Public servants and candidates see increase in threats during elections


Elected officials see rise in political violence. Threats from constituents could make it hard to find people willing to serve their communities.


by Judith Ruiz-Branch
Public News Service


CHICAGO - A pivotal voting season is underway and research shows threats and harassment against public officials can increase during election periods.

More than 50% of elected officials included in a recent Princeton survey said they have already experienced at least one form of hostility this year. Separate findings from the University of Illinois-Chicago show roughly 60% of mayors and nearly half of municipal and county officials have received threats since 2022.

Alexandra Filindra, professor of political science and psychology at the university, said the numbers could be even higher because some officials worry reporting a threat makes the problem worse.

"Elected officials are reluctant to talk about what is happening to them because they're afraid that it will invite more political violence to their door," Filindra explained.

Filindra noted they may also be reluctant to support security measures or policies to address the violence because they think it could be seen as self-dealing rather than a legitimate response to safety risks. She added the intimidation is not necessarily politically motivated but there is a partisan divide in how people perceive the threats.

Her research showed nearly 80% of respondents view safety concerns raised by officials from their own party as legitimate, compared with about 30% for officials from the other party.

Filindra pointed to growing inequality, rising costs and reduced access to healthcare and other government services as factors leaving more people frustrated and in need, sometimes with local officials as their most accessible point of contact. She stressed they need to be hard on the problems, not the people.

"It is perfectly understandable that one gets angry at a decision and that a decision is not fair but threats and doxing and showing up at somebody's home and threatening their kids is not acceptable," Filindra emphasized.

With many local government positions having low pay or even being voluntary, she warned threats could make it harder to recruit people willing to serve in local or state government. In the Princeton report, 76% of surveyed officials said hostility concerns make them less willing to participate in at least one political or civic activity.




TAGGED: hostility is scaring away politicians, more people frustrated and in need, threats against candidates increase during election periods, more than half of the mayors in the US have been threatened

Editorial |
Secret NDAs and data centers: Why Illinois needs government transparency


Secret nondisclosure agreements between government officials and private data center developers are raising questions about transparency and the public's right to know. An editorial argues Illinois should prohibit such agreements when officials are conducting the people's business.


by Sentinel Editorial Team



Elected government officials should be barred from signing nondisclosure agreements with private companies when performing official duties for their city, office, department or the state. I don't know about you, but the idea of an elected official signing a nondisclosure agreement with the sole purpose of working behind the backs of the people who elected them and whom they represent seems shady.

Tolono, and now Mahomet, have been targeted by data center developers. In both cases, when the community learned that its elected officials were doing them dirty behind closed doors and through nondisclosure agreements, the response and uproar have been significant.

According to KUTV, a survey published in August by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found that 61% of U.S. adults oppose data center construction in their area — a 12-percentage-point increase over four months.

It is only logical that you don't need to hide projects that are good for the community. So why proceed with negotiations for a project the public will object to — and behind their backs?

Let's be clear: Elected officials and members of government should not be able to legally sign NDAs with private companies when doing the people's business.

Bills to ban NDAs for data centers have been introduced in several states, including Michigan, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Ohio. Frankly, Illinois needs to do the same.

In an article published July 8, 2026, by Deanna Noël of Public Citizen, she describes several instances where NDAs have been used by data center developers and technology companies to keep communities and elected officials from learning about plans for proposed facilities until key approvals, subsidies or permits have been secured by the companies. Developers and shell companies do the dirty work, hiding the identity of the actual company that will eventually occupy the facility.

In that article, Noël's research showed that in Virginia, home to the world's largest concentration of data centers, 80% of localities with proposed or existing data centers have NDAs in place.

Sad.

Over in Mahomet, the data center developer modus operandi was running smoothly and quietly until Dani Tietz of the Mahomet Daily caught wind of rumors that a tech company was interested in building on land just outside the village limits. Her story, which ran a week ago, brought to light how three village officials signed NDAs and engaged in preliminary negotiations on a development deal worth $17 million that had started 10 months earlier.

The developer, Clean Cloud Energy, wants an area of about 340 acres of farmland in unincorporated Mahomet Township, west of Champaign. The property is outside current village limits but falls within Mahomet's extraterritorial jurisdiction under the village's planning and subdivision authority. Tietz, investigating further, put together a thorough outline of Clean Cloud's methodology and a timeline of its efforts for a possible Mahomet facility.

Days later, Mahomet citizens rallied together and began fighting the proposed facility while demanding further transparency. It recently came to light that if Mahomet annexes the proposed site, Clean Cloud Energy can evade a Champaign County-enacted 12-month moratorium on large-scale data centers — those with 10,000 or more square feet of processing area.

This is the pushback that data centers and developers fear, justifying their use of contractual hush agreements.

The Illinois General Assembly needs to pass legislation that prohibits public employees and officials from signing NDAs. The law should impose individual civil penalties not only on the employee or official individually but also on each representative of the company executing the agreement. Finally, the bill must require advance public notice in communities whenever local governments take action on a development application, including rezoning, tax incentives or utility use.

It's clear Illinois, like other states, needs strict transparency laws to protect families and their communities from overly ambitious village board and council members engaging in discreet negotiations with private companies.


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.




TAGGED: Illinois data center transparency laws, nondisclosure agreements and data center development, Mahomet Illinois data center controversy, government NDAs and public transparency, Illinois data center development negotiations

Critical thinking and the responsibility of voting in 2026


oursentinel.com viewpoint
Drawing on Reinhold Niebuhr’s observations about justice and democracy, John Mishler asks readers to consider whether they are critical thinkers or blind followers when making decisions at the ballot box.


by John M. Mishler
Guest Contributor


American Reformed Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once opined “…….Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” Is there a direct connection between acknowledging Niebuhr’s prescient words and being/becoming a responsible individual when voting? Yes.

oursentinel.com viewpoint
However, why utilize this connection now, prior to the upcoming 2026 midterm elections? Because the final results of these most important local, state, and national elections will determine if “We the People” have the “capacity for justice” or an “inclination to injustice.” How does one determine if they are a responsible voter within the context above? Simple: truthfully answer the following questions.

  • Are you a critical thinker or a blind follower? Yes or No.
  • Do you wholeheartedly support “We the People,” “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and our Constitution? Yes or No.
  • Do you believe in justice/equality for all? Yes or No.
  • Is wealth inequality eroding Basic Human Rights? Yes or No.
  • Should we have suitable restrictions on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and data centers? Yes or No.
  • Do you believe in verifiable or alternative facts/conspiracy theories? Yes or No.
  • Would you knowingly support corrupt officials? Yes or No.
  • Do you believe climate change/global warming is a hoax? Yes or No.
  • Do you support Freedom of the Press? Yes or No.
  • Should we initiate equitable/fair tax legislation for all citizens, both rich and poor? Yes or No.
  • Should we have a king/dictator or a legally-elected president in the White House? Yes or No.

The central and most crucial answer to being/becoming a responsible voter is whether or not you have the ability/desire to think critically, namely, to “go outside the box.” “connect the dots,” study, read, ask relevant questions, possess doubts, rely on verifiable facts, be curious, have discussions with others, utilize common sense, problem-solve, prognosticate, and evaluate. All these tasks require time, dedication, and an inclination to query one’s responsible role in our society.

If you are a critical thinker, and prior to completing your 2026 midterm election ballot, you possess the skills to understand the concepts of “We the People” and “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” and, therefore, to fully appreciate the framework of our Constitution. In critically evaluating said Constitution, you will be able to fully embrace the notions of justice and equality for all. On the other hand, if you are a blind follower, you will allow MAGA enablers, pod-cast hosts, influencers, and right-wing newscasters to flood your phone and computer with lies, misinformation/disinformation for you to follow without questioning the validity and/or source of such information.


Campaign buttons
Photo: Marek Studzinski/Unsplash

Critical thinking, verifiable information and a willingness to question assumptions are central in responsible voting. With the 2026 midterm elections approaching, your first obligation is to support our overall “capacity for justice,” and vote for those who will dedicate themselves to fighting against injustice.

Being a critical thinker will allow you to read, study, and discern the eroding influence of wealth inequality on Basic Human Rights. Employing these same proficiencies, you can differentiate between verifiable versus alternative facts and debunk conspiracy theories. Therefore, you will not be a blind follower.

As a critical thinker, the pros and cons of AI and data centers can be discussed in light of what benefits society as a whole, rather than be a vehicle to enrich selfish entrepreneurs. The ability to think critically will also allow one to ascertain and detect the “appearance of corruption", which can and does provide an unfair advantage when utilized to influence elected officials. Ergo, only a law-abiding president deserves to be in the White House, and not a king. If you are a blind follower, you may not be able to identify corruption, especially if it is not discussed openly and objectively within systems you employ to receive your “news."

Most importantly, as a critically thinking responsible voter, your first obligation is to support our overall “capacity for justice,” by identifying candidates who share this sacred conviction and will dedicate themselves to fighting against an “inclination to injustice.” If you are a blind follower, are you differentiating between justice and injustice?

Lastly, at times, It is rather difficult to be a critically thinking responsible voter, but supporting the "capacity for justice” to save our democracy will be well worth your effort.


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.



Guest Commentary |
Trump dividend promise is a terrible ideal


He would vote for Trump a third time. However, Glenn Mollette thinks President Trump's $5,000 dividend promise is a terrible ideal.


by Glenn Mollette
Guest Columnist


Glenn Mollette
Most Americans could use an extra $5,000. President Trump is dangling that amount to Americans if Republicans are able to maintain control of the House and Senate. The estimated cost of such a payout would be over $1 trillion. Our President is calling it a dividend.

I voted for our President twice. I would vote for him again, but this is a terrible idea. He has to know it’s a terrible idea but I am sure he thinks another trillion dollars in debt is the lesser of two evils.

The other evil would be if the Democrats regain control of either the House or the Senate and especially both they would immediately impeach President Trump. Illegal immigrants would flood into our country and who know how the Iran war would end. I can’t blame him for doing whatever it takes to hold on, but this is too much.

Our nation is already in danger of financial collapse. Are we going to file bankruptcy or just print more. Who will suffer? We all will suffer.

Social Security recipients will be the first to feel the impact. We are already in danger of having our funds reduced by 2034. This could come sooner due to our crippling debt. There will be no let up on student loans.

Young adults are crippled for life by college debt that many spend most of their lives repaying. These interest rates vary from 6.52% to 9.07% depending on if you are an undergraduate, graduate or parent. There will not be any tax cuts. A $40 trillion debt will only result in the need for more taxes and not less.

You will owe tax on the $5,000 and it might put you into another tax bracket which will make your tax burden greater. The more you owe the government in April could end up erasing the $5,000 dividend.

Joe Biden did a stupid thing when he sent out $1,400 to most Americans as part of the American Rescue Plan, which cost $414 billion, only a part of 1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief bill. Biden sent our billions to businesses and colleges that they didn’t have to pay back. That’s in the past but the debt is very present.

Promising all of us a $5,000 dividend is dangling a carrot in the front of the eyes of millions of Americans who are financially struggling. That money would but some groceries or maybe payoff a credit card or a car. Most Americans are not in the position to turn down such an offer.

Is buying votes illegal? Every politician makes promises of big returns if elected.

If such an event takes place it won’t be until after the first of the year, and only if the Republicans win. Time will tell. Promises have been made by politicians before that did not come to fruition.

All the while, gasoline is outrageous, groceries are sky high and the rising cost of the war in Iran is over $30 billion while some estimate the cost to be nearing $50 billion. Who will pay this $40 trillion debt? You, your children, your grandchildren and so on.


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.




Tags:

Viewpoint |
When faith becomes ammunition: The danger of sanctifying war


Religious faith can guide people through the horrors of war, but government power must remain accountable to law, evidence and constitutional limits.


by Van Abbott
Guest Contributor


First the boat was destroyed, then two survivors were killed in a second strike, and now the men directing America’s wars want us to see such violence through the eyes of God.

On Sept. 2, 2025, a U.S. strike destroyed a suspected drug-trafficking boat in the Caribbean. Two men survived and clung to the wreckage. A second strike killed them.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth later defended the operation, invoking the “fog of war” and saying the admiral who ordered the second strike had the authority to do so.

The incident was not isolated.

Trump’s maritime campaign has killed more than 223 people and destroyed 67 vessels as of 08/30/2026. The administration says those targeted are drug traffickers or narco-terrorists. But Americans have received too little evidence about who was killed.


The problem begins when faith becomes ammunition.

More than 223 dead. More than 67 boats destroyed. Still too few answers.

Then came Hegseth’s prayer.

At a Pentagon Christian worship service, the defense secretary prayed for “overwhelming violence” against people he said “deserve no mercy” and asked that “every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation.”

Trump identifies the targets. Hegseth sanctifies the violence.

Trump has supplied his own religious vocabulary. He called the rescue of a downed American airman in Iran an “Easter Miracle.” In threatening Iran, he warned that “all Hell” would rain down and concluded, “Glory be to GOD.”

There is nothing wrong with a president praying for soldiers. There is nothing wrong with a defense secretary expressing faith. There is nothing wrong with thanking God when an American service member comes home alive.

The problem begins when faith becomes ammunition.

When military violence is presented as divine favor, when enemies become people who “deserve no mercy,” when destruction is wrapped in righteousness, religious language no longer merely accompanies government power. It begins to sanctify it.


...because war already gives human beings extraordinary power over life and death.

That should alarm Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and every American who believes the Constitution, not theology, governs the use of military force.

And the danger may not stop at the Pentagon.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has reported receiving more than 200 complaints concerning religious comments by military commanders about the Iran war. One complaint alleged that a commander told troops the conflict was part of God’s plan, that Trump had been “anointed by Jesus.”

Those allegations remain allegations. They should be independently investigated, not casually repeated as fact.

But the allegation itself illustrates the danger.

A soldier’s oath is to the Constitution. An officer’s duty is to lawful authority. A commander may pray with troops, but personal theology cannot become a military command structure.

The American military exists to defend the nation, not to stage-manage prophecy.

That distinction matters because war already gives human beings extraordinary power over life and death. A president’s authority to use military force does not include the authority to redefine killing as righteousness.

Faith should strengthen those limits, not erase them.

It should remind those who command force to distinguish combatants from civilians, use no more force than necessary, protect the wounded, accept surrender and seek peace when war has accomplished its legitimate purpose.

Mercy does not mean surrendering to an enemy. It means recognizing that even war has rules.

The Good Samaritan did not first ask whether the wounded man belonged to his tribe, shared his beliefs or deserved help. He saw a human being in the road and stopped.

The Good Samaritan ran toward the wounded.

A double tap makes the wounded the next target.

Iran’s regime is brutal. Drug cartels are brutal. Neither fact gives the United States permission to abandon law, evidence or restraint. America can destroy legitimate military targets without declaring every enemy beyond mercy. It can fight terrorism without turning war into theology. It can defend itself without claiming God as a member of the chain of command.

Congress should demand the evidence from the boat campaign: the strike video, the orders, the legal memoranda and the complete casualty record.

Congress should also investigate reports of religious coercion or apocalyptic messaging inside military commands and make clear that American service members must never be pressured to confuse obedience to lawful orders with obedience to a commander’s private theology.

The Constitution gives government enormous power to wage war. It does not give government the power to declare its violence holy.

The Good Samaritan ran toward the wounded. America should remember that before the next target is declared righteous to kill.


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: religious language and military violence in America, Pentagon faith and constitutional limits on war, Pete Hegseth religious comments and military force, Good Samaritan lesson for American military policy, Constitutional limits on religious justification for war


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.


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.

Chicago interstate during the work day
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.”

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.




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


Sentinel logo
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.”

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.




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


oursentinel.com viewpoint
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.


Loading latest story ...


| Most recent articles

Loading recent stories ...


| Home Improvement

Loading recent stories ...


| Opinions

Loading recent stories ...



More Sentinel Stories