Toll hikes, $26.5 billion plan highlight Illinois transportation changes

Illinois drivers are facing the first Tollway rate increase in 15 years as a new state transportation law reshapes toll funding and creates a new board overseeing the region's major public transit systems.

Guohua Song/PEXELS

A $26.5 billion Illinois Tollway capital program will fund major infrastructure projects, including interchange work, resurfacing, bridge repairs and technology upgrades.

by Ben Szalinski & Brenden Moore
Capitol News Illinois

SPRINGFIELD — A recently passed state law is beginning to reshape Illinois’ transportation landscape, as drivers on state tollways will see rate hikes and a new oversight board is taking shape.

The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority on Wednesday approved the first toll rate increase in 15 years.

And Gov. JB Pritzker on Friday announced his appointments to the new Northern Illinois Transit Authority board, which will replace the Regional Transportation Authority next month as the body overseeing the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra commuter rail and Pace Suburban Bus.

Toll hike approved

The Tollway Board approved rate hikes for all vehicles on Wednesday that will take effect Jan. 1. Passenger vehicles will pay 45 cents more when passing through each toll while truckers will pay on average 30% more. Tolls will increase based on inflation every two years going forward without further approval from the board.

Toll rates vary depending on toll road, type of vehicle and whether the car has an I-PASS, but generally range from 45 cents to $3 for passenger vehicles under the current rates. Even with the increase, the Tollway claimed in a news release the average per-mile cost is still 5 cents below the national average.

The hike will fund a $26.5 billion capital program that includes major projects across the tollway system, which stretches as far west as Rockford and Dixon.

“Nearly 1.7 million drivers rely on this system every day, and our responsibility extends well beyond the next construction season,” Tollway Executive Director Cassaundra Rouse said in a statement. “We know where congestion is growing, and we know how our infrastructure ages. Driving Connections gives us a responsible path to meet those needs and keep Northern Illinois moving for the next generation.”

Public transit overhaul

The toll hike was permitted by legislation passed last fall to reform and fund public transportation throughout the state, but especially in the Chicago area.

While the bill redirected Road Fund money away from road construction projects to public transportation, it also allowed the Tollway to substantially raise revenue to fund a new capital plan. It was part of a deal between lawmakers and labor unions to find a funding source for public transportation without substantially reducing road work in the state.

Marc Poulos from the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 told lawmakers last year the increase could boost Tollway funding by $1 billion annually.

Gov. JB Pritzker defended the toll increase following a political rally at the State Fair. He touted measures he’s approved to lower costs and blamed Republican policies at the national level for raising the price of gas and groceries.

“We want to make sure that our roads are pothole-free, that we’re making sure to build more so that we can build our economy across the state of Illinois,” Pritzker told reporters.

Pritzker’s Republican opponent, Darren Bailey, slammed the toll hike during Republican events around the fair on Thursday and called for abolishing tolls entirely, though he did not specify a funding source for future road construction.

“What do you think happens to all the everyday prices of every item that is trucked into Chicago, into Illinois, all across the country?” Bailey’s running mate, Aaron Del Mar, told reporters. “That price raises up. So you can't talk about affordability at the same time as you're raising taxes.”

Among other projects, the Tollway plan includes reconstruction of the I-88/I-355 interchange outside the Tollway’s Downers Grove headquarters, a new interchange on I-294 at Irving Park Road south of O’Hare Airport, parking and employee access off I-490 on the west side of O’Hare, and resurfacing, bridge repairs and technology upgrades throughout the system.

Tollway officials argued these projects, while creating headaches for drivers initially, pay off later by reducing congestion. The Jane Addams Expressway expansion completed nearly a decade ago reduced travel times by 25 minutes, according to the Tollway.

Transit board taking shape

NITA’s 20-member board will be comprised of five members each appointed by Pritzker, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Cook County Boad President Toni Preckwinkle, as well as one each by the county board chairs of Kane, Lake, McHenry, DuPage and Will counties.

The new board, which takes over Sept. 1, is designed to be a stronger version of the RTA, with broad authority to establish a universal fare system and coordinate schedules between the CTA, Metra and Pace. And under the new structure, several members of the larger NITA board will also serve on the three service agencies’ boards — enough to form majorities on those boards to promote cooperation and alignment across the systems.

Pritzker's appointees to NITA are Bashir Qaasim, Nedra Sims Fears, Nirali Shah, Rosa Ortiz and Vanessa Uribe. The governor also reappointed Neema Jha to the CTA board.

Qaasim, who will also serve on Metra's board, is vice president of The Whole Group, where he advises large organizations on how to deploy artificial intelligence. He previously held senior roles at tech companies Aforza and Accenture, advising on technology and organizational strategy, according to the governor's office.

Sims Fears, who will also serve on the CTA's board, is the executive director of the Greater Chatham Initiative, which promotes investment and economic growth on Chicago's South Side. She previously worked in banking and community development financing at Fannie Mae, the city of Chicago and the Community Investment Corporation.

Ortiz, who will also serve on Pace's board, is an urban planner and the founder of 3e Studio, a planning and community development consulting firm. She's served on the CTA board since 2021 and was previously a deputy commissioner in the city of Chicago's Department of Housing and has held leadership positions in organizations like the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

Uribe is an associate vice president at The Chicago Community Trust and previously worked as chief deputy in the Illinois Secretary of State's executive office and as chief of staff and deputy director of the Office of Economic Equity and Empowerment within the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. Uribe will only serve on NITA.

Jha, who will only serve on the CTA board, is a director at Charles River Associates, where she advises large organizations on technology infrastructure modernization. She's served on the board since 2021.

“My board members will play a critical role in modernizing Illinois’ transit systems so we can continue to strengthen operations, make necessary upgrades, and better connect communities across our state," Pritzker said in a news release. "I am proud to appoint highly qualified, dedicated Illinoisans who will help advance this important work.”

Pritzker's appointments are subject to approval by the Illinois Senate.

Johnson, Preckwinkle and collar county officials announced their picks for the boards of NITA and the three service agencies under its purview earlier this summer.

Unlike the RTA board, whose 15 appointed members elected an outsider as chair, the NITA Board will elect one of its own members chair by a simple majority vote at its first meeting. The chair will be subject to Senate confirmation until 2030. Suburban lawmakers criticized the new structure during legislative debate for potentially allowing appointees who live in Cook County to outweigh suburban members.

Kirk Dillard, the RTA's chairman since 2014, was not appointed to the NITA board.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

TAGGED: Illinois Tollway toll increase January 2026, Northern Illinois Transit Authority board appointments, Illinois public transportation overhaul, $26.5 billion Illinois Tollway capital program, Illinois toll increases and transit funding, NITA replacing Regional Transportation Authority

Illinois insurance department to review home and auto rate hikes starting in 2027

The Illinois Department of Insurance was granted new authority to review and approve homeowners and automobile insurance rate changes. The laws also establish notice requirements and allow the department to order rebates when rates are found to be excessive or unfairly discriminatory.

Photo: Deepak DK/PEXELS

The Illinois Department of Insurance will have the authority to review homeowners and auto insurance rate changes beginning in 2027. The laws require advance notice for larger increases and allow regulators to order rebates for rates found to be excessive or unfairly discriminatory.

by Peter Hancock
Capitol News Illinois

SPRINGFIELD – Gov. JB Pritzker signed legislation Tuesday that will give the Illinois Department of Insurance authority to review and approve rate changes for homeowners and automobile policies.

“It's not asking too much to say to insurance companies, if you're telling your customers that rate hikes are necessary, you should be able to prove why,” Pritzker said at a bill signing ceremony in Chicago.

Prior to the bill signings, Illinois was one of only two states, with Wyoming, that did not exercise regulatory control over insurance rates.

The new laws, which take effect July 1, 2027, prohibit companies from charging “excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory” rates and prohibit them from shifting the cost of losses in other states onto Illinois consumers.

The new laws come a little more than a year after Illinois-based State Farm announced it was raising homeowners insurance rates an average 27.2% statewide. They also come two years after Illinois motorists saw an average 18% hike in their auto rates, according to Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias.

In both cases, insurance industry officials said the rate increases were necessary due to inflation, the rising cost of repairs and, in the case of homeowners insurance, the increasing frequency of extreme weather.

In addition, State Farm recently noted that auto insurance rates have been falling in Illinois and that it lowered its premiums by an average 15% in 2025.

Insurance Department Director Ann Gillespie agreed there often are legitimate reasons for rate increases. But she said the new laws will help make sure that rate increases in the future are justified by reliable data.

“While no state legislation can fully eliminate these impacts to insurance premiums, these bills today hold insurance companies accountable for addressing their cost increases by requiring rates to reflect Illinois-specific losses and considerations,” she said.

House Bill 4273, the homeowners insurance bill, requires companies to give their customers 60 days’ notice before raising premiums more than 10%. It also requires them to use credible state-specific claims data to develop their rates when it is available, but companies will be able to supplement that data with national, regional or out-of-state data if needed to meet actuarial standards of credibility.

Companies will still be able to charge new rates once they are filed with the Insurance Department. But the new law gives the department authority to review those rates and order rebates of any excess premiums collected if the rates are found to be excessive or unfairly discriminatory.

Senate Bill 714, the auto insurance bill, requires companies to give customers 30 days’ notice before raising premiums more than 10%. It also gives the department authority to review rates and order rebates if the rates are found to be excessive or unfairly discriminatory.

Giannoulias pushed for that bill, criticizing companies for basing rates on factors unrelated to a person’s driving record, such as their credit score or ZIP code. But while those practices are not specifically prohibited in the final legislation, the new law does ban rates that are “unfairly discriminatory.”

“For far too many Illinois families, the cost of mandatory auto insurance has become absolutely unsustainable, forcing impossible choices between paying for coverage and paying for life's basic necessities,” Giannoulias said at the bill signing ceremony. “That's not just a financial burden. It puts more uninsured drivers on the road and makes our roads and communities less safe.”

Insurance industry organizations, however, remain opposed to the new laws.

In a joint statement issued after the bill signing, the Illinois Insurance Association, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies warned the new laws will lead to higher costs and fewer choices in the insurance market because they do not address the economic realities behind premium increases.

“Instead, the laws impose a fundamental shift in Illinois’ regulatory environment, moving the state toward a more rigid rate approval system similar to struggling insurance markets like California,” the organizations said. “This shift will make it harder for insurers to respond in real time to market conditions and adjust rates up or down based on actual claims experience.”

Pritzker, however, dismissed the industry’s criticism.

“It's silly to suggest that this is going to raise rates across the board,” he said. “What's raising rates are when insurance companies are simply putting out their bills that people can't afford and that don't have any relationship to what's actually happening on the ground.”

TAGS: Illinois insurance rate review law 2027, Illinois homeowners insurance rate increase approval, Illinois auto insurance rate regulation law, Illinois Department of Insurance rate review authority, Pritzker insurance rate legislation 2026

Let's take 60 seconds for a moment of silence

Americans must look to diplomacy over the destruction in dealing with Iran.

Dear Editor,

If a minute of silence is appropriate for Venezuelan earthquake victims, as has been done before World Cup soccer matches in the United States, it is also morally appropriate for civilians killed or wounded in Iran by U.S. and Israeli airstrikes. Human suffering should not be acknowledged selectively or only when it is politically convenient.

As Stanley Cohen observed in his book States of Denial, societies often look away from suffering that is uncomfortable to confront. A minute of silence is not an endorsement of any government or military. It is a simple act of respect for ordinary people who have lost their lives, homes, and loved ones.

If we can pause for victims of a natural disaster, we can surely pause for civilians harmed by war. Moral consistency requires us to mourn civilian suffering wherever it occurs.

Terry Hansen
Grafton, WI

Terry Hansen is a retired educator from Grafton, WI, who writes frequently about climate change and on human rights. He lives in Grafton, WIsconsin.

TAGS: Editorial Page, Sentinel Viewpoints, mourning the loss of life, respect for human life around the world

Illinois Medicaid bill removes health coverage eligibility for thousands of noncitizens

A Medicaid omnibus bill approved by Illinois lawmakers will remove eligibility for thousands of residents as the state adjusts to new federal requirements. Advocates warn the change could expand the uninsured population while lawmakers cite legal and budget constraints.

by Peter Hancock
Capitol News Illinois

SPRINGFIELD – A bill that will soon head to Gov. JB Pritzker’s desk will officially remove an estimated 10,000 people from the state’s Medicaid program, leaving them without any form of health coverage.

That group is made up mainly of people who are not U.S. citizens but who are in the country legally, according to the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. That includes refugees and asylum-seekers, many of whom came to the United States with pre-existing health conditions.

“If they are enrolled, then they still have Medicaid up until Oct. 1,” Edith Avila Hesser, ICIRR’s health justice and policy director, said in an interview. “This adds to the number of uninsured populations that we have here in the state of Illinois, and so obviously we will be working to educate this community about the resources that are available to them through community clinics like FQHCs (Federally Qualified Health Centers) and free and charitable clinics available throughout the state.”

Medicaid is a public health coverage program that is jointly funded by the federal government and the states.

In 2025, Congress amended the federal eligibility rules for Medicaid with passage of H.R. 1, commonly known as President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” It removed eligibility for nearly all noncitizens except lawful permanent residents, Cuban and Haitian entrants, and migrants from certain Pacific island nations known as the Compact of Free Association.

Illinois’ Medicaid bill

In order to comply with that change in federal law, Illinois lawmakers included language in this year’s annual Medicaid omnibus bill, Senate Bill 3365, removing most groups of noncitizens from eligibility under state law.

They include, among others, immigrants who are honorably discharged U.S. veterans and their families, refugees and asylees, noncitizens identified as victims of trafficking, Amerasians from Vietnam, and American Indians born in Canada.

“We had to make that change to comply with H.R. 1 so that we didn't put our entire Medicaid program in jeopardy,” Rep. Anna Moeller, D-Elgin, who chairs the House working group that wrote the omnibus bill, said in an interview.

Although Illinois also provides health coverage outside the Medicaid system that is funded entirely with state dollars, the language in this year’s bill specifically states that it “shall not require any category of non-citizens or part thereof to be funded at state-only cost.”

For example, in 2020, Illinois launched a program to provide Medicaid-like coverage known as Health Benefits for Immigrant Seniors for noncitizens age 65 and over, regardless of their immigration status. The following year, it expanded that program with Health Benefits for Immigrant Adults, which covered adults age 42 to 64, regardless of immigration status.

But the latter program was closed in 2025 amid budget and political pressure and enrollment in the seniors program has been limited while many of its enrollees have been shifted to other subsidized coverage programs.

Stalled programs

Illinois also participates in a limited program that provides health benefits to asylum applicants and victims of torture, trafficking and other serious crimes. And to minimize the impact of the upcoming change in eligibility rules, immigrant rights advocates introduced legislation this year to expand that program.

House Bill 4824, sponsored by Rep. Dagmara Avelar, D-Romeoville, and Senate Bill 3462, sponsored by Sen. Graciela Guzmán, D-Chicago, would have extended coverage under that program to several additional categories of noncitizens who are in the country for various humanitarian reasons. But neither of those bills was ever assigned to a substantive committee.

Moeller said budget pressures were the primary reason the bills were not considered this year, and she said that is not likely to change anytime soon. “We're looking at enormous budget pressures next year because of the cuts in H.R. 1 to the Medicaid program, which is going to affect our overall budget,” she said. “Hopefully, at some point we can get many of the provisions that were contained in H.R. 1 overturned federally.”

Illinois Medicaid eligibility changes 2026, Illinois immigrant health coverage legislation, Senate Bill 3365 Medicaid Illinois, federal Medicaid rule changes Illinois, Illinois health coverage for noncitizens

Viewpoint |
The trillion dollar presidency

Donald Trump's presidency arrives every day in higher prices, higher interest costs, and a shrinking margin for America's future.

by Van Abbott
Guest Contributor

The bill for Donald Trump's presidency arrives every day in higher prices, higher interest costs, and a shrinking margin for America's future.

The trillion-dollar presidency is no longer a prediction. It is a governing model. Decisions on war, trade, borrowing, immigration, and industrial policy do not operate independently. They compound. One increases risk, another increases debt, a third weakens growth. Together they leave Americans paying more while receiving less.

Nowhere is that pattern more visible than in Iran.

In 2017, Trump inherited a functioning nuclear agreement that placed verifiable limits on Iran's nuclear program. He tore it up. The result was not a better deal, a safer Middle East, or a more secure America.

Instead, tensions escalated. The U.S. killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020. Iran accelerated uranium enrichment. Proxy attacks multiplied. By early 2025, the escalation had produced sustained military exchanges between the United States and Iran, including strikes on Iranian soil and retaliatory attacks on American forces and regional partners.

The costs are already spreading through the global economy.

Iranian attacks on shipping, missile exchanges across the Gulf, and repeated threats to traffic through the Strait of Hormuz have injected instability into energy markets. Even when oil continues to flow, risk alone drives prices higher. Those increases ripple through transportation, manufacturing, food production, and consumer goods. Americans feel the consequences every time they fill a gas tank or buy groceries.

War has always carried hidden costs.

The Congressional Budget Office projects federal deficits approaching $2 trillion annually. Meanwhile, interest payments on the national debt have become one of the fastest-growing expenses in the federal budget. Washington now spends more servicing debt than it spends on many investments that strengthen long-term growth.

Every additional military commitment deepens the problem.

Borrow more, spend more, pay more.

The danger is not merely today's deficit. It is the compounding effect. Higher borrowing drives up interest costs. Higher interest costs crowd out productive investment. Slower growth produces even larger deficits. The cycle feeds itself.

America's financial standing is already showing signs of strain. In May 2025, Moody's became the last major credit-rating agency to strip the United States of its highest credit rating, citing rising debt levels and deteriorating fiscal management.

Economic growth depends on three ingredients: capital, talent, and confidence. This presidency is undermining all three. Investors face policy whiplash, skilled workers face growing barriers, and businesses face mounting uncertainty. When capital hesitates, talent leaves, and confidence fades, growth slows. The cost is measured not only in what Americans pay today but in what the nation fails to build tomorrow.

Trade policy magnifies the damage. The administration's tariff agenda has lurched from one challenge to another. Trading partners have retaliated. Businesses struggle to plan around policies that shift with each new announcement. Tariffs function as taxes on imported goods, raising costs throughout supply chains and ultimately passing many of those costs to consumers.

The result is paralysis. Companies delay investment. They delay hiring. They delay expansion.

Capital does not fear taxes nearly as much as it fears unpredictability.

The same instability appears in immigration policy. For generations, talented engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and students viewed the United States as the world's premier destination for opportunity. That is changing. The Institute of International Education reported declining enrollment intentions among international students, with more STEM candidates choosing Canada, Germany, and Australia. Visa restrictions, processing delays, and policy uncertainty are not merely slowing the pipeline. They are redirecting it.

America is not merely losing workers. It is losing inventors, founders, researchers, and future industries.

Energy policy tells a similar story. Clean-energy incentives have been weakened, projects delayed, and billions of dollars in planned investments thrown into doubt. Businesses require predictable rules before committing billions in capital. Constant policy reversals increase financing costs and discourage investment.

Overlaying all of this is a governing style built on transaction rather than principle. Tariffs appear negotiable. Enforcement appears selective. Pardons, contracts, and regulatory decisions often seem driven by personal relationships or political loyalty rather than consistent standards.

Markets notice. Investors notice. America's allies notice.

When policy becomes a bargaining chip rather than a commitment, confidence erodes. Investment retreats. Growth slows.

The bill for Donald Trump's presidency arrives every day in higher prices, higher interest costs, and a shrinking margin for America's future. Unless Americans reject a politics of permanent crisis, the costs will keep mounting, the opportunities will keep shrinking, and the bill will keep arriving.

About the author ~
Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on life in America on Substack.

TAGS: Trump's administration underminding economic growth, current U.S. policy has become a bargaining chip, top STEM candidates choosing other countries for work, the federal deficit is approaching $2 trillion, consumer prices are increasing daily

What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here: Sentinel submission guideline.

We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. . Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.

Viewpoint |
Republicans defend White House ballroom plan amid security claims

A proposed White House ballroom expansion is being defended by Republicans as a security measure, but critics argue the justification masks a costly luxury project. The debate has sparked broader questions about priorities, spending, and political messaging.

by Van Abbott
Guest Contributor

Republicans now expect Americans to believe the greatest threat to presidential security is insufficient ballroom space at the White House.

That claim insults common sense from the first syllable to the last.

President Trump spends enormous amounts of time at golf resorts, private clubs, fundraisers, and sprawling luxury properties where security teams must defend open terrain, moving crowds, tree lines, beaches, roads, kitchens, docks, guests, staff, and endless unpredictable variables. Yet Republicans now insist the republic itself hinges on constructing a taxpayer-funded ceremonial palace in Washington.

Apparently the assassins lurk near the appetizer table.

Senators Lindsey Graham, Katie Britt, and Eric Schmitt push the argument with almost comic determination. They insist a massive White House ballroom will reduce risk because presidents can host events on secure grounds instead of traveling elsewhere. Trump echoes the sales pitch, portraying the ballroom as a fortress disguised as a banquet hall.

The logic collapses instantly.

If the White House is safest, why does Trump constantly leave it? If security is paramount, why normalize exposure on golf courses while demanding public money for chandeliers and gala space? If this project is indispensable, why did previous presidents survive without a taxpayer-funded palace wing?

Because this is not about security.

It is about spectacle.

Republicans understand the power of the word “security.” The moment they invoke it, scrutiny softens, questions fade, wallets open. Security justifies everything. Security excuses everything. Security sanctifies everything.

That is the lie.

The proposal itself ballooned from a supposedly donor-funded improvement into a sprawling luxury complex whose total cost could approach a billion dollars once infrastructure, renovations, and security modifications are fully counted. The price grows, the promises shrink, the excuses multiply.

First came the ballroom. Then came the “enhancements.” Then came the “necessary security infrastructure.” Washington always speaks softly before it reaches for the taxpayer’s wallet.

And Republicans expect Americans to swallow all of it while lecturing working families about fiscal discipline.

They preach austerity to workers, restraint to retirees, sacrifice to families. Then they sprint toward taxpayer-funded opulence the instant Trump wants a grander stage.

The hypocrisy does not merely drip. It floods.

A party that once howled about deficits now treats public money like confetti at a coronation. Citizens are told the nation cannot afford expanded healthcare, affordable housing, modern infrastructure, stronger retirement protections, or struggling public schools. Scarcity always governs ordinary Americans. Abundance always appears for the powerful.

Not for schools.

Not for hospitals.

Not for citizens.

For a ballroom.

The symbolism could not be clearer if Republicans installed a gold throne beneath the chandelier.

They are not constructing a security project. They are constructing a monument. A monument to excess. A monument to ego. A monument to the transformation of conservatism from a philosophy of restraint into a personality cult draped in velvet and gold.

The ballroom Itself becomes an almost perfect metaphor for modern Republican politics. Ornate on the surface, hollow underneath. Loud, glittering, theatrical, expensive. A political Versailles where image matters more than principle and loyalty matters more than truth.

They wrap luxury in patriotism. They wrap vanity in fear. They wrap indulgence in the flag.

And still the contradictions pile higher than the marble columns they want taxpayers to finance.

Assassins do not hide in White House banquet halls waiting beside the shrimp cocktail. Threats emerge during travel, motorcades, public appearances, outdoor recreation, and unscripted movement through unsecured environments. Every security professional understands this. Republicans understand it too. That is precisely why the ballroom argument feels so cynical. They are not selling protection. They are selling prestige wrapped in patriotic packaging, a palace marketed as policy, excess repainted as emergency.

And that is what makes the ballroom lie so revealing. Republicans now demand that Americans confuse luxury with leadership, extravagance with patriotism, and a presidential palace with national security.

The ballroom Is not protection. It is propaganda wrapped in gold leaf.

TAGS: White House ballroom controversy, Republican security argument criticism, Trump White House spending debate, political symbolism luxury government spending, Capitol political opinion analysis

Viewpoint |
Trump’s “best people” promise collapses under latest FEMA appointment

Van Abbott looks at recent federal staffing decisions and argues they reflect a broader shift in governance priorities. Below he raises concerns about experience, institutional knowledge and long-term impacts on public agencies.

by Van Abbott
Guest Commentator

Donald Trump has appointed Gregg Phillips, a man who claims to have been involuntarily teleported on multiple occasions, to lead FEMA's Office of Response and Recovery. The “best people” pledge has crossed into science fiction.

Phillips made his teleportation claims in podcast appearances, then repeated them in public. Even after those remarks surfaced, Trump moved forward with the appointment. This is the hire. This is the bar. Welcome to the second term.

The Phillips appointment is not an anomaly. It is the logical endpoint of a governing philosophy that prizes loyalty over literacy, devotion over demonstrated skill. Trump built his brand on competence; his record reads as its obituary.

The "best people" line has not merely aged poorly. It has collapsed. Senior White House staff turnover in his first term tripled Obama’s first-year rate and doubled Reagan’s. By 2019, Cabinet turnover exceeded any predecessor’s full first term. These were not the best people leaving. These were the last competent ones.

Protections under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act now depend on bureaucrats who inherited them by accident.

Turnover is not just a statistic. It severs institutional memory, drains expertise and fractures the continuity that keeps agencies functional. Each loyalist swap scrambles planning, multiplies errors and leaves fewer people in the room who know what they are doing. Chaos is not a byproduct of this management style. It is the method.

The second term accelerated the purge. "A Team" turnover reached 32 percent by April 2026. The federal workforce shrank by 9 to 10 percent in 2025 alone, erasing 238,000 positions as hiring froze. This was not streamlining. It was evisceration by spreadsheet.

The damage is institutional. DHS gutted hundreds of FEMA positions, then installed Phillips atop the ruins.

The Education Department scattered its programs across HHS, Labor, State and Interior; eliminated civil rights enforcement offices; left disabled students without funding for months; and forced rural schools to wither as mismatched agencies fumbled responsibilities they were never designed to carry. Protections under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act now depend on bureaucrats who inherited them by accident. Trump calls it efficiency. Families call it something else.

What Trump’s record demonstrates is simpler than he suggests. The "best people" were never the objective.

He did not tolerate the hemorrhage. He engineered it. Schedule F, the executive order reclassifying federal workers in policy roles as at-will employees, was revived to strip career professionals of civil service protections. Inspectors general were dismissed. Probationary employees were purged across agencies. The architecture of independent oversight was not reformed. It was targeted.

Merit systems exist for reasons that predate Trump and will outlast him. They concentrate talent, reduce turnover and preserve institutional capacity across administrations. Nations that govern well hire for competence, reward performance and retain expertise. They do not confuse enthusiasm with skill or mistake a podcast for a credential.

Defenders of the chaos invoke disruption as though it were a virtue. It is not. Organizations that hire for loyalty over competence do not disrupt industries. They decay. Talent exits. Errors compound. Confidence collapses. The public sector version is no different, except citizens cannot take their business elsewhere.

What Trump’s record demonstrates is simpler than he suggests. The "best people" were never the objective. Compliance was. Dissent was punished, eccentricity rewarded and a man who believes he has teleported now oversees the nation’s emergency response.

That is not a punchline. Somewhere, a disaster is already forming.

Previous administrations hired qualified professionals with care. The next hurricane will not care who replaced them.

TAGS: Trump administration staffing criticism, FEMA leadership controversy opinion, federal workforce turnover analysis, political opinion on government hiring, impact of leadership on public agencies

Illinois women help drive landmark end-of-life reform

Advocates say Illinois women played a defining role in the state’s newly passed medical aid-in-dying law. Their stories and leadership helped shape the first legislation of its kind in the Midwest.

by Judith Ruiz-Branch
Public News Service

CHICAGO - March is Women’s History Month and an organization advocating for end-of-life reform is highlighting the significant role of women from Illinois in driving the movement.

The state recently became the first in the Midwest to legalize medical aid in dying.

Callie Riley, regional advocacy director for Compassion & Choices, said Illinois residents Suzy Flack and Deborah Robertson were instrumental in getting the legislation passed. Riley noted the bill is nicknamed “Deb's Law” because of Robertson, who served as a leader despite living with a rare form of cancer.

"The work we do is really driven by the stories of people who are directly impacted by both good end-of-life care and end-of-life care that falls short," Riley explained. "In my experience, so many of our storytellers, our volunteers, our leaders, our advocates are women."

Riley pointed out Flack became an advocate after witnessing her son, who was diagnosed with terminal cancer, die peacefully and autonomously using medical aid in another state. Deb’s Law takes effect in Illinois in September.

Riley added the historical roots of the movement for better end-of-life-care dates back to the early HIV epidemic. Alternative care networks developed because people living with HIV and AIDS did not receive adequate care from the traditional medical system.

"It was predominantly women providing that care; queer women, straight women, people who knew and loved people who were living with HIV," Riley recounted. "To me, it's not surprising that has continued."

Riley stressed increased advocacy has created a dialogue about the importance of autonomy in end-of-life decisions, with supporters long pushing for medical aid in dying legislation in Illinois. It is currently legal in 12 other states.

TAGS: Illinois women advocates, Deb’s Law Illinois, medical aid in dying Midwest, Compassion & Choices Illinois, end-of-life reform movement

When a president is unfit for office, here’s what the Constitution says can happen

by Kirsten Matoy Carlson
Wayne State University
The Conversation

Bipartisan calls for President Donald Trump’s removal from office increased on April 7, 2026, after he issued threats to destroy “a whole civilization” if Iran refuses to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

These calls have come from across the political spectrum, from Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico to former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and right-wing pundit Alex Jones. Unlikely allies seem to agree that the president has gone too far and needs to be reined in.

Their concerns have emerged as Iran has walked away from talks to end the war and Trump’s language suggests that he plans to escalate it by destroying the country’s power plants and bridges.

Concerns over Trump’s fitness for office have grown in recent weeks as his commentary has become more erratic.

If lawmakers do attempt to remove Trump from office, here’s what would happen:

25th Amendment

The Constitution’s 25th Amendment provides a way for high-level officials to remove a president from office. It was ratified in 1967 in the wake of the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy – who was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson, who had already had one heart attack – as well as delayed disclosure of health problems experienced by Kennedy’s predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower.

The 25th Amendment provides detailed procedures on what happens if a president resigns, dies in office, has a temporary disability or is no longer fit for office.

It has never been invoked against a president’s will, and has been used only to temporarily transfer power, such as when a president is undergoing a medical procedure requiring anesthesia.

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment authorizes high-level officials – either the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet or another body designated by Congress – to remove a president from office without his consent when he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Congress has yet to designate an alternative body, and scholars disagree over the role, if any, of acting Cabinet officials.

The high-level officials simply send a written declaration to the president pro tempore of the Senate – the longest-serving senator from the majority party – and the speaker of the House of Representatives, stating that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. The vice president immediately assumes the powers and duties of the president.

The president, however, can fight back. He or she can seek to resume their powers by informing congressional leadership in writing that they are fit for office and no disability exists. But the president doesn’t get the presidency back just by saying this.

The high-level officials originally questioning the president’s fitness then have four days to decide whether they disagree with the president. If they notify congressional leadership that they disagree, the vice president retains control and Congress has 48 hours to convene to discuss the issue. Congress has 21 days to debate and vote on whether the president is unfit or unable to resume his powers.

The vice president remains the acting president until Congress votes or the 21-day period lapses. A two-thirds majority vote by members of both houses of Congress is required to remove the president from office. If that vote fails or does not happen within the 21-day period, the president resumes his powers immediately.

The case for impeachment

Article II of the Constitution authorizes Congress to impeach and remove the president – and other federal officials – from office for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The founders included this provision as a tool to punish a president for misconduct and abuses of power. It’s one of the many ways that Congress could keep the president in check, if it chose to.

Impeachment proceedings begin in the House of Representatives. A member of the House files a resolution for impeachment. The resolution goes to the House Judiciary Committee, which usually holds a hearing to evaluate the resolution. If the House Judiciary Committee thinks impeachment is proper, its members draft and vote on articles of impeachment. Once the House Judiciary Committee approves articles of impeachment, they go to the full House for a vote.

If the House of Representatives impeaches a president or another official, the action then moves to the Senate. Under the Constitution’s Article I, the Senate has the responsibility for determining whether to remove the person from office. Normally, the Senate holds a trial, but it controls its procedures and can limit the process if it wants.

Ultimately, the Senate votes on whether to remove the president – which requires a two-thirds majority, or 67 senators. To date, the Senate has never voted to remove a president from office, although it almost did in 1868, when President Andrew Johnson escaped removal from office by one vote.

The Senate also has the power to disqualify a public official from holding public office in the future. If the person is convicted and removed from office, only then can senators vote on whether to permanently disqualify that person from ever again holding federal office. Members of Congress proposing the impeachment of Trump have promised to include a provision to do so. A simple majority vote is all that’s required then.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Jan. 9, 2021.

Kirsten Matoy Carlson, Professor of Law and Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Wayne State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Letter to the Editor |
Reader fears Midterm elections may be compromised

Here are the steps Republicans will use to stain and subvert the upcoming elections.

Dear Editor,

Will the 2026 Midterm elections be conducted in a “free and fair” manner? Could they be compromised in some fashion? Yes, but how?

Step One: Mr. Trump will declare, without verifiable evidence, that voter fraud will take place during said elections in Blue states. He signs an Executive Order limiting mail-in voting.

Step Two: Legislators in some Red states will promulgate creative laws to allow the “redrawing” of congressional district maps, to “gain” additional U.S. House of Representatives seats.

Step Three: Given unverified voter fraud allegations, the Department of Justice will instruct the FBI to initiate criminal/civil court proceedings against Blue states suspected of perpetrating such fraud.

Step Four: Again, based upon voter fraud allegations, the Department of Homeland Security will deploy ICE agents to large cities in Blue states to monitor, patrol, question, and detain registered voters “deemed suspicious.”

Step Five: Republican members of Congress will be instructed to promulgate new laws and statues designed to prevent full participation by all citizens eligible to vote, by introducing VOTER ID requirements, eliminating mail-in ballots, etc..

Step Six: Both the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the CIA will declare evidence of foreign government interference with voting machines in Blue states and will impound said machines until a thorough investigation has been conducted. The election results will, therefore, be postponed until further notice.

Mr. Trump has installed loyal sycophants in all of the agencies cited above, who are more than willing to subvert “free and fair” elections taking place especially in Blue states.

WARNING, free and fair Midterm elections may not take place in 2026.

John M. Mishler
Harpswell, ME

About the author ~

John M. Mishler was a former Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and Professor of Basic Life Sciences, Medicine, and Pharmacology at the University of Missouri. He currently resides in Harpswell, Maine.

Communities divided over AI Data Centers in Illinois, lawmakers eye regulations

A proposed $500 million data center in Sangamon County is drawing mixed reactions from residents and officials. Supporters point to economic growth, job creation and investment. Critics raise concerns about environmental impact, water use and rising energy costs.

I must say, the more I learn about them, the more concerned I am...

by Judith Ruiz-Branch
Public News Service

CHICAGO - Rural Illinois is another area where tech companies are looking to build massive artificial-intelligence data centers. Communities are split on whether they should welcome them.

A proposed $500 million data center by CyrusOne in Sangamon County that would utilize about 280 acres of farmland has sparked debate among residents, officials and lawmakers. Supporters highlight economic benefits such as construction jobs, permanent employment and local investment. Critics counter that there would be a limited number of local jobs, and also raise concern about environmental impacts, rising electricity costs and water usage.

Local activist Lori McKiernan with the Coalition for Springfield’s Utility Future called for more scrutiny.

"I’m not against data centers, but I must say, the more I learn about them, the more concerned I am," she said. "And I want our county board to do their due diligence to address all of these concerns and make sure they’re not impacting their constituents."

The Sangamon County Board voted to postpone a final vote on the proposed project after hours of public opposition. The decision delays the approval of what would be the county’s first major data center.

Meanwhile, Illinois lawmakers are considering new regulations, including the Power Act, which would require data centers to use clean energy, cover infrastructure costs, and disclose water and environmental impacts.

Scott Allen, a policy analyst for the Citizens Utility Board, said this comes amid broader concern that large data centers could shift utility costs onto residents.

"This legislative session that’s currently underway is going to be the data center legislative session," he said. "Especially at the legislative level, we’re not going to get anything done until this data center thing is figured out."

Sangamon County is just the latest community in Illinois to put a pause on data center projects. Neighboring towns and cities have passed moratoriums on data center applications and have turned projects down.

TAGS: Sangamon County data center proposal Illinois debate, AI data centers rural Illinois environmental concerns, Illinois Power Act data center regulations explained, impact of data centers on electricity costs Illinois, community response to data center projects Illinois

Toll hikes, $26.5 billion plan highlight Illinois transportation changes

Toll hike approved

Public transit overhaul

Transit board taking shape

Illinois insurance department to review home and auto rate hikes starting in 2027

Let's take 60 seconds for a moment of silence

Illinois Medicaid bill removes health coverage eligibility for thousands of noncitizens

Illinois’ Medicaid bill

Stalled programs

Viewpoint |
The trillion dollar presidency

Viewpoint |
Republicans defend White House ballroom plan amid security claims

Viewpoint |
Trump’s “best people” promise collapses under latest FEMA appointment

Illinois women help drive landmark end-of-life reform

When a president is unfit for office, here’s what the Constitution says can happen

25th Amendment

The case for impeachment

Letter to the Editor |
Reader fears Midterm elections may be compromised

Communities divided over AI Data Centers in Illinois, lawmakers eye regulations

Editor's Choice

Free Urbana program shows homeowners how to turn stormwater into a landscape asset

More Sentinel Stories

Sentinel Prep Sports

Photo Galleries

Varsity Snapshot

Search the Sentinel

Top stories this year

Toll hike approved

Public transit overhaul

Transit board taking shape

Other stories you might like ...

Other stories you might like ...

Related articles to read:

Illinois’ Medicaid bill

Stalled programs

Other stories you might like ...

More Editorial Viewpoints

More Editorial Viewpoints

More Editorial Viewpoints

More on Illinois

25th Amendment

The case for impeachment

Related articles to read:

More that might interest you

Editor's Choice

More Sentinel Stories

Sentinel Prep Sports

Photo Galleries

Varsity Snapshot

Search the Sentinel

Top stories this year