially limiting cooperation with China in sectors such as shipping, ports, and industrial technology.

For Indonesia, this creates a difficult dilemma. The country has traditionally sought to avoid becoming subordinate to any major power bloc. Yet ART may constrain Jakarta’s ability to balance relationships between competing global powers.

A Changing Global Order

The debate over ART also unfolds against the backdrop of major changes in the global balance of power.

The United States remains the world’s dominant military and financial power, but its global position is increasingly contested. Economic inequality within the U.S. has grown sharply, its industrial base has weakened in some sectors, and prolonged military interventions have strained its resources. At the same time, emerging powers — particularly within the BRICS bloc — are gaining influence in global trade, finance, and infrastructure development.

For critics of ART, this shifting landscape makes the agreement especially troubling. They argue that Indonesia should diversify its partnerships and strengthen regional and Global South cooperation rather than binding itself too closely to U.S. strategic priorities.

The broader issue is not simply trade policy. It is the question of whether developing nations can maintain meaningful sovereignty in a world still shaped by unequal power relations. Sukarno’s vision of political and economic independence was rooted in the belief that formerly colonized peoples could collectively resist domination and build alternative paths of development. Today, many Indonesians see ART as a test of whether that aspiration can survive in the twenty-first century.

The outcome will not affect Indonesia alone. Across the Global South, countries are confronting similar pressures as they navigate competition between major powers, global supply chains, and the demands of international capital. Indonesia’s experience with ART may therefore serve as an important example of the difficult choices facing postcolonial nations in a rapidly changing world.

This article was produced by Globetrotter.l

Airlangga Pribadi Kusman

Airlangga Pribadi Kusman is the Director of Postgraduate Studies on Political Science at the Airlangga University in Indonesia.

Report Highlights ‘Uniquely Poor Performance’ of US For-Profit Health System Compared to Other Nations

“We know what high-performing health systems look like—other countries have them and are building them. It’s high time the US did better.”


Members of National Nurses United rally with lawmakers to show their support for the Medicare For All Act in Upper Senate Park on Capitol Hill on April 29, 2025 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Julia Conley
May 28, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

An annual analysis that examines healthcare systems across nearly two dozen wealthy countries around the world once again highlighted the United States’ “uniquely poor performance relative to its peers,” with this year’s US Health Care from a Global Perspective report focusing on “insurance coverage and access to care, affordability of care, delivery of care, and equity of health outcomes.”

As advocates for expanding the US Medicare system to the entire population have long warned, the country’s for-profit healthcare system—which ties the ability to get care to one’s employment and allows insurance companies to boost profits by denying care to patients—“The US, on average, has the poorest health outcomes of any high-income country,” the Commonwealth Fund’s report reads.

The report examines the US system compared with other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including the United Kingdom, France, New Zealand, Japan, and Mexico.

It finds that the US spent 18% of its gross domestic product on healthcare in 2024—nearly twice the OECD average.

Life expectancy in the US reached an all-time high in 2024, but was still among the shortest when compared to the 19 other countries, nearly five years shorter than Japan, Spain, and Switzerland, and longer than the average lifespan in Turkey and Mexico.

While the US and Mexico also both rank high on the list in terms of preventable deaths, the latter nation announced last month that it would soon be joining every other country included in the analysis by shifting to a universal, government-run healthcare system.

In the United States, the for-profit health sector—which spent a record $877.69 million on lobbying last year—contributes to the high number of avoidable deaths, which stands at 312 per 100,000 people. About 27 million Americans are still uninsured, more than 16 years after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and the Republican Party’s refusal to continue ACA subsidies last year as well as its $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade, according to Thursday’s report, are “projected to increase the number of uninsured Americans by an additional 17 million by 2034, potentially leading to more than 50,000 additional preventable deaths annually.”

“By contrast, Mexico’s recently established Universal Health Service will provide all residents with access to free care at any public health institute, starting in 2027,” the report states. “The US is one of the only countries to have enacted policies that reduce coverage.”

High out-of-pocket costs may also contribute to poor outcomes and the high number of preventable deaths in the US, the Commonwealth Fund suggests. Americans spend $400 per person, per year, on out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, while people in France spend $100.

“The US is one of the only countries to have enacted policies that reduce coverage.”

“In the US, where approximately 8% of the population is uninsured and one-quarter has coverage that comes with high out-of-pocket costs or deductibles, people are far more likely to forgo needed care because of costs than people in peer countries,” reads the report. “This can mean not filling prescriptions, not obtaining diagnostic tests, treatment, or follow-up care, or being unable to adhere to clinician-recommended care plans.”

The report also identifies the US as a country that lags behind its peers in producing new doctors, contributing to a crisis in primary care, with the US having the fewest number of primary care providers per 1,000 people. The country also has the “highest medical tuition fees of any country in our analysis,” said the Commonwealth Fund.

The organization also found that in 2023, the US had nearly 19 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births, representing a decline for the country that has long had “among the highest rates of maternal deaths related to complications of pregnancy and childbirth.”

“By contrast, in 11 of the 18 countries we studied there were less than five maternal deaths per 100,000 live births,” reads the report, which also notes that in the US, maternal mortality is “exceptionally high” among Black women, at 50 deaths per 100,000 live births.

“This far exceeds national maternal mortality in any of the other countries,” the report states. “Inequities in access to care and patients’ care experiences—often rooted in discrimination and clinician bias—may be prime contributing factors.”

Dr. Joseph Betancourt, president of the Commonwealth Fund, noted that “the US has long prided itself on having the best healthcare in the world, but the population benefits from this excellence unevenly, and it remains largely out of reach for many Americans.”

“We spend more than any other nation on healthcare, so our poorer health outcomes aren’t due to a lack of resources—it is about how we choose to use them,” said Betancourt. “We know what high-performing health systems look like—other countries have them and are building them. It’s high time the US did better.”

“Other countries have shown that alternatives work. What’s striking isn’t the absence of solutions; it’s our reluctance to implement them.”

The report does not explicitly call on the US to shift to a universal, government-funded healthcare system, but studies have shown that expanding Medicare to the entire US population, as lawmakers including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) have consistently demanded, would address many of the problems listed in the report.

Studies by the Congressional Budget Office and Yale University have shown that Medicare for All would save an estimated $650 billion and prevent 68,000 avoidable deaths each year.

The policy, which has been proposed in Congress numerous times, is also broadly popular; 65% of US voters—including 78% of Democrats, 71% of Independents, and 49% of Republicans—support creating a national, government-run healthcare program, according to a Data for Progress poll last year.

Despite this, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers continue to insist the proposal is unpopular and too expensive, with Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-8), who is running against vehement Medicare for All advocate Abdul El-Sayed in the Democratic US Senate primary, insisting recently that “the support for a true single-payer system isn’t there yet.”

Reginald Williams II, senior vice president at Commonwealth Fund, emphasized that it is “not inevitable” that “Americans pay more for healthcare and get less in return.”

“It’s the result of different choices,” he said. “Other countries have shown that alternatives work. What’s striking isn’t the absence of solutions; it’s our reluctance to implement them. The failure of the US health system is not a failure of ideas. It’s a failure of will to act on them.”

Universal Health Care Once Seemed on the Horizon in California. What Happened?

Among California’s top five gubernatorial candidates, only one unequivocally supports state-based single-payer.

By Sonali Kolhatkar

May 28, 2026

Source: TruthOut

Universal Health Care july 2018 by Mirarkitty is licensed under BY-SA 4.0 / wikimedia

Fighting for Our Lives: The Movement for Medicare for All

California voters are in the thick of a high-stakes governor’s race, in which single-payer health care, an issue that was once central to state politics, has been pushed to the sidelines. Of the top five candidates, only one unequivocally supports a health care model that would finally put California on par with the rest of the industrialized world.

Billionaire Tom Steyer, running as a Democrat, says single-payer is the only way to bring down spiraling health care costs. In 2020, Steyer ran for president on a platform touting a “public option,” and attacking Senator Bernie Sanders’s single-payer health care plan. Now, Steyer has reversed that position, earning the coveted endorsement of the California Nurses Association, one of the state’s most aggressive proponents of single-payer.

Sanders is widely credited with popularizing single-payer or “Medicare for All,” which would make health care a freely available and publicly funded resource much like public schools or libraries. In the face of federal intransigence, single-payer proponents have advocated for states to enact their own programs. Indeed, California has come close to enacting “CalCare,” its own version of single-payer, several times in recent years.

Steyer’s opponent and fellow Democrat Katie Porter has also said she supports single-payer but worries about its feasibility. In a public forum hosted by Politico last year, she said, “I don’t think it’s realistic in the next couple of years for the state to push forward on that,” adding that she believed it was more appropriate for the federal government to take it on instead.

Meanwhile, the current frontrunner, Xavier Becerra, has backed away from supporting single-payer. Becerra, who won the endorsement of a powerful, anti-single-payer lobby group called the California Medical Association, is running on a platform of preserving the status quo.

Meanwhile, the two Republicans polling well enough to potentially win a spot on the November ballot in California’s “free-for-all” primary are Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco. Hilton, a former Fox News host, and Bianco, who is Southern California’s Riverside County Sheriff, are both running on reducing access to state-funded health care, primarily for undocumented immigrants.

At a time when the cost of living in California continues to skyrocket, single-payer health care has been oddly low on the list of candidates’ talking points. Dr. Paul Song, a member of Physicians for a National Health Program and former co-chair of the Campaign for a Healthy California, said there’s good reason for that.

“The number of uninsured as a percent of our California population is at the lowest it’s been in a long time,” Song said in an interview on Rising Up With Sonali. That’s because Governor Gavin Newsom recently oversaw the expansion of insurance coverage to most Californians.

In 2018, then-candidate Newsom won the California Nurses Association’s endorsement for embracing single-payer. But his support for a system that would cover 100 percent of the population over time morphed into what he now calls “universal access to health care coverage.” While it might sound a lot like universal health care, this shift is a sleight of hand. Newsom’s chosen policy merely means almost everyone in the state has some form of private or public health insurance — but it doesn’t address the rising costs of premiums, co-pays, and high out-of-pocket charges.

“It’s easy to have become discouraged based on the false promises of Gavin Newsom when he ran and said he was going to run as a single-payer candidate,” said Song. Since 2018 there have been “numerous attempts where activists have tried to advance legislation only to see it just killed in Sacramento and not even be brought up for a vote,” he added.

Newsom has been accused of deliberately “slow-rolling” single-payer as governor. Song recalled a 2020 incident in which the governor caused a scandal by attending a dinner party at a high-end restaurant during the state’s strict COVID lockdown. “The person he was having dinner with was Dustin Corcoran from the CMA, the California Medical Association, who was one of the largest opponents of our single-payer system,” said Song. It’s the same organization that has backed Becerra for governor, a candidate who only recently surged in the polls after Congressional Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race.

Angered by Newsom’s backtracking, the California Nurses Association lambasted him in 2023 over his signing of SB 770, a bill that undercut single-payer efforts by expanding health coverage through private insurers. The union called it “a complete betrayal of nurses’ fight for a single-payer health care policy, a fight striving to achieve health justice for our patients and our communities.”

California Nurses Association President Michelle Gutierrez Vo, an adult family medicine nurse at Kaiser Fremont, explained why the union now supports Steyer in an emailed statement. “As a frontline nurse who cares for patients, I know Californians want a governor who supports CalCare.” According to Vo, her organization backs Steyer because he, “understands that we need to take on deep-rooted systematic failures in Sacramento, and that we cannot allow the next governor to repeat the political opportunism that has dominated this issue for too long.”

Song took a dim view of Becerra, saying, “There have been times where he said he was in favor of [single-payer], but you never saw him actively trying to propose anything to make that possible.” Becerra, who made history as the federal government’s first Latino Secretary of Health and Human Services during President Joe Biden’s administration, faced pressure from single-payer advocates to protect Medicare from privatization. According to Song, “What I saw under his watch was the even greater privatization of our health care system.”

Perhaps the largest reason why single-payer is no longer a key issue in the governor’s race is the supposed price tag of government funding for health care. Estimates range from more than $400 billion to $731 billion per year. Given that the state’s projected 2027 budget is on the order of $349 billion annually, single-payer opponents are quick to claim the state simply can’t afford it.

But Song says such estimates don’t account for the savings from switching to single-payer. “If you look at the total number of dollars that are spent on health care, and not to mention the amount of money that comes out of our pocket for co-pays or deductibles, or because we have an employee-sponsored plan, the number of dollars that we don’t get in our salary because the company has to deduct that to pay for health care, we are paying essentially for a universal health care system or a single-payer system, we just are not getting one,” he said.

Many studies have shown that single-payer would garner net savings for individuals. The trouble is that in order to enact it at the state level, state governments need permission from the federal government to divert Medicare and Medicaid funds toward a single-payer system — a request that is highly unlikely to be granted under the Trump administration. Newsom did not attempt to obtain a federal waiver under the Biden administration, although even if he had he would have been unlikely to succeed given that the Democratic president was also an opponent of single-payer.

Ironically, in 2017, Newsom declared on the social media platform X, “I’m tired of politicians saying they support single payer but that it’s too soon, too expensive or someone else’s problem.” Within a few years, he had become precisely such a politician.

Worse, Newsom’s touted substitute for single-payer — “universal access to healthcare coverage” — is about to come apart at the seams. In October 2025, his administration warned that health care costs were about to double thanks to congressional inaction, with insurance premiums for state insurance exchange plans potentially jumping by a whopping 97 percent. To make matters worse, Newsom just released a state budget that includes cuts to immigrants’ health care coverage — the same funding that helped achieve the near-universal health coverage of which he previously boasted.

---

This article was originally published by TruthOut; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.Email

Sonali Kolhatkar

Sonali Kolhatkar is an award-winning multimedia journalist. She is the founder, host, and executive producer of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a weekly television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. Her most recent book is Rising Up: The Power of Narrative in Pursuing Racial Justice (City Lights Books, 2023). She is a writing fellow for the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute and the racial justice and civil liberties editor at Yes! Magazine. She serves as the co-director of the nonprofit solidarity organization the Afghan Women’s Mission and is a co-author of Bleeding Afghanistan. She also sits on the board of directors of Justice Action Center, an immigrant rights organization.

The VA Is a Model for Public Health Care. We Need to Protect It.

By Suzanne Gordon

May 26, 2026

Source: Barn Raiser

Image by Tony Webster/Wikimediacommons, licensed via CC BY 2.0

Bruce Carruthers is a Vietnam veteran who served in the Army and now lives in Waynesville, North Carolina. At age 81, Carruthers could be spending more of his time with his three sons and grandchildren, traveling or focusing on the woodworking projects that he enjoys. Instead, for the last six years, he’s devoted hours each week to stop efforts to privatize the nation’s largest and only publicly funded health care system, run by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

Carruthers has a long and deep connection to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). For 30 years, from 1974 to 2002, he worked first in VHA’s Human Resources department and then in hospital administration at hospitals like the Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center in Denver, Colorado.

Several years after his retirement, he became a VHA patient. He now drives 36 miles from his home to the Charles George VA Medical Center in Asheville, North Carolina, where, most recently, he’s received treatment for prostate cancer (most likely as result of his exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam).

“I feel I’ve gotten not only excellent but incredibly responsive care at the VA,” he says. “One of the great things about it is if I have a question, I can email my primary care provider and get a response within hours. If I need one, they make an appointment for me.”

Several weeks ago, Carruthers noticed a bluish-purple mole on his neck and wrote his physician. The doctor responded immediately with a referral to a dermatologist, who quickly booked an appointment with Carruthers. “This would never happen in the private sector, at least not in rural America. I would have had to wait months to see a dermatologist in my area of the country.” 

Like so many other veterans, he values a health care system designed specifically to meet the needs of veterans. Carruthers serves as President of the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute (VHPI), a think tank that focuses on stopping VA privatization. He’s also a steering committee member of the Veterans For Peace Save Our VA Campaign (SOVA), which has the same goal.

“At 81, my time on this planet is obviously limited,” he says. “But I’m dedicated to making sure veterans, especially younger vets, receive the same kind of excellent care I’ve received at the VA.”

Over the past decade, a right-wing attack on the VHA has jeopardized the continued availability of this kind of care. Today, efforts to privatize the VA now threaten the very existence of the nation’s largest health care system. (Read my previous coverage on this issue for Barn Raiser here and here.)

In this first article of a multi-part series with Barn Raiser, I want to explain just what the VHA is and what it does, not only for rural veterans but all Americans. Subsequent articles will then describe the forces who have launched this assault against the VA, how veterans and rural Americans are organizing to protect the VA, and what you can do to protect this one-of-a-kind system.

The VHA is in fact, become the nation’s only socialized medicine system—albeit one that serves a small slice of the American population. Like the United Kingdom or Scandinavian health care systems, the government owns and operates all VA health care facilities, and all VA employees are on salary. VA physicians are not paid on a fee-for-service basis but are salaried and thus have no incentive to overtreat patients because they benefit financially from delivering unnecessary treatments or procedures. For example, studies have shown that the VA is the only health care system that follows standard of care for patients with low-risk prostate cancer, which is watchful waiting. Outside of VA, men with low-risk prostate cancer are far more likely to receive unnecessary surgery or invasive radiation treatment.

Although the VA is not a classic single-payer system, it is a national health system that both pays for and provides care, which makes it far easier to innovate within the system. VA innovations are legion, including medication barcoding, the integration of mental health and primary care, and widespread use of geriatric care for VA’s many older patients. As health care reform advocates search for models of high quality, accessible and affordable health care, they don’t have to look to Canada or the U.K. or other European countries, they can find it in every state in the nation.

The nation’s only genuine health care system

Since 1811, when Congress directed the Navy to establish the Naval Home in Philadelphia, the United States has offered former service members health care services to deal with their military related injuries.

A month before the Civil War ended, on March 3, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln helped lay the foundation of what would become the Veteran’s Administration when he signed a law creating the National Asylum for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers to serve Union veterans. A day later, in his second Inaugural address, Lincoln famously pledged this care as both a literal and metaphorical means of healing the nation:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

By World War I, a variety of government agencies managed veterans’ health care and benefits. In 1930, President Herbert Hoover consolidated administration of veterans’ affairs into a single federal agency, the Veterans Administration. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan made that agency a cabinet level department, renaming it the Department of Veterans Affairs—still referred to as the VA. The Department includes the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), which run the nation’s largest health care and benefits systems.

In 1994, the VA, still reeling from its failures to adequately care for veterans who suffered during the Vietnam War (as revealed in Ron Kovic’s 1976 memoir Born on the Fourth of July, later adapted as a movie in 1989 starring Tom Cruise) got a top to bottom makeover under the leadership of its new Under Secretary for Health Kenneth W. Kizer. Kizer, in what is known as the “Kizer revolution,” transformed a system that largely delivered hospital care of variable quality into the nation’s only comprehensive, fully integrated health care system.

While many largely market driven, increasingly corporate owned hospitals and clinics call themselves “health care systems,” they largely deliver fragmented medical treatment based on a fee-for-service, pay-as-you-go system. These “health care systems” are notorious for skimping on mental health care, and almost totally ignore social determinants of health like lack of housing, employment, occupational health and safety issues or legal problems. The VHA addresses all of these issues and more.

One common misconception about the VA is that anyone who has served in the military can access its health care system and benefits. That’s not true. Eligibility depends on a service member’s discharge status, their income, or their time in a combat zone, in our post-9/11 conflicts or whether they have a proven service-connected disability. More than half of America’s 17 million veterans probably qualify for VA health care; however, the system currently serves only nine million. An estimated 2.7 million, or about one third, of enrolled veterans live in rural areas.

The VA not only provides these veterans with a wide range of medical services—everything from primary care, to surgery, to geriatric care—it also has extensive mental and behavioral health programs. Major VA medical centers almost always include a full-service nursing home and residential rehabilitation treatment programs. The VA also has Blind Rehabilitation, Spinal Cord Injury and Polytrauma Treatment programs for veterans with serious vision loss, spinal cord injuries or who have suffered multiple traumatic injuries. The VA also addresses veteran homelessness, and employment and legal problems.

In 2014, the American Journal of Public Health lauded the VHA for its serious commitment, and action to achieve, health care equity, which it defines as providing timely, high quality, personalized, safe and effective health care regardless of geography, gender, race, age, culture or sexual orientation. This commitment to equity has supported rural veterans in particular, with the VA targeting programs and research initiatives focused on solving rural health disparities.

When it comes to serving rural veterans, who comprise about 25% of the total veteran population, the VA has made a serious and sustained commitment to meet their needs. VA has established almost 788 Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) throughout the country, which means that most are within driving distance of a VA facility. Although some veterans who live in remote rural areas have to drive farther, most rural veterans are within a 44.5 mile range of a VA clinic. 

Veterans benefit not only from a network of rural VHA clinics but also from well-established pathways to VHA facilities in metropolitan areas where they can receive more specialized care. In the cases of truly long travel, the VA often helps defray transportation and lodging costs and ensures coordination of care once veterans return to their local communities. A system of Fisher Houses also provides lodging for family members of veterans getting longer term treatment. In 2006, Congress also mandated that VHA create an an Office of Rural Health to study the needs and obstacles to access of rural veterans. The ORH also has developed regional Veterans Rural Health Resource Centers to delve more deeply into how to address the health care challenges of rural veterans.

VHA’s other missions include teaching, research and emergency preparedness. The VHA’s more than 12,000 hospitals and clinics are a key training ground for many of the nation’s future doctors, nurses and other clinicians. More than 1,800, or nearly 90%, of educational institutions partner with the VHA in this $900 million-a-year program. More than 70% of the nation’s physicians have received training in the VHA.

The VA also trains many other kinds of health care professionals. It’s the single largest employer of psychologists in the United States. According to the American Psychological Association (APA), “one in five doctoral interns in psychology is training at the VA. VA also hosts more than 50 percent of APA-accredited postdoctoral training programs in psychology.”  In 2022, the American Association of Medical Colleges told Congress that the VHA played a role in medical education, training and research that is “irreplaceable.”

The VHA is also the nation’s largest research institution. Only the National Institutes of Health funds more research than the VHA. The VHA developed barcoding for medication administration, the first implantable cardiac pacemaker, the nicotine patch and the first Shingles vaccine. It has assembled the largest collection of brain tissue in the world in its Biorepository Brain Bank, established the connection between concussions in football and later development of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, and its Million Veteran Program has assembled the largest genomic data bank in the world, allowing more than 600 researchers across VHA’s 80-plus projects to better understand and treat anxiety, heart disease, kidney disease, cancer, Parkinson’s Disease and other ailments.

The VHA is also mandated to address veteran homelessness. Its pioneering homeless programs, which include prevention services (Supportive Services for Veteran Families), outreach services (Health Care for Homeless Veterans and the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans), temporary housing and permanent housing services (Supportive Services for Veteran Families), have helped significantly reduce veteran homelessness as well as create models that have been emulated across the country to reduce a growing national epidemic. According to data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, veteran homelessness hit a record low in January 2024 since measurement began in 2009.

Finally, the VHA serves as backup to the civilian health care system in times of war, terrorist attacks, natural disasters and other emergencies—from pandemics and mass shootings to hurricanes, tornados and wildfires. The VHA’s medical center in Puerto Rico, for instance, was the only functioning hospital on the island during and after Hurricane Maria. And it was open to non-veterans. At the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, VHA facilities cared for non-veteran patients in hot spots like New York, New Jersey and Louisiana. The VHA also has a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Defense to serve as a backup in times of war or terrorist attack.

Study after study has confirmed that the care VHA delivers to veterans not only equal to but very often superior to the care delivered by the private sector. Surveys of veterans also document that veterans highly approve of their dedicated health care system and want to see it improved and even expanded.

Unfortunately, neither the messages veterans are sending or those published in prestigious scientific journals have convinced Republican—and even too many Democratic—lawmakers to fully fund and staff the VHA. Over the past decade, a powerful movement funded by billionaire industrialists like the Koch Brothers and other dark money allies like Elon Musk—supported by the hospital, medical equipment and pharmaceutical industries—have launched a movement to privatize the VHA and even attack the benefits administered by the VBA.

Should this movement succeed, it will create serious problems not only for veterans but for all Americans. As I will explain in the next article, it will exacerbate an already catastrophic shortage of health care in rural America.

---

This article was originally published by Barn Raiser; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.