

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.

A new report released today by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, shows that many nonprofit hospital systems across the country are failing to provide low-income Americans with the affordable medical care required by their nonprofit status – despite receiving billions in tax benefits and providing exorbitant compensation packages to their senior executives.
“In 2020, nonprofit hospitals received $28 billion in tax breaks for the purpose of providing affordable health care for low-income Americans,” said Chairman Sanders. “And yet, despite these massive tax breaks, most nonprofit hospitals are actually reducing the amount of charity care they provide to low-income families even as CEO pay is soaring. That is absolutely unacceptable. At a time when 85 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured, over 500,000 people go bankrupt because of medically-related debt, and over 60,000 Americans die each year because they cannot afford to go to a doctor when they need to, nonprofit hospitals should be providing more charity care to those who desperately need it, not less. And if they refuse to do so, they should lose their tax exempt status.”
Nearly half of American hospitals enjoy nonprofit status, which exempts them from federal, state, and local taxation. In 2020, the country’s 2,978 nonprofit hospitals received an estimated $28 billion in federal, state, and local tax benefits – an average of $9.4 million per hospital. In return for nonprofit status and millions in tax breaks each year, federal law requires nonprofit hospitals to operate for the public benefit, which includes ensuring low-income individuals receive medical care for free or at significantly reduced rates – a practice known as “charity care.”
However, the HELP Committee Majority’s report shows many nonprofit hospitals have gladly accepted the tax benefits that come with nonprofit status, while failing to provide affordable care to those who need it most. The report examines 16 of the largest nonprofit hospital systems in the U.S. While each makes more than $3 billion in revenue annually, 12 of the 16 dedicate less than two percent of their total revenue to charity care, including three of the nation’s five largest nonprofit hospital chains. Of those twelve, six dedicate less than one percent of their total revenue to charity care. Meanwhile, in 2021, the most recent year for which data is available for all 16 of the hospital chains, those companies’ CEOs averaged more than $8 million in compensation and collectively made over $140 million.
In recent years, the amount of charity care provided by nonprofit hospitals has actually declined, despite the fact that patient need, revenue, and operating profits have all increased. One study found 86 percent of nonprofit hospitals spent less on charity care than they received in tax benefits between 2011 and 2018. Those additional operating profits and reserve funds were not used to help those most in need. In fact, in the same time period, average charity care spending dropped from just $6.7 million to $6.4 million.
According to the report, many of these nonprofit hospital systems also make information about their charity care programs difficult to access, leaving many patients unaware that they may qualify for free or discounted care. Some hospitals also aggressively try to collect from charity care patients through practices that verge on extraordinary collection practices banned under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. One recent study found that nonprofit hospitals in 2017 sent $2.7 billion in bills to patients who were likely eligible for charity care.
Some states have already taken steps to hold nonprofit hospital systems more accountable to their communities and patients. For example, in Texas, the state’s tax exemption for nonprofit hospitals includes a requirement that at least five percent of the hospitals’ net revenues must go to community benefits, including at least four percent dedicated to free or reduced cost care. Oregon state law requires hospitals to provide reduced cost care to anyone whose income is under 400 percent of the federal poverty line and free care to anyone making under 200 percent of the poverty line. In 2023, that means individuals making less than $60,000 would not be forced to pay for the full cost of their care, while those making under $30,000 would pay nothing.
The report calls on Congress and the IRS to take action to hold nonprofit hospitals accountable to providing quality, affordable care to low-income patients across the country.
Read the full report here.
"I just don’t understand how we provide votes for a bill that funds the extent of the depravity," said Sen. Chris Murphy.
The killing of Renee Good by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis this week came as Republicans in Congress were planning to bring a homeland security spending bill to the House floor, deciding on whether the agency that's surged thousands of armed agents into communities across the country should have increased funding—and progressive lawmakers are demanding that the Democrats use the upcoming government funding deadline to hopefully reduce the department's ability to wreak further havoc.
"I just don’t understand how we provide votes for a bill that funds the extent of the depravity," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told CNN Thursday. "I know we can’t fix everything in the appropriations bill but we should be looking at ways we can put some commonsense limitations on their ability to bring violence to our cities."
But the top Democratic leaders, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY) both appeared to have little interest in discussing how their party can use the appropriations process as leverage to rein in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies that have taken part in President Donald Trump's mass deportation operation.
Both Schumer and Jeffries sharply criticized Wednesday's shooting and the Trump administration's insistence that, contrary to mounting video evidence, the ICE agent who shot Good was acting in self-defense.
But Jeffries said Thursday that he was focused on passing other appropriations bills that were ultimately approved by the House.
“We’ll figure out the accountability mechanisms at the appropriate time," Jeffries told reporters.
With Congress facing a January 30 deadline for approving government spending packages—and with public disapproval of ICE at an all-time high—several lawmakers have said this week that right now is the "appropriate time" to rein in the agency in any way the Democrats can.
"Statements and letters are not enough, and the appropriations process and the [continuing resolution] expiring January 31 is our opportunity," Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) told Axios.
Schumer also refused to say whether the Democrats would use the appropriations process as leverage to cut funding to ICE, whose budget is set to balloon to $170 billion following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year. Republicans will need Democratic support to pass a spending bill in the Senate, where 60 votes are required.
The Senate leader said only that he has "lots of problems with ICE" when asked whether he would support abolishing the agency—a proposal whose support has gone by 20 percentage points among voters in just one year, according to a recent survey. Both leaders also would not commit to slashing the homeland security budget should the Democrats win back majorities in Congress this year.
"It’s hard to be an opposition party when you refuse to oppose the blatantly illegal and immoral things being done by the opposition," said Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health.
Sharing a clip of Jeffries' remarks to reporters about the agency's funding, historian Moshik Temkin said that "people need to understand that at its core ICE is a bipartisan project, increasingly funded and normalized over multiple Democratic administrations and congressional majorities, and a few of them (not this guy) are starting to realize how foolish, weak, and misguided they were."
Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are among the progressive lawmakers calling on the Democrats to demand reduced funding for ICE—even if it means another government shutdown months after the longest one in US history late last year, which began when the Democrats refused to join the GOP in passing a spending bill that would have allowed Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire. Ultimately, some Senate Democrats caved, and the subsidies lapsed.
"We can't just keep authorizing money for these illegal killers," Jayapal told Axios. "That's what they are, this rogue force."
Ocasio-Cortez told the Independent that Democrats should "absolutely" push to cut funding.
“This Congress, this Republican Congress, while they cut a trillion dollars to Americans’ healthcare, and they exploded the ICE budget to $170 billion making it one of the largest paramilitary forces in the United States with zero accountability as they shoot US citizens in the head—absolutely,” she said.
On the podcast The Majority Report, Emma Vigeland and Sam Seder called on progressive Democrats to demand Schumer's ouster in light of his refusal to take action to rein in ICE as its violence in American communities escalates.
It's time for Democrats to oust Chuck Schumer from leadership pic.twitter.com/ByWMJ495zb
— Majority Report (@majorityfm) January 9, 2026
"Change the news cycle and show that you'll be an opposition party," said Vigeland. "Call for his ouster."
Seder added that Schumer "has the ability to wage a fight to prevent the funding of DHS. He has the ability to do that and he doesn't want it. He's running away from any leverage he has, deliberately."
One expert asserted that the House vote to subpoena Seth Harp "is clearly designed to chill and intimidate" journalists from reporting on government policies and practices.
Free press defenders voiced alarm and outrage following Wednesday's vote by a congressional committee to subpoena a journalist wrongly accused of "leaking classified intel" and "doxing" a US special forces commander involved in President Donald Trump's invasion of Venezuela and abduction of the South American nation's president and his wife.
Seth Harp is an investigative journalist, New York Times bestselling author, and Iraq war veteran whose work focuses on links between the US military and organized crime. On January 4—the day after the US bombed and invaded Venezuela and kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores—Harp posted on X the name and photo of a commander in Delta Force, which played a key role in the attack.
Experts noted that Harp did not break any laws, with Freedom of the Press Foundation chief of advocacy Seth Stern pointing out that "reporters have a constitutional right to publish even classified leaks as long as they don’t commit crimes to obtain them."
“Harp merely published information that was publicly available about someone at the center of the world’s biggest news story," he added.
However, the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday approved in a voice vote a motion introduced the previous day by Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) to subpoena Harper. Democrats on the committee backed the measure after Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) added an amendment to also subpoena co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate, according to the Washington Post.
Responding to the committee vote, Harp told the Post:
The idea of a reporter "leaking classified intel" is a contradiction in terms. The First Amendment and ironclad Supreme Court precedent permit journalists to publish classified documents. We don’t work for the government and it’s our job to expose secrets, not protect them for the convenience of high-ranking officials. It’s not “doxing" to point out which high-ranking military officials are involved in breaking news events. That’s information that the public has a right to know.
Harp also took to social media to underscore that he's not the only journalist being targeted with dubious "doxing" claims.
The House lawmakers' vote drew widespread condemnation from press freedom advocates.
“Luna’s subpoena of investigative reporter Seth Harp is clearly designed to chill and intimidate a journalist doing some of the most significant investigative reporting on US special forces," Defending Rights & Dissent policy director Chip Gibbons said in a statement.
"Harp did not share classified information about the US regime change operation in Venezuela. And even if he had, his actions would firmly be protected by the First Amendment," Gibbons added. "This is a dangerous assault on the press freedom, as well as the US people’s right to know. It is shameful it passed the committee.”
PEN America Journalism and Disinformation program director Tim Richardson said Thursday that “any attempt to haul an investigative reporter before Congress for doing their job reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a free press."
"Seth Harp is an independent journalist, not a government official, and therefore cannot be accused of ‘leaking’ classified information in the way those entrusted with such material can," Richardson added. "The information at issue was publicly available, not secret or unlawfully obtained."
In a bid to protect reporters and their sources, House lawmakers in 2024 unanimously passed the PRESS Act, legislation prohibiting the federal government from compelling journalists and telecommunications companies to disclose certain information, with exceptions for imminent violence or terrorism. However, under pressure from Trump, the Senate declined to vote on the proposal.
"The bill died after Trump ordered the Senate to kill it on Truth Social," said Stern. "Apparently, so did the principles of Reps. Luna, Garcia, and their colleagues.”
The US has purloined over $300 million of oil in a month while enforcing a blockade, which UN experts say has "seriously undermined the human rights of the Venezuelan people."
As President Donald Trump geared up for a meeting with fossil fuel executives about plans for them to tap into the "tremendous wealth" of Venezuela's vast oil supply, the US military seized another oil tanker in the Caribbean off the coast of Trinidad on Friday morning.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem posted unclassified footage from US Southern Command of explosives being deployed and soldiers boarding the vessel Olina on social media.
"As another 'ghost fleet' tanker ship suspected of carrying embargoed oil, this vessel had departed Venezuela attempting to evade US forces," she said. "This is owning the sea."
Olina, which was reportedly carrying around 700,000 barrels of crude, is at least the fifth tanker seized by the military in recent weeks and the third in the last three days after the Trump administration imposed a blockade on sanctioned oil tankers leaving Venezuela in December, a move that has been credited with hastening the country's economic collapse.
Earlier this week, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the US plans to manage Venezuela's oil sales and revenues indefinitely following its illegal operation last weekend to topple and abduct President Nicolás Maduro.
According to the ship-tracking database TankerTrackers.com, the US has “seized five tankers and 6.15 million barrels in the span of a month, with the oil valued at over $300 million."
The US has described Olina and other ships it has seized as part of a "shadow fleet" that uses deceptive tactics—including flying false flags—to secretively transport oil for sanctioned countries, including Venezuela, Russia, and Iran.
The US has justified its blockade of Venezuela's oil, as well as the overthrow of Maduro generally, based on the claim that its government is part of an alleged foreign terrorist organization known as the "Cartel de los Soles."
In late December, a group of United Nations experts condemned the blockade and denounced this justification, stating that the alleged cartel does not exist. The US Department of Justice later acknowledged that the cartel was not an actual organization in its indictment of Maduro this week. Maduro has pleaded not guilty to US narco-terrorism charges.
The group of international experts, which included Ben Saul, the UN's special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, and Gina Romero, the special rapporteur on freedom of association and assembly, described the blockade as "violating fundamental rules of international law."
“There is no right to enforce unilateral sanctions through an armed blockade,” the experts said, citing the United Nations Charter, which describes blockades without UN Security Council approval as illegal acts of aggression.
They added that “there are serious concerns that the sanctions are unlawful, disproportionate, and punitive under international law, and that they have seriously undermined the human rights of the Venezuelan people."