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.


Viewpoint |
Republicans defend White House ballroom plan amid security claims


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


by Van Abbott
Guest Contributor


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

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

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

Apparently the assassins lurk near the appetizer table.

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

The logic collapses instantly.

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

Because this is not about security.

It is about spectacle.

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

That is the lie.

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

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

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

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

The hypocrisy does not merely drip. It floods.

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

Not for schools.

Not for hospitals.

Not for citizens.

For a ballroom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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


by Van Abbott
Guest Commentator




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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

Illinois women help drive landmark end-of-life reform


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


by Judith Ruiz-Branch
Public News Service


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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



by Kirsten Matoy Carlson
   Wayne State University
   The Conversation




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

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

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

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

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

25th Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case for impeachment

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


Dear Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


John M. Mishler
Harpswell, ME


About the author ~

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


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


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


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


by Judith Ruiz-Branch
Public News Service


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

Viewpoint |
The costs of the Iran Conflict are rising, accountability is not


One month into a war the White House says is going well, this Viewpoint from Van Abbott argues the opposite — that the U.S.-Iran conflict is quietly eroding American economic strength, weakening global alliances, and repeating the strategic mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan.


oursentinel.com viewpoint
by Van Abbott
Guest Commentator


The war is not won. It is not even close.

President Trump says otherwise. That claim is not a mistake. It is a necessity. Acknowledging failure would expose the truth this administration cannot afford to admit: one month into the conflict that began February 28 with Iran, the United States is poorer, weaker, and less secure than when it began.

The costs are already staggering. Tens of billions of dollars have been consumed with little to show beyond destruction. Fuel prices have surged, driving up transportation costs across the economy. Supply disruptions from the Gulf are beginning to ripple through American manufacturing. These are not abstract figures. They are the early signs of a war that is eroding economic strength at home while delivering no measurable gain abroad.


A declaration of victory is required to sustain support, even when conditions on the ground contradict it.

Strategically, the damage is deeper. American positions across the Middle East have contracted, not expanded. Analysts suggest U.S. military bases have been damaged, evacuated, or destroyed. Intelligence relationships have frayed as allies question Washington’s reliability after erratic decisions and unilateral strikes. Adversaries are not retreating; they are adapting. Russia benefits from higher energy prices that help finance its war in Ukraine. China is moving quickly to secure alternative trade routes and deepen its regional influence. While the White House speaks of dominance, the global balance of power is quietly shifting away from the United States.

At home, the consequences will not remain distant for long. War-inflation moves quickly and unevenly. Energy costs rise first, followed by food and housing. Wages lag behind. The administration describes these effects as temporary, but markets tend to recognize instability before governments admit it. Prolonged conflict will bring neither stability in the Middle East nor relief for American households. It will deliver sustained pressure on both.

History offers a warning the country has ignored before. Iraq was presented as liberation and ended in strategic exhaustion. Afghanistan became a twenty-year effort that concluded with the return of the very forces it sought to remove. These were failures not of courage or capability, but of purpose and judgment. Iran now risks becoming the next chapter in a pattern the United States has yet to break.

The deeper problem is political. This war cannot be easily concluded because it cannot be honestly assessed. A declaration of victory is required to sustain support, even when conditions on the ground contradict it. Information narrows. Public updates diminish. Official statements grow more confident as underlying realities become less certain. In that environment, the war becomes less a national undertaking than a controlled narrative.

It is worth asking who benefits from that narrative. Defense contractors secure long-term demand, energy producers profit from volatility, and political allies avoid difficult votes. The burdens fall elsewhere, on service members, on taxpayers, and on households adjusting to rising costs. The longer the conflict continues, the wider the gap grows between those who bear its costs and those who shape its direction.


War tests more than military strength. It tests whether a government can tell the truth about what it is doing and why.

President Trump once promised to end “endless wars.” Instead, this conflict risks becoming one. It is sustained not by clear objectives but by the political cost of reversal. A war without defined success can always be extended. A war without accountability can always be justified.

There is still time to limit the damage. Congress retains the constitutional authority to define and constrain the use of force. It can require transparency, set boundaries, and insist on measurable objectives. A free press can challenge official claims rather than repeat them. Citizens can demand clarity about costs, risks, and outcomes before accepting assurances of progress.

War tests more than military strength. It tests whether a government can tell the truth about what it is doing and why. When that capacity erodes, the outcome is determined long before the fighting ends.

Without accountability, the cycle will continue, draining national strength, distorting priorities, weakening alliances, and turning permanent conflict into a substitute for strategy and democratic consent.

This war was never winnable under the terms on which it was sold. That truth will not come from those who began it, but from the public that is paying for it and will continue to bear its cost.

Its consequences will outlast the last shot, echo beyond the last speech, and endure long after the final excuse has faded. The judgment they refuse to render will fall to the country they have led into war. Vote in November.


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.





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

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


Viewpoint |
Has Trump gone too far? Respond at the ballot box if you think so


oursentinel.com viewpoint
This commentary questions whether Donald Trump has exceeded acceptable limits through a series of political and policy decisions. It outlines concerns ranging from pardons and foreign policy to economic impacts and domestic governance. The piece argues that many Americans are now feeling the effects of these actions.


oursentinel.com viewpoint
by John Mishler


Mr. Trump pardoned hundreds of individuals convicted of attempting to subvert a lawful and secure national election by a violent assault on law enforcement officers. Did he go too far? In addition, he pardoned several individuals convicted of cryptocurrency manipulation. Gone too far? He and his family have received hundreds of millions of dollars with their blatant cryto-related business ventures. Has he gone too far? He has received a 747 jetliner as a gift. Gone too far?

He has encouraged the unlawful removal of thousands of federal employees targeted by Elon Musk/DOGE. Gone too far? He has politicized various government departments (e.g., Department of Justice, Department of Defense, etc.) and demanded they follow his whims and desires, rather than uphold state, federal, and international laws. Has he gone too far? With his own hateful rhetoric he has encouraged ICE to brutalize innocent citizens and lawful immigrants, even allowing the murder of said American citizens, in addition to the deaths of immigrants held in federal detention centers. Gone too far?

He has torn down the East Wing of the White House, without proper approvals, to be replaced by a hideous, gigantic ballroom. Has he gone too far? He has “added” his name to the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Gone too far?

He has allowed two totally unqualified individuals (two real estate brokers) to negotiate extremely important treaties with Russia/Ukraine, Iran, and Gaza/Israel. Has he gone too far? He has disrupted important relationships the United States has with NATO and the European Union. Gone too far?


His “Big, Beautiful Bill,” has eliminated healthcare subsidies for millions of hardworking Americans

He has “pressured” law firms, colleges and universities, and media companies to “follow” his desire and eliminate DEI policies. Gone too far? He has instructed the Department of Justice to put forth criminal/civil charges against innocent political opponents without evidence of unlawful conduct. Has he gone too far?

His name has appeared in numerous documents related to the Epstein files, including an alleged incident of sexual assault against a minor. Has he gone too far? In addition, he is hindering the full and complete release of all documents, files, videos, photographs, and other pertinent materials related to the Epstein investigation. Gone too far?

Trump has “added on" additional taxes on imported goods, paid for by US citizens, by virtue of his imposed tariffs placed on products from foreign countries. Gone too far? His “Big, Beautiful Bill,” has eliminated healthcare subsidies for millions of hardworking Americans, as well as SNAP benefits. Gone too far?

Trump’s “unnecessary” war with Iran has resulted in the loss of lives of US service members, caused chaos in the Middle East, and significantly raised the price of gasoline, heating oil, natural gas, fertilizer, and other petroleum-based products. Has he finally gone too far? Did he reach the tipping point…. yes. BUT why? For most Americans, all of the “misadventures” listed above, happened to other individuals/organizations and did not significantly/directly impact their own lives. However, as a result of his unjustified conflict/excursion/war, petroleum products NOW suddenly cost more and are rising on a daily basis - NOW, on a personal level, most Americans feel the “pain" of Mr. Trump’s foolish behavior.

Ergo, too many Americans have been “asleep” during the initial stages of Mr. Trump’s second term. BUT, now suddenly “personally feeling” the pain of higher prices at the gas pumps, soon to be followed by higher prices for most goods relying on gasoline/petroleum products, we have begun to notice how “tainted” Trump’s tenure as president has been.

Is there a remedy for his unrelenting toxic actions? Yes, the upcoming midterm elections, where Americans can elect candidates who care more about their constituents, than following the whims of Mr. Trump and his sycophants (“This year’s political candidates: carefully examine their party affiliation,” Storm Lake Times Pilot, 02/06/2026).

So, we can reclaim our Democracy in the coming election, BUT only if we support worthwhile candidates BY VOTING! Maybe a new cohort of honest and law-abiding US Senate and House members can thwart any further “how far is too far” misadventures by Mr. Trump.


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.




TAGS: Donald Trump political commentary 2026, opinion on Trump policies and midterm elections, analysis of Trump economic and foreign policy impact, voter response to political controversies United States, midterm elections importance voter participation opinion

Photo gallery |
Urbana joined more than 3,200 US locations in No Kings III protest


Protesters march down Main Street in Urbana for No Kings 3
All photos: Sentinel/Clark Brooks

Marchers walk down Main Street in Urbana during Saturday's No Kings 3 march. More than 3,200 demonstrations were planned around the country and on several continents, as protesters took to the streets in a show of outrage over Trump administration's handling of the war with Iran, immigration policies, and the rising cost of gas and food. While the crowd size appeared smaller than last October protest, no official estimates on the turn out has been released.

LEFT: With the temperature reaching the lower 50s, the rally and march attracted hundreds to downtown Urbana on Saturday. MIDDLE: Protestors lined Vine Street solicitating honks and cheers from drivers who passed by. RIGHT: A protester hoists a sign that says, "We the People are PISSED" as she walks down Main St. in Urbana. A recent national NBC News poll found that a majority of voters are not happy with the president’s handling of immigration, Iran and inflation and the cost of living.

Marchers turn at the corner of Race and Vine in Urbana, marching in the No Kings III protest

Above: Demonstrators turn at the corner of Race and Main Street near the end of the protest route. Below: Proudly sporting his red cap, a Trump supporter and his spouse engage in a civil discussion with a protester about the President's current policies.
All photos: Sentinel/Clark Brooks

LEFT: Demonstrators take a moment to rest midway through the rally. Protest signs were more imaginative than those present at the first NO KINGS protests. MIDDLE: Marchers leading the procession walk past the Urbana library. "Protesting is a powerful tool in the fight against the fascist regime “leading” our country," Champaign County Indivisible wrote on a Facebook post. RIGHT: Marchers head back to Courthouse Plaza or the corner of Vine and Main to continue protesting.

Protesters stroll north on Race St. in Urbana chanting anti-Trump slogans. Organizers of the nation-wide protest expected millions to gather around the country in what could be the “single largest non-violent day of action” in American history.






Editor's Choice


Hoggard, Henry and Huchel to represent area in Illinois Shrine Game

Three area football standouts will represent their schools and communities in the 52nd Annual Illinois High School Shrine Game, a st...


More Sentinel Stories