Glenn doesn't like war or people being killed. Iran has been a constant supporter of terrorism and he hopes America's recent attack motivates Khamenei supported terrorists to chill out.
by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator
Glenn Mollette
President Donald Trump is obviously hated by some people on the planet. Anyone connected to the Ayatollah Khamenei most likely hates him. Anyone connected to Iranian terrorism hates him. Sadly, many American Democrats hate him. There have already been attempts to kill him and I fear there will be more from those connected to Iranian terrorism causes. Our Secret Service, FBI and others involved in protecting him are obviously aware that he is in constant danger. Let’s all please pray for his safety and for there to be no complacency in protecting him.
The news media is always reporting where he is located. I don’t think that wise. Whether he is in Mar-a-Lago, DC or New York City, is it really important that we all know? I don’t see how detailing his every location bodes well for his security. I am just a lowly voting citizen and what do I know? Not much, but I do belief these are perilous times as hostility from Iranian regime sympathizers is surely beyond the boiling point.
I doubt that the evil will all be totally destroyed and eliminated. We have to realize that in some way and some form there will be blowback.
We hope and pray that Iran can become a country run by the people of the country. Who knows how long and what this will involve. We were in Iraq and Afghanistan for a very long time. Can we really point to those countries and boast of success? Both countries are still a mess and we lost thousands of lives and spent trillions of dollars.
I do hope that President Trump is successful and that the Iranian people can take back their country. This would be good for them and the world.
In the meantime, while you are praying for the safety of our President, look over your own shoulder. All of us are vulnerable. The TSA needs our utmost support emotionally and financially. Surely by the time you read this Congress will have restored their pay. We are all vulnerable whether flying or being in any public place where people gather. School and churches are extremely vulnerable. Please increase your attention to security.
Terrorism extremism can raise its ugly head any place at any time. Crazy people do crazy stuff and many seem to be happy to sacrifice their own lives to further their causes.
I don’t like war or people being killed. However, Iran has been a constant supporter of terrorism. Khamenei has been the central figure and leader in the world of terror for about 37 years. That was far too long and there wasn’t any end in sight.
My prayer is that the attack will end and this will soon be over. However, I doubt that the evil will all be totally destroyed and eliminated. We have to realize that in some way and some form there will be blowback. Therefore, be alert, practice safety and try to help and look out for each other. The world doesn’t have to be a bad place. We can’t give up. Keep treating each other respectfully and kindly and stay alert to evil.
About the author ~
Glen Mollett is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states.
More Editorial Viewpoints
TAGS: Donald Trump is hated by people around the world, Iranian sympathizers are mad, American Democrats hate President Trump, terrorism can happen at any time, Americans should look out for each other
A community whistleblower recounts the reaction to recording public meetings. In his letter, he argues that transparency should not provoke fear if the governmental body is operating above board.
Dear Editor,
Being a known whistleblower is a wild experience because, apparently, sitting quietly at a public meeting with a camera now counts as an act of aggression. I walk in, take a seat, hit record, and you would think I just pulled the fire alarm. Heads start swiveling, whispers start flying, and before long someone decides the real emergency in the room is me documenting what elected officials are saying into a microphone.
My personal favorite is when people start recording me while I am recording them, as if we have entered some strange standoff where the last camera standing wins. I am not sure what they think they are going to capture. A man sitting in a chair? A citizen listening? The suspense is unbearable.
Then there is the dramatic parking lot energy after adjournment, when a few brave souls suddenly find the courage to confront the man with the notebook. I usually make a polite early exit because I am not interested in late-night debates next to a shopping cart corral. I am there for one reason, and it is not small talk. I am there to go straight to the source of the problem and deal with it at the head, not nibble around the edges to make everyone feel comfortable.
Here is what makes it funny and telling at the same time. No one panics over a camera when everything is clean. No one cares about public records when there is nothing in them. The only time a whistleblower becomes the villain of the story is when the story has something in it worth hiding. If the strategy is to intimidate the person asking questions instead of answering them, that says more than any investigation ever could.
Every time the focus shifts to me instead of the issue, it confirms I am looking in the right place. Targeting a whistleblower does not protect the public. It protects whatever cannot survive daylight. And if that is the reaction, then I will keep showing up, keep recording and keep digging. Because if a camera and a notebook shake the room that much, imagine what the truth is doing.
letter to the editor about government transparency, whistleblower recording public meetings opinion, public records and open meetings accountability, citizen journalist documenting elected officials, intimidation concerns at local government meetings
Haunting memories of a child's measles death in rural Nepal take on new urgency as the disease surges across America with over 900 cases in just six weeks. A former immunization team leader warns that declining vaccination rates threaten to return the U.S. to an era of preventable childhood deaths.
by Mary Anne Mercer, MPH, DrPH
The escalating number of measles infections in the U.S. brings haunting memories from the year I spent leading an immunization team in Nepal. I was trekking through a rural district without roads, electricity, or modern conveniences. We immunized kids under age five against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, and tuberculosis, but a heat-stable measles vaccine was not yet available. Sadly, in those small villages the deadliest, most feared illness was measles.
I wrote in my journal about a day I was called to see a child suffering from measles.
We moved into the shadows of a low-slung house and stepped inside. An elderly woman sat on a mat, holding the now lifeless body of a small child, pale and still, in her arms. She was half-singing, half-crying an ancient sound of mourning, rocking him gently and fondling his face, arms, and legs. It was a painful sight, almost too difficult to witness. I took a deep breath, fighting back tears, an immense effort to keep my composure in the face of this tragic scene.
“There’s the boy’s mother,” whispered the local health assistant, pointing with his chin to a younger woman weeping quietly next to the grandmother. In her arms was an older child, also suffering from measles. Other adults and children milled about the shadows of the room. Dust motes floated in the narrow beacon of sunlight streaming through one small window.
We approached the two women with a deep namaste. “Kasto dukhha, Aama,” I said and bowed respectfully. So much pain. The child’s mother looked up with the saddest of eyes and nodded her acknowledgement.
Before a vaccine was widely available, measles caused two to three million deaths around the world every year, most often among malnourished kids. The first measles vaccine required freezing and refrigeration at every point prior to injection, so it was years before a new formulation was available that could be used in areas without electricity. Even today, measles is still a leading cause of child death in poor countries, killing over 100,000 children annually.
In pre-vaccine U.S., measles was an expected rite of passage for kids. “Just get it over with,” was the usual advice. During that era, around half a million U.S. kids came down with measles and roughly 500 of them died every year. When immunization programs were launched after 1963, the numbers gradually dropped to fewer than 100 cases a year by the late 1990s.
But now -- it’s coming back. In 2025, more than 2200 cases were reported in the US, most in families with religious or other objections to immunizations. Three of them died. In only the first six weeks of 2026 over 900 cases have been reported, encompassing half the U.S. states. Among that group are many children of “anti-vaxxer” parents, who unknowingly put their children at risk by refusing the vaccine. Even college campuses are seeing a surge in infections because of generally lower immunization rates among incoming groups.
Why such rapid spread? Measles is in fact one of the most infectious diseases we know: Just spending a few minutes in a room soon after a measles patient has left is enough exposure to lead to infection. Similarly, touching something contaminated by droplets from the sick person’s sneezing or coughing also will do it.
We can combat deaths from measles with widespread vaccinations. “Herd immunity” for measles requires that 95% of susceptible people are vaccinated, and as coverage drops below that level, the risk of outbreaks increases. But the value of vaccines is apparently not understood by our Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Though without formal health training, Kennedy has expressed unverified concerns about the safety of many routine childhood immunizations.
Before President Trump took office, the U.S. was a major supporter of organizations providing vaccines and other basic health interventions for children around the world. But funding for vaccines meant to save children’s lives was cut by the Trump administration, and other sources of support have been slow to emerge. The result: many families—some who live in the most impoverished places on earth—are on their own to provide for their children’s health.
Vaccines prevent kids’ dying from measles and other infectious diseases. We must not return to the era of tragic, needless child deaths that I encountered in Nepal - which could return to this country, unless we safeguard the system that protects our most vulnerable.
About the author ~
Dr. Mary Anne Mercer is a University of Washington public health faculty member and author whose four-decade career has focused on maternal and child health in developing nations. Beginning with her transformative year providing immunizations in rural Nepal in 1978, she has developed health projects in 14 countries and authored books including Beyond the Next Village (2022) and Sickness and Wealth: The Corporate Assault on Global Health. Her recent work strengthening midwifery care through mobile technology in Timor-Leste has been adopted as a national program.
More Editorial Viewpoints
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.
TAGS: measles outbreak 2026 United States cases, childhood vaccination rates declining America, RFK Jr vaccine policy concerns, herd immunity measles 95 percent threshold
While no indictment has established direct bribery, the Van Abbott argues the cumulative structure strains democratic norms. Citing watchdog findings from Trump’s first term and he calls for renewed scrutiny in Trump's second term.
by Van Abbott
In a second term, tens of billions of dollars now hover at the intersection of presidential power and private profit. According to the New York Times (01/20/2026), Trump and his family have already realized at least $1.4 billion in profit, a figure projected to rise substantially over the next three years.
More than an estimated $75 billion in legal claims, contested payments, foreign investments, settlements, pledges, and revenue streams orbit enterprises tied to Donald Trump and his family. How much ultimately becomes personal gain remains uncertain. The ledger opens with a $10 billion lawsuit and a $230 million claim against the United States Treasury. It includes $500 million directed to a Trump cryptocurrency venture, $500 million linked to a Venezuela oil transaction, and $10 billion tied to a so called Peace Council initiative.
Add a reported $40 billion Argentina loan, $16 million in direct media settlements plus $35 million in in kind value, and a $400 million aircraft arrangement from Qatar, along with hundreds of millions tied to pardon recipients and more than $1 billion from sovereign wealth funds benefiting family connected ventures.
The concern is not a single transaction but a recurring structure in which public authority and private enterprise operate without durable separation.
These figures frame a presidency in which power and profit converge. Multibillion dollar real estate negotiations involving foreign governments sit beside corporate pledges toward a future presidential library and ballroom from firms with business before federal regulators. Roughly $300 million in cryptocurrency offerings marketed to political supporters, tens of millions in campaign funds routed through Trump affiliated properties, multimillion dollar legal defense accounts financed by policy interested donors, and brand licensing profits exceeding $1 billion add further weight.
The concern is not a single transaction but a recurring structure in which public authority and private enterprise operate without durable separation.
Foreign capital presents a clear fault line. Jared Kushner’s $2 billion Saudi investment after his White House tenure illustrates how diplomatic access and post office profit can intersect.
Corporate pledges tied to a prospective presidential library and ballroom raise parallel concerns. Lawmakers argue that donations from firms facing federal review resemble influence purchases. Technology companies, energy exporters, financial institutions, and defense contractors depend on federal discretion. When those same actors finance projects aligned with the president, the conflict shifts from incidental to expected. Access encourages contribution, and contribution fosters expectation.
Trump’s continued ownership of a global brand compounds the issue. During his first term, watchdog organizations documented thousands of potential conflicts involving government spending at Trump properties. A second term has revived those questions.
Clemency and pardon authority offer another aperture into monetized influence. The Constitution grants broad discretion. When recipients include donors, former aides, or politically useful figures, the distinction between mercy and transaction blurs. Even absent proof of quid pro quo arrangements, the pattern erodes confidence in impartial justice.
Soft leverage deepens the dynamic. Universities reliant on federal grants, media companies confronting license reviews, and industries pressing for tariff relief operate in a climate where access carries implicit value. None alone establishes criminal conduct. Together they depict a system.
Defenders note that no indictment has established direct bribery tied to second term actions. Yet corruption need not culminate in prosecution to inflict damage.
The cumulative effect resembles an economic ecosystem organized around political influence. Campaign committees draw funds from interested parties. Businesses expand in markets shaped by executive decisions. Former officials capitalize on relationships forged in office. Each component may satisfy narrow legal standards, yet the architecture as a whole strains public trust.
That strain carries measurable consequences. Democratic governance depends on confidence that tariffs advance national strategy rather than private balance sheets, that clemency reflects justice rather than loyalty, and that regulatory outcomes arise from evidence rather than financial alignment. When those assurances erode, legitimacy erodes with them.
Congress retains authority to reassert boundaries through oversight, mandatory disclosures, stronger conflict of interest rules, and divestiture requirements durable enough to outlast any individual office holder. When precedent begins to normalize impropriety, inaction becomes complicity.
The opening ledger of billions is not merely an estimated catalog of transactions. It represents billions hovering at the intersection of presidential power and private profit that is not abstract. At least $1.4 billion has already been realized, with vastly larger sums positioned within reach of executive discretion.
The worst case is not a single unlawful act. It is normalization. It is a presidency in which foreign governments calculate payments as policy leverage, corporations treat donations as regulatory insurance, and clemency becomes another instrument of transactional politics.
Once that precedent hardens, future presidents will inherit not guardrails but a blueprint. The cost would not be measured only in dollars, but in a durable shift from constitutional stewardship to monetized power.
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.
More Editorial Viewpoints
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.
TAGS: Trump second term conflicts of interest analysis, presidential power and private profit op-ed, foreign investments linked to Trump family businesses, cryptocurrency ventures and political fundraising concerns, congressional oversight and presidential divestiture debate
Illinois consumer advocacy groups are demanding action as electricity bills rise and data centers use an increasing amount of power. But data center operators warn unfavorable state policies, combined with an existing biometric privacy law, could drive them away from Illinois to places like Wisconsin or Indiana.
Gabriel Castilho
Medill Illinois News Bureau / Capitol News Illinois SPRINGFIELD - The debate over how to regulate data centers in Illinois is intensifying as lawmakers struggle to balance costs to consumers and the state’s need to be competitive economically.
Data centers house computer systems that store, process and distribute data but require large amounts of energy to power that workload. A growing number of these facilities are used to power AI.
Illustration: PromptPlay/Pixabay
Data centers house thousands of interconnected servers and storage systems that process, manage and deliver digital information through private networks and the internet. Their intensive energy demands can strain local power grids and contribute to higher electricity costs for surrounding communities.
A state report published in December projects energy shortfalls would begin in northern Illinois by 2029 and the rest of the state by 2031, driven in large part by data centers’ increased power usage. That’s led Gov. JB Pritzker to backtrack on a proposal he signed in his first year as governor to incentivize data center development in the state.
“With the shifting energy landscape, it is imperative that our growth does not undermine affordability and stability for our families,” he said, proposing a two-year moratorium on the incentives in his budget address Wednesday.
Illinois consumers blame data centers — which often receive generous tax incentives in Illinois — for straining the grid and driving up prices, and they want relief. But companies that operate the centers are seeking ways to build more quickly and pushing for looser regulation, arguing the centers are key to the state’s economic future.
Environmentalists want new data centers to build their own renewable energy sources on site
And the state, from the governor’s office to the legislature, is struggling with ways to balance the economic interests tied to data center development with environmental and consumer cost concerns.
“We don’t want them to overwhelm our electrical capabilities and our water resources,” Sen. Steve Stadelman, D-Caledonia, said. “If we’re going to allow them and track them, how can we make sure it benefits Illinois residents and rate payers in the state?”
Data center negotiations continue
These are the same issues and tensions legislators hoped to address in their fall veto session. But no broad consensus was reached, and instead, Gov. JB Pritzker signed the Clean and Reliable Grid Affordability Act, adding new air regulations for backup generators used by data centers.
Lawmakers in Springfield have already begun negotiating a new round of data center regulations.
Sen. Ram Villivalam, D-Chicago, recently announced the introduction of Senate Bill 4016, known as the POWER Act, to place prohibitions on cost shifting, introduce “bring your own new clean capacity and energy,” guarantee transparent public engagement and implement water efficiency standards on data centers.
“By establishing policies that ensure data centers, not consumers, bear the increasing energy costs, and critical protections for our environment and sustainable water use, we can work toward a future built for technology to support our daily lives,” Villivalam said, “not deplete our resources and price us out of our homes.”
Environmentalists want new data centers to build their own renewable energy sources on site to prevent new projects from further stressing energy infrastructure and creating more pollution.
Pritzker said something similar earlier this month: “If they are, in any way, going to increase the price of electricity for consumers, they should pay for that increase, not the consumers.”.
The data center companies oppose such mandates, preferring a voluntary “bring your own energy” policy, according to Brad Tietz, director of state policy for the Data Center Coalition industry group.
“I think, ultimately, when you try to mandate something, you get less of it,” he said.
States are competing to attract investments from companies that want to build more data centers as they seek an edge in the artificial intelligence race. Illinois has the fourth-largest number of data centers — 222 — in the country, but Tietz said the state is in danger of slipping because other states have friendlier policies.
We're a leader in the country as far as protecting people's privacy rights and protecting their data
Illinois has provided tax incentives for data centers since Pritzker signed bipartisan legislation in 2019. According to the state’s 2024 report, at least 27 data centers had received incentives totaling $983 million in estimated lifetime tax breaks and benefits. That would stop for at least two years under Pritzker’s plan.
Sen. Terri Bryant, R-Murphysboro, said she would like to see “a change in our policy here in Illinois” so the state does not fall behind, though she hopes those centers bring their own energy.
“We want to be able to do that because if we don’t, China will. If we don’t, Wisconsin will, Indiana will,” she said.
‘Little type of war’
As negotiations progress, the Data Center Coalition has signified another point of contention: A 2008 law known as the Biometric Information Privacy Act that prohibits private companies from collecting personal data without informed consent. The law allows people to sue over the misuse of their biometric profile, such as fingerprint mapping, facial recognition and retina scans.
Stadelman said the privacy protections in the act, which Illinois put in place before any other state, are at the center of a “little type of war.”
“You have privacy rights advocates saying, ‘We're a leader in the country as far as protecting people's privacy rights and protecting their data,’” Stadelman said. “But the data (centers) say, ‘We're not going to have more projects in Illinois unless you change the BIPA legislation.’”
Tietz said these regulations have factored into operators’ decisions to bypass Illinois, although lawmakers in 2024 drastically curtailed the way damages accrue and the liability private entities are likely to face if found in violation.
But the data center industry wasn't satisfied, and its leaders say the legal liabilities are one reason they are building in other states.
Abe Scarr, state director of the Illinois Public Interest Research Group, said biometric information is uniquely sensitive.
“We should know who is collecting and commercializing information created from the stuff our lives are made of,” Scarr said. “And we should have to opt into — and be able to easily opt out of — pervasive, intrusive surveillance.”
Consumer backlash
The legislative debate comes as data centers have become increasingly controversial. In January, the Aurora City Council approved a moratorium pausing new data centers. The city had five data centers in development and had been receiving requests to build more even as residents and environmental groups complained about noise, water usage and rising utility costs.
Alison Lindburg, director of sustainability for Aurora, said the city passed the moratorium because it needed time to put requirements for data centers in place.
“We have tried to explain that to communities, that it’s not just about data centers in Aurora, it’s about the entire grid, but that doesn’t matter to them,” Lindburg said in an interview. “I think they’re just very frustrated overall with the rising electricity prices.”
Hannah Flath, Illinois Environmental Council’s climate communications director, said other communities are also opposing data centers.
“In that case (Aurora), the local government acted in accordance with what their local constituents were saying,” Flath said.
Tietz said he has been in conversations with officials from Aurora about the 180-day moratorium and is hoping he can help find a solution.
Lucy Contreras, GreenLatinos Illinois state program director, said communities should have a voice in whether, where and how these projects are built. She said developers must ensure host communities receive tangible benefits rather than bearing only the burdens of hosting these facilities.
“They contribute to air pollution and consume excessive amounts of water daily, which restrains local water systems that might already be struggling,” Contreras said. “Without strong and forceful regulations, data center expansion will deepen existing inequalities, harm public health and undermine our Illinois clean energy goals.”
Spreading the costs
Utilities are building billions of dollars of new power lines and plants to keep up with energy demand increases brought on by data centers — whether they’re built or in the process of being built. They, in turn, spread associated costs to ratepayers.
“Speculation about data center development has actually increased prices,” Sen. Bill Cunningham, D-Chicago, said. “It’s not just the immediate demand, it’s anticipated future demand, so it’s really important to sift out the wheat from the chaff on what’s a real proposal and what isn’t.”
Cunningham said he expects fellow Democratic lawmakers to work on safeguards for consumers when pending data center projects go uncompleted.
Recently, northern Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison announced it will require a 10-year guarantee of revenues upfront from big energy consumers. ComEd said this will help protect ratepayers from bearing the costs of high-load projects and ensure, even if they don't come to fruition.
Maddie Wazowicz, Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance policy director, said utilities function best when they can plan into the future.
“Whether or not data centers emerge — and how much, how many of them come, where and how long they last — does complicate utility long-term planning,” she said.
Gabriel Castilho is a graduate student in journalism with Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, Media and Integrated Marketing Communications, and is a fellow in its Medill Illinois News Bureau working in partnership with Capitol News Illinois.
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.
More on Illinois politics
Tags: unfavorable policies may drive data centers away, lawmakers want data center operators to use renewable energy, data centers raise electricity bills for area residents, Wisconsin and Indiana privacy laws are more relaxed than Illinois
A bill that would give state insurance regulators authority to review and modify homeowners insurance rates failed on the floor of the House last year but could be revived for a second vote when lawmakers return to the Statehouse this week.
Peter Hancock
Capitol News Illinois SPRINGFIELD - Illinois lawmakers are poised to make a second attempt at passing a bill that would give state regulators more authority to control the rising cost of homeowners insurance.
Gov. JB Pritzker called for the legislation last summer after Bloomington-based State Farm Insurance announced it was raising premiums in Illinois an average 27.2%, citing years of losses in its property casualty line of coverage due to weather-related disasters in the state.
Photo: Serge Lavoie/PEXELS
After a natural disaster struck a while back, some insurers increased premium payments more than 25%.
A bill to give the Illinois Department of Insurance authority to approve or reject insurance rate increases passed the Senate during last fall’s veto session. But when it returned to the House for a vote to concur with changes the Senate had made, the amended bill fell four votes short of the 60 needed for passage. That left many to believe the bill had died.
The following day, however, the bill’s chief House sponsor, Rep. Robyn Gabel, D-Evanston, refiled a motion to concur, which is allowed under House rules. And Pritzker has said since the end of the veto session that he still wants the legislation to pass.
“They get a second bite at the apple,” Kevin Martin, executive director of the Illinois Insurance Association, said in an interview.
Gabel told Capitol News Illinois through a spokesperson this week that no decision had been made about calling the bill for a second vote. But Martin said people in the industry have heard the bill could be called as early as Tuesday, when the House and Senate return to the Statehouse to begin the 2026 legislative session in earnest.
Current environment
The controversy over State Farm’s rate hike last year raised attention to the fact that Illinois stands out among states for having exceptionally weak regulations over the insurance industry.
Advocates for the legislation argue that every state in the nation except Illinois has a law that prohibits insurance companies from charging “inadequate, excessive or unfairly discriminatory” premiums. And other states’ insurance regulators have authority to review and modify proposed rate increases.
Illinois, however, is known in the insurance industry as a “use-and-file” state, meaning companies can raise their rates at any time and immediately put them into effect before filing the new rate schedule with state regulators.
The Illinois Department of Insurance has authority to license companies and agents to do business in the state. It also has authority to make sure insurance products sold in Illinois comply with state laws and that companies honor the terms of their policies. But it has no other authority to review or approve the rates they charge.
Douglas Heller, director of insurance for the Washington-based Consumer Federation of America, described Illinois’ law last year as “among the most toothless in the nation.”
In the wake of State Farm’s rate increase last year, Pritzker suggested the company was trying to shift the cost of disaster-related losses in other states like California and Florida onto the backs of Illinois consumers, and he said legislation was needed to prevent that practice from happening in Illinois.
“As states across the country face even more extreme weather than we do, we need to make sure Illinois homeowners are not paying for losses that companies experience in other states,” Pritzker said in an op-ed column published in the Chicago Tribune that was cosigned by House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch and Senate President Don Harmon.
State Farm officials firmly denied that allegation, and Martin insisted no insurance companies in Illinois engage in that practice.
“We have never seen anything like that, and we would argue very strongly that that does not happen and cannot happen based on the actuarial data that the companies have to provide in Illinois on Illinois losses,” he said.
Proposed changes
Pritzker’s call for new legislation to regulate homeowners insurance rates led to intense negotiations between the governor’s office, legislative leaders and the insurance industry. But the final language wasn’t unveiled until the final hours of the fall veto session.
The language was put into a Senate amendment to House Bill 3799. It included language prohibiting “excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory” rates. It also called for banning the practice of “cost-shifting” by requiring companies to use state-specific loss data to develop their rates whenever possible.
The bill also would leave in place the state’s “use-and-file” method of setting rates, meaning companies would not have to seek advance clearance from state regulators before implementing rate changes. But it would require them to give consumers at least 60 days’ advance notice before raising rates by 10% or more.
The major sticking point for the insurance industry, however, was the provision giving the Department of Insurance authority to review and approve or modify rates after they are put into place.
Under the proposed language, if the agency found a company’s rates to be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory, it would send the company a notice specifying the agency’s objections. Companies then would be allowed to defend their rates at an administrative hearing. But after that hearing, if the agency still believed the rates violated standards of the law, it would be authorized to order the company to rebate excess charges back to customers.
According to Martin, the industry’s main objection to that language was that there was no limit on how far back in time the agency could look in its rate review process.
“They can go back forever,” he said.
“We just believe that, in all of the negotiations that we had, for them to come in at the last minute with this type of language, of the changes that they made, was just something that we thought was really unfair,” Martin said.
The House and Senate have each been in session a few days this year, mainly to introduce new bills and to pass a few resolutions. But the work of the session will begin in earnest this coming week, starting Tuesday when both chambers will meet and begin holding committee hearings.
Pritzker is scheduled to deliver his annual budget and State of the State address to a joint session of the General Assembly on Wednesday.
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.
More on Illinois politics
Tags: Illinois bill to regulate insurance companies resurfaces, Illinois Insurance Association opposes new bill, homeowners insurance rate hikes, Illinois insurance consumers
An Indiana history professor says uncivil political behavior has long been part of American history. He urged Americans to approach political conversations with humility and compassion.
by Teri Dee Public News Service INDIANAPOLIS - Uncivil political behavior is well-documented in American history, according to one Indiana professor.
A 2024 Gallup poll indicated political rhetoric has gone too far and is fueling frustrations with political leadership. The study said 94% of Democrats and 93% of Republicans agreed inflammatory language aimed at the other party is harmful and counterproductive.
Ted Frantz, professor of history at the University of Indianapolis, argued anyone who is following U.S. politics can see the country is in a crisis moment.
Critics saw the decision as another attempt to distort and erase Black history.
"Since our politics tend to be reduced to two parties, at times, you might be able to justify what happens in the heat of the moment because you believe in your cause," Frantz explained. "But the problem with that, of course, is if you extend the rules or suspended the rules at a time when you really need them enforced for something you do care about, then somebody else can employ the same logic."
The survey also found Americans view the spread of extremist views online as a main factor contributing to political violence. Frantz agreed recognizing someone as human in a conversation is hard if the person is on a screen and people need to approach conversations about politics with a sense of humility and compassion. There can be more than one side to an argument, he added, and even if you disagree, you can express those ideas after showing up and listening.
Photo: Photo by Dan Mall/Unsplash
Last month, the Trump administration ordered the removal of four panels at Independence Park, the Philadelphia home of former president George Washington. The exhibit honored the names of nine enslaved people owned by Washington. Critics saw the decision as another attempt to distort and erase Black history. Frantz called the removal highly political and stressed more effort should be made to write history in a more balanced and inclusive tone.
"To rewrite history as rapidly as the administration did is a disservice to what happened during the Civil Rights Movement," Frantz contended. "It's a disservice to the professionalism of the people who had established those markers, and it helps, effectively, unfortunately, erase key narratives about what happened and why."
He underscored it is dangerous when politicians are willing to distort the past to promote a political agenda in the present. Last week, a federal judge ordered the panels restored while a lawsuit against the Interior Department proceeds.
More that might interest you
TAGS: 2024 Gallup poll political rhetoric findings, Ted Frantz University of Indianapolis political history, Independence Park Philadelphia exhibit panel removal, bipartisan views on inflammatory political language, federal judge restoration order Interior Department lawsuit
For years, MAGA has attacked minority groups in the name of “protecting women and children.” It turns out the real abusers are wealthy and powerful.
bySonali Kolhatkar
OtherWords
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s contentious House hearing about the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files offered a clear message to the nation: sex trafficking of women and minors is perfectly acceptable as long as wealthy white men do it.
Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced late sex trafficker, fixer, and political networker, was found to have ties to huge number of the world’s elites on both sides of the political aisle — including Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Ehud Barak, Bill Gates, Steve Bannon, Larry Summers, Bill Clinton, and of course, Donald Trump.
For years, Trump’s conservative backers have attacked LGBTQ+ people, drag queens, immigrants, and others, claiming a desire to protect women and children from rapists and groomers. Trump even boasted that “whether the women liked it or not,” he would “protect” them from migrants, whom he slandered as “monsters” who “kidnap and kill our children.”
Trump himself is named more than a million times in the files, according to lawmakers with access to the unredacted documents.
But when given the opportunity to seek justice for countless women and children who were trafficked, abused, and exploited by the world’s wealthiest, most powerful people, the MAGA movement and its leaders have shown a startling disinterest in accountability. During her hearing Bondi tried desperately to deflect attention, claiming that the stock market was more deserving of public attention than Epstein’s victims.
Even the Republican rank and file is now mysteriously detached from the Epstein files.
Polls show that in summer 2025, 40 percent of GOP voters disapproved of the federal government’s handling of the Epstein files. But by January 2026, only about half that percentage disapproved — even after the Trump administration missed its deadline to release millions of files and then released them in a way that exposed the victims while protecting the perpetrators.
While some European leaders are facing harsh consequences for associating with Epstein, no Americans outside of Epstein and his closest associate Ghislaine Maxwell have faced any consequences, legal or otherwise.
Epstein was a glorified drug dealer and his drugs of choice were the vulnerable bodies of women and children...
That’s despite very concrete ties between the Trump administration and the sex trafficker. Not only did Trump’s Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick admit to visiting Epstein island after lying about it (and has so far faced no consequences), but Trump himself is named more than a million times in the files, according to lawmakers with access to the unredacted documents. Several victims identify Trump by name, alleging he raped and assaulted them.
And it’s not just Trump. Epstein was an equal opportunity fixer. He was just as friendly with liberals as he was with conservatives, including Summers, Clinton, and, disconcertingly for the American left, Noam Chomsky. For elites like Epstein, ideological differences were superficial. The real distinction was money, power, and connections.
Epstein was a glorified drug dealer and his drugs of choice were the vulnerable bodies of women and children, offered up to his friends and allies as the forbidden currency he traded in. A useful moniker has emerged to describe the global network of elites whose power and privilege continues to protect them from accountability: the Epstein Class.
Georgia Senator John Ossoff, who faces reelection in 2026, is deploying this label, understanding that voters — at least those who haven’t bought into the MAGA cult — are increasingly aware of the double standards that wealthy power players are held to.
“This is the Epstein class, ruling our country,” said Ossoff in reference to those who make up the Trump administration. “They are the elites they pretend to hate.”
He’s right. And if the Trump administration won’t hold them to account, Americans should demand leaders who will.
About the author:
Sonali Kolhatkar is host and executive producer of Rising Up With Sonali, an independent, subscriber-based syndicated TV and radio show. She’s an award winning journalist and author of Talking About Abolition: A Police Free World is Possible, and Rising Up: The Power of Narrative in Pursuing Racial Justice. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.
Voters in most of the state’s counties can cast their vote in the March primary as soon as Feb. 5 at their local election authority. Chicago and suburban Cook County offer early voting beginning between Feb. 12 and March 2, depending on where you live.
by Jenna Schweikert & UIS Public Affairs Reporting
Capitol News Illinois
Capitol News Illinois has launched its revamped 2026 Election Guide to coincide with the opening of early voting throughout much of the state.
The guide has a rundown of key dates, information on how to register and vote early, and a lookup tool to put voters in touch with their local election authority. It also links to our coverage of the various races for statewide office.
The guide launched this week to coincide with early voting opening on Feb. 5 for the March 17 primary in most of the state, outside of Cook County. Early voting kicks off on Feb. 12 in downtown Chicago and either Feb. 18 or March 2 in suburban Cook County, depending on where you live. Early voting for all jurisdictions ends on March 16.
Most early voting takes place at the local election authority’s offices, which for most residents is their county clerk’s office. Some churches, libraries, colleges and universities and other government buildings are also offering early voting. Voters can find local polling locations and hours at the Illinois State Board of Elections website.
Registration is also open at most polling locations through Feb. 17. Grace period registration, available at some polling locations, opens Feb. 18 and closes on Election Day, March 17.
Registration is also open online at ova.elections.il.gov until March 1 and will reopen on March 19.
Registration identification
Any voter who needs to register for the first time or file an address change must present two forms of ID, one of which shows the voter's current address.
Valid forms of identification include work, school, state and military ID, passports and drivers licenses, leases and mortgages, utility bills, vehicle registration, credit and debit cards and insurance cards.
Voters who do not present a valid form of ID if needed can cast a provisional ballot and present ID to the election authority by March 24.
ID requirements vary at polling locations, but election authorities recommend bringing at least one form of identification in case of any questions.
Mail-in ballots
Mail-in ballots will also be sent to voters who’ve requested them beginning Feb. 5. The last day to request a mail-in ballot is March 12.
Election authorities will also accept mail ballots delivered by hand, and some have drop boxes where ballots can be delivered. Voters who requested a mail-in ballot can still vote in person but must surrender the mailed ballot before doing so.
Polls will be open 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Election Day. If voters are in line before the polls close, they are guaranteed a chance to vote.
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.
The Illinois House met Wednesday, passing several Democrat-introduced symbolic resolutions against the current administration's federal policies. House Republicans opposed the measures, characterizing them as unproductive.
Georgia Epiphaniou and Erika Tulfo are graduate students in journalism with Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, Media, Integrated Marketing Communications, and fellows in its Medill Illinois News Bureau working in partnership with Capitol News Illinois.
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.
More on Illinois politics
TAGS: Illinois House symbolic resolutions, Illinois Democrats Trump criticism, Illinois General Assembly spring session, GOP response Illinois House resolutions, Trump policies Illinois legislature
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents are using aggressive and sometimes violent methods to make arrests in its mass deportation campaign.
As Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents continued to use aggressive and sometimes violent methods to make arrests in its mass deportation campaign, including breaking down doors in Minneapolis homes, a bombshell report from the Associated Press on Jan. 21, 2026, said that an internal ICE memo – acquired via a whistleblower – asserted that immigration officers could enter a home without a judge’s warrant. That policy, the report said, constituted “a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches.”
Those limits have long been found in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed Dickinson College President John E. Jones III, a former federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 2002, for a primer on the Fourth Amendment, and what the changes in the ICE memo mean.
Okay, I’m going to read the Fourth Amendment – and then you’re going to explain it to us, please! Here goes:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Can you help us understand what that means?
Since the beginning of the republic, it has been uncontested that in order to invade someone’s home, you need to have a warrant that was considered, and signed off on, by a judicial officer. This mandate is right within the Fourth Amendment; it is a core protection.
In addition to that, through jurisprudence that has evolved since the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, it is settled law that it applies to everyone. That would include noncitizens as well.
What I see in this directive that ICE put out, apparently quite some time ago and somewhat secretly, is something that, to my mind, turns the Fourth Amendment on its head.
What does the Fourth Amendment aim to protect someone from?
In the context of the ICE search, it means that a person’s home, as they say, really is their castle. Historically, it was meant to remedy something that was true in England, where the colonists came from, which was that the king or those empowered by the king could invade people’s homes at will. The Fourth Amendment was meant to establish a sort of zone of privacy for people, so that their papers, their property, their persons would be safe from intrusion without cause.
So it’s essentially a protection against abuse of the government’s power.
That’s precisely what it is.
Has the accepted interpretation of the Fourth Amendment changed over the centuries?
It hasn’t. But Fourth Amendment law has evolved because the framers, for example, didn’t envision that there would be cellphones. They couldn’t understand or anticipate that there would be things like cellphones and electronic surveillance. All those modalities have come into the sphere of Fourth Amendment protection. The law has evolved in a way that actually has made Fourth Amendment protections greater and more wide-ranging, simply because of technology and other developments such as the use of automobiles and other means of transportation. So there are greater protected zones of privacy than just a person’s home.
ICE says it only needs an administrative warrant, not a judicial warrant, to enter a home and arrest someone. Can you briefly describe the difference and what it means in this situation?
It’s absolutely central to the question here. In this context, an administrative warrant is nothing more than the folks at ICE headquarters writing something up and directing their agents to go arrest somebody. That’s all. It’s a piece of paper that says ‘We want you arrested because we said so.’ At bottom that’s what an administrative warrant is, and of course it hasn’t been approved by a judge.
This authorized use of administrative warrants to circumvent the Fourth Amendment flies in the face of their limited use prior to the ICE directive.
A judicially approved warrant, on the other hand, has by definition been reviewed by a judge. In this case, it would be either a U.S. magistrate judge or U.S. district judge. That means that it would have to be supported by probable cause to enter someone’s residence to arrest them.
So the key distinction is that there’s a neutral arbiter. In this case, a federal judge who evaluates whether or not there’s sufficient cause to – as is stated clearly in the Fourth Amendment – be empowered to enter someone’s home. An administrative warrant has no such protection. It is not much more than a piece of paper generated in a self-serving way by ICE, free of review to substantiate what is stated in it.
ICE agents continued raids in Minnesota on Jan. 18, 2026, pulling a man who was wearing only underwear and a blanket out of a house in St. Paul.
Have there been other kinds of situations, historically, where the government has successfully proposed working around the Fourth Amendment?
There are a few, such as consent searches and exigent circumstances where someone is in danger or evidence is about to be destroyed. But generally it’s really the opposite and cases point to greater protections. For example, in the 1960s the Supreme Court had to confront warrantless wiretapping; it was very difficult for judges in that age who were not tech-savvy to apply the Fourth Amendment to this technology, and they struggled to find a remedy when there was no actual intrusion into a structure. In the end, the court found that intrusion was not necessary and that people’s expectation of privacy included their phone conversations. This of course has been extended to various other means of technology including GPS tracking and cellphone use generally.
What’s the direction this could go in at this point?
What I fear here – and I think ICE probably knows this – is that more often than not, a person who may not have legal standing to be in the country, notwithstanding the fact that there was a Fourth Amendment violation by ICE, may ultimately be out of luck. You could say that the arrest was illegal, and you go back to square one, but at the same time you’ve apprehended the person. So I’m struggling to figure out how you remedy this.
Photo: Sentinel/Clark Brooks St. Joseph-Ogden senior dribbles the ball down the court in the Spartans' home game against Sullivan. Er...
On This Day
Discover the headlines published on each of these days from our news and sports coverage from Champaign‑Urbana and the wider community. From local news and sports to community events, politics, and opinion pieces, The Sentinel archives capture the stories that shaped life in Champaign County year after year.
by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator
