Op-Ed |
Billions in the balance: Is the White House becoming a profit machine?

While no indictment has established direct bribery, the Van Abbott argues the cumulative structure strains democratic norms. Citing watchdog findings from Trump’s first term and he calls for renewed scrutiny in Trump's second term.

by Van Abbott

In a second term, tens of billions of dollars now hover at the intersection of presidential power and private profit. According to the New York Times (01/20/2026), Trump and his family have already realized at least $1.4 billion in profit, a figure projected to rise substantially over the next three years.

More than an estimated $75 billion in legal claims, contested payments, foreign investments, settlements, pledges, and revenue streams orbit enterprises tied to Donald Trump and his family. How much ultimately becomes personal gain remains uncertain. The ledger opens with a $10 billion lawsuit and a $230 million claim against the United States Treasury. It includes $500 million directed to a Trump cryptocurrency venture, $500 million linked to a Venezuela oil transaction, and $10 billion tied to a so called Peace Council initiative.

Add a reported $40 billion Argentina loan, $16 million in direct media settlements plus $35 million in in kind value, and a $400 million aircraft arrangement from Qatar, along with hundreds of millions tied to pardon recipients and more than $1 billion from sovereign wealth funds benefiting family connected ventures.

The concern is not a single transaction but a recurring structure in which public authority and private enterprise operate without durable separation.

These figures frame a presidency in which power and profit converge. Multibillion dollar real estate negotiations involving foreign governments sit beside corporate pledges toward a future presidential library and ballroom from firms with business before federal regulators. Roughly $300 million in cryptocurrency offerings marketed to political supporters, tens of millions in campaign funds routed through Trump affiliated properties, multimillion dollar legal defense accounts financed by policy interested donors, and brand licensing profits exceeding $1 billion add further weight.

The concern is not a single transaction but a recurring structure in which public authority and private enterprise operate without durable separation.

Foreign capital presents a clear fault line. Jared Kushner’s $2 billion Saudi investment after his White House tenure illustrates how diplomatic access and post office profit can intersect.

Corporate pledges tied to a prospective presidential library and ballroom raise parallel concerns. Lawmakers argue that donations from firms facing federal review resemble influence purchases. Technology companies, energy exporters, financial institutions, and defense contractors depend on federal discretion. When those same actors finance projects aligned with the president, the conflict shifts from incidental to expected. Access encourages contribution, and contribution fosters expectation.

Trump’s continued ownership of a global brand compounds the issue. During his first term, watchdog organizations documented thousands of potential conflicts involving government spending at Trump properties. A second term has revived those questions.

Clemency and pardon authority offer another aperture into monetized influence. The Constitution grants broad discretion. When recipients include donors, former aides, or politically useful figures, the distinction between mercy and transaction blurs. Even absent proof of quid pro quo arrangements, the pattern erodes confidence in impartial justice.

Soft leverage deepens the dynamic. Universities reliant on federal grants, media companies confronting license reviews, and industries pressing for tariff relief operate in a climate where access carries implicit value. None alone establishes criminal conduct. Together they depict a system.

Defenders note that no indictment has established direct bribery tied to second term actions. Yet corruption need not culminate in prosecution to inflict damage.

The cumulative effect resembles an economic ecosystem organized around political influence. Campaign committees draw funds from interested parties. Businesses expand in markets shaped by executive decisions. Former officials capitalize on relationships forged in office. Each component may satisfy narrow legal standards, yet the architecture as a whole strains public trust.

That strain carries measurable consequences. Democratic governance depends on confidence that tariffs advance national strategy rather than private balance sheets, that clemency reflects justice rather than loyalty, and that regulatory outcomes arise from evidence rather than financial alignment. When those assurances erode, legitimacy erodes with them.

Congress retains authority to reassert boundaries through oversight, mandatory disclosures, stronger conflict of interest rules, and divestiture requirements durable enough to outlast any individual office holder. When precedent begins to normalize impropriety, inaction becomes complicity.

The opening ledger of billions is not merely an estimated catalog of transactions. It represents billions hovering at the intersection of presidential power and private profit that is not abstract. At least $1.4 billion has already been realized, with vastly larger sums positioned within reach of executive discretion.

The worst case is not a single unlawful act. It is normalization. It is a presidency in which foreign governments calculate payments as policy leverage, corporations treat donations as regulatory insurance, and clemency becomes another instrument of transactional politics.

Once that precedent hardens, future presidents will inherit not guardrails but a blueprint. The cost would not be measured only in dollars, but in a durable shift from constitutional stewardship to monetized power.

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

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

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

TAGS: Trump second term conflicts of interest analysis, presidential power and private profit op-ed, foreign investments linked to Trump family businesses, cryptocurrency ventures and political fundraising concerns, congressional oversight and presidential divestiture debate

Power drain panic: Amid soaring consumer costs state looks for solutions for data center business

Illinois consumer advocacy groups are demanding action as electricity bills rise and data centers use an increasing amount of power. But data center operators warn unfavorable state policies, combined with an existing biometric privacy law, could drive them away from Illinois to places like Wisconsin or Indiana.

Gabriel Castilho
Medill Illinois News Bureau / Capitol News Illinois

SPRINGFIELD - The debate over how to regulate data centers in Illinois is intensifying as lawmakers struggle to balance costs to consumers and the state’s need to be competitive economically.

Data centers house computer systems that store, process and distribute data but require large amounts of energy to power that workload. A growing number of these facilities are used to power AI.

A state report published in December projects energy shortfalls would begin in northern Illinois by 2029 and the rest of the state by 2031, driven in large part by data centers’ increased power usage. That’s led Gov. JB Pritzker to backtrack on a proposal he signed in his first year as governor to incentivize data center development in the state.

“With the shifting energy landscape, it is imperative that our growth does not undermine affordability and stability for our families,” he said, proposing a two-year moratorium on the incentives in his budget address Wednesday.

Illinois consumers blame data centers — which often receive generous tax incentives in Illinois — for straining the grid and driving up prices, and they want relief. But companies that operate the centers are seeking ways to build more quickly and pushing for looser regulation, arguing the centers are key to the state’s economic future.

Environmentalists want new data centers to build their own renewable energy sources on site

And the state, from the governor’s office to the legislature, is struggling with ways to balance the economic interests tied to data center development with environmental and consumer cost concerns.

“We don’t want them to overwhelm our electrical capabilities and our water resources,” Sen. Steve Stadelman, D-Caledonia, said. “If we’re going to allow them and track them, how can we make sure it benefits Illinois residents and rate payers in the state?”

Data center negotiations continue

These are the same issues and tensions legislators hoped to address in their fall veto session. But no broad consensus was reached, and instead, Gov. JB Pritzker signed the Clean and Reliable Grid Affordability Act, adding new air regulations for backup generators used by data centers.

Lawmakers in Springfield have already begun negotiating a new round of data center regulations.

Sen. Ram Villivalam, D-Chicago, recently announced the introduction of Senate Bill 4016, known as the POWER Act, to place prohibitions on cost shifting, introduce “bring your own new clean capacity and energy,” guarantee transparent public engagement and implement water efficiency standards on data centers.

“By establishing policies that ensure data centers, not consumers, bear the increasing energy costs, and critical protections for our environment and sustainable water use, we can work toward a future built for technology to support our daily lives,” Villivalam said, “not deplete our resources and price us out of our homes.”

Environmentalists want new data centers to build their own renewable energy sources on site to prevent new projects from further stressing energy infrastructure and creating more pollution.

Pritzker said something similar earlier this month: “If they are, in any way, going to increase the price of electricity for consumers, they should pay for that increase, not the consumers.”.

The data center companies oppose such mandates, preferring a voluntary “bring your own energy” policy, according to Brad Tietz, director of state policy for the Data Center Coalition industry group.

“I think, ultimately, when you try to mandate something, you get less of it,” he said.

States are competing to attract investments from companies that want to build more data centers as they seek an edge in the artificial intelligence race. Illinois has the fourth-largest number of data centers — 222 — in the country, but Tietz said the state is in danger of slipping because other states have friendlier policies.

We're a leader in the country as far as protecting people's privacy rights and protecting their data

Illinois has provided tax incentives for data centers since Pritzker signed bipartisan legislation in 2019. According to the state’s 2024 report, at least 27 data centers had received incentives totaling $983 million in estimated lifetime tax breaks and benefits. That would stop for at least two years under Pritzker’s plan.

Sen. Terri Bryant, R-Murphysboro, said she would like to see “a change in our policy here in Illinois” so the state does not fall behind, though she hopes those centers bring their own energy.

“We want to be able to do that because if we don’t, China will. If we don’t, Wisconsin will, Indiana will,” she said.

‘Little type of war’

As negotiations progress, the Data Center Coalition has signified another point of contention: A 2008 law known as the Biometric Information Privacy Act that prohibits private companies from collecting personal data without informed consent. The law allows people to sue over the misuse of their biometric profile, such as fingerprint mapping, facial recognition and retina scans.

Stadelman said the privacy protections in the act, which Illinois put in place before any other state, are at the center of a “little type of war.”

“You have privacy rights advocates saying, ‘We're a leader in the country as far as protecting people's privacy rights and protecting their data,’” Stadelman said. “But the data (centers) say, ‘We're not going to have more projects in Illinois unless you change the BIPA legislation.’”

Tietz said these regulations have factored into operators’ decisions to bypass Illinois, although lawmakers in 2024 drastically curtailed the way damages accrue and the liability private entities are likely to face if found in violation.

But the data center industry wasn't satisfied, and its leaders say the legal liabilities are one reason they are building in other states. Abe Scarr, state director of the Illinois Public Interest Research Group, said biometric information is uniquely sensitive.

“We should know who is collecting and commercializing information created from the stuff our lives are made of,” Scarr said. “And we should have to opt into — and be able to easily opt out of — pervasive, intrusive surveillance.”

Consumer backlash

The legislative debate comes as data centers have become increasingly controversial. In January, the Aurora City Council approved a moratorium pausing new data centers. The city had five data centers in development and had been receiving requests to build more even as residents and environmental groups complained about noise, water usage and rising utility costs.

Alison Lindburg, director of sustainability for Aurora, said the city passed the moratorium because it needed time to put requirements for data centers in place.

“We have tried to explain that to communities, that it’s not just about data centers in Aurora, it’s about the entire grid, but that doesn’t matter to them,” Lindburg said in an interview. “I think they’re just very frustrated overall with the rising electricity prices.”

Hannah Flath, Illinois Environmental Council’s climate communications director, said other communities are also opposing data centers. “In that case (Aurora), the local government acted in accordance with what their local constituents were saying,” Flath said.

Tietz said he has been in conversations with officials from Aurora about the 180-day moratorium and is hoping he can help find a solution.

Lucy Contreras, GreenLatinos Illinois state program director, said communities should have a voice in whether, where and how these projects are built. She said developers must ensure host communities receive tangible benefits rather than bearing only the burdens of hosting these facilities.

“They contribute to air pollution and consume excessive amounts of water daily, which restrains local water systems that might already be struggling,” Contreras said. “Without strong and forceful regulations, data center expansion will deepen existing inequalities, harm public health and undermine our Illinois clean energy goals.”

Spreading the costs

Utilities are building billions of dollars of new power lines and plants to keep up with energy demand increases brought on by data centers — whether they’re built or in the process of being built. They, in turn, spread associated costs to ratepayers.

“Speculation about data center development has actually increased prices,” Sen. Bill Cunningham, D-Chicago, said. “It’s not just the immediate demand, it’s anticipated future demand, so it’s really important to sift out the wheat from the chaff on what’s a real proposal and what isn’t.”

Cunningham said he expects fellow Democratic lawmakers to work on safeguards for consumers when pending data center projects go uncompleted.

Recently, northern Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison announced it will require a 10-year guarantee of revenues upfront from big energy consumers. ComEd said this will help protect ratepayers from bearing the costs of high-load projects and ensure, even if they don't come to fruition.

Maddie Wazowicz, Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance policy director, said utilities function best when they can plan into the future.

“Whether or not data centers emerge — and how much, how many of them come, where and how long they last — does complicate utility long-term planning,” she said.

Gabriel Castilho is a graduate student in journalism with Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, Media and Integrated Marketing Communications, and is a fellow in its Medill Illinois News Bureau working in partnership with Capitol News Illinois.

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

Tags: unfavorable policies may drive data centers away, lawmakers want data center operators to use renewable energy, data centers raise electricity bills for area residents, Wisconsin and Indiana privacy laws are more relaxed than Illinois

Bill to regulate soaring homeowners insurance rates is making comeback in Springfield

A bill that would give state insurance regulators authority to review and modify homeowners insurance rates failed on the floor of the House last year but could be revived for a second vote when lawmakers return to the Statehouse this week.

Peter Hancock
Capitol News Illinois

SPRINGFIELD - Illinois lawmakers are poised to make a second attempt at passing a bill that would give state regulators more authority to control the rising cost of homeowners insurance.

Gov. JB Pritzker called for the legislation last summer after Bloomington-based State Farm Insurance announced it was raising premiums in Illinois an average 27.2%, citing years of losses in its property casualty line of coverage due to weather-related disasters in the state.

Photo: Serge Lavoie/PEXELS

After a natural disaster struck a while back, some insurers increased premium payments more than 25%.

A bill to give the Illinois Department of Insurance authority to approve or reject insurance rate increases passed the Senate during last fall’s veto session. But when it returned to the House for a vote to concur with changes the Senate had made, the amended bill fell four votes short of the 60 needed for passage. That left many to believe the bill had died.

The following day, however, the bill’s chief House sponsor, Rep. Robyn Gabel, D-Evanston, refiled a motion to concur, which is allowed under House rules. And Pritzker has said since the end of the veto session that he still wants the legislation to pass.

“They get a second bite at the apple,” Kevin Martin, executive director of the Illinois Insurance Association, said in an interview.

Gabel told Capitol News Illinois through a spokesperson this week that no decision had been made about calling the bill for a second vote. But Martin said people in the industry have heard the bill could be called as early as Tuesday, when the House and Senate return to the Statehouse to begin the 2026 legislative session in earnest.

Current environment

The controversy over State Farm’s rate hike last year raised attention to the fact that Illinois stands out among states for having exceptionally weak regulations over the insurance industry.

Advocates for the legislation argue that every state in the nation except Illinois has a law that prohibits insurance companies from charging “inadequate, excessive or unfairly discriminatory” premiums. And other states’ insurance regulators have authority to review and modify proposed rate increases.

Illinois, however, is known in the insurance industry as a “use-and-file” state, meaning companies can raise their rates at any time and immediately put them into effect before filing the new rate schedule with state regulators.

The Illinois Department of Insurance has authority to license companies and agents to do business in the state. It also has authority to make sure insurance products sold in Illinois comply with state laws and that companies honor the terms of their policies. But it has no other authority to review or approve the rates they charge.

Douglas Heller, director of insurance for the Washington-based Consumer Federation of America, described Illinois’ law last year as “among the most toothless in the nation.”

In the wake of State Farm’s rate increase last year, Pritzker suggested the company was trying to shift the cost of disaster-related losses in other states like California and Florida onto the backs of Illinois consumers, and he said legislation was needed to prevent that practice from happening in Illinois.

“As states across the country face even more extreme weather than we do, we need to make sure Illinois homeowners are not paying for losses that companies experience in other states,” Pritzker said in an op-ed column published in the Chicago Tribune that was cosigned by House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch and Senate President Don Harmon.

State Farm officials firmly denied that allegation, and Martin insisted no insurance companies in Illinois engage in that practice.

“We have never seen anything like that, and we would argue very strongly that that does not happen and cannot happen based on the actuarial data that the companies have to provide in Illinois on Illinois losses,” he said.

Proposed changes

Pritzker’s call for new legislation to regulate homeowners insurance rates led to intense negotiations between the governor’s office, legislative leaders and the insurance industry. But the final language wasn’t unveiled until the final hours of the fall veto session. The language was put into a Senate amendment to House Bill 3799. It included language prohibiting “excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory” rates. It also called for banning the practice of “cost-shifting” by requiring companies to use state-specific loss data to develop their rates whenever possible.

The bill also would leave in place the state’s “use-and-file” method of setting rates, meaning companies would not have to seek advance clearance from state regulators before implementing rate changes. But it would require them to give consumers at least 60 days’ advance notice before raising rates by 10% or more.

The major sticking point for the insurance industry, however, was the provision giving the Department of Insurance authority to review and approve or modify rates after they are put into place.

Under the proposed language, if the agency found a company’s rates to be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory, it would send the company a notice specifying the agency’s objections. Companies then would be allowed to defend their rates at an administrative hearing. But after that hearing, if the agency still believed the rates violated standards of the law, it would be authorized to order the company to rebate excess charges back to customers.

According to Martin, the industry’s main objection to that language was that there was no limit on how far back in time the agency could look in its rate review process.

“They can go back forever,” he said.

“We just believe that, in all of the negotiations that we had, for them to come in at the last minute with this type of language, of the changes that they made, was just something that we thought was really unfair,” Martin said.

The House and Senate have each been in session a few days this year, mainly to introduce new bills and to pass a few resolutions. But the work of the session will begin in earnest this coming week, starting Tuesday when both chambers will meet and begin holding committee hearings.

Pritzker is scheduled to deliver his annual budget and State of the State address to a joint session of the General Assembly on Wednesday.

Tags: Illinois bill to regulate insurance companies resurfaces, Illinois Insurance Association opposes new bill, homeowners insurance rate hikes, Illinois insurance consumers

94% of Democrats, 93% of Republicans agree: Toxic politics is tearing the nation apart

An Indiana history professor says uncivil political behavior has long been part of American history. He urged Americans to approach political conversations with humility and compassion.

by Teri Dee
Public News Service

INDIANAPOLIS - Uncivil political behavior is well-documented in American history, according to one Indiana professor.

A 2024 Gallup poll indicated political rhetoric has gone too far and is fueling frustrations with political leadership. The study said 94% of Democrats and 93% of Republicans agreed inflammatory language aimed at the other party is harmful and counterproductive.

Ted Frantz, professor of history at the University of Indianapolis, argued anyone who is following U.S. politics can see the country is in a crisis moment.

Critics saw the decision as another attempt to distort and erase Black history.

"Since our politics tend to be reduced to two parties, at times, you might be able to justify what happens in the heat of the moment because you believe in your cause," Frantz explained. "But the problem with that, of course, is if you extend the rules or suspended the rules at a time when you really need them enforced for something you do care about, then somebody else can employ the same logic."

The survey also found Americans view the spread of extremist views online as a main factor contributing to political violence. Frantz agreed recognizing someone as human in a conversation is hard if the person is on a screen and people need to approach conversations about politics with a sense of humility and compassion. There can be more than one side to an argument, he added, and even if you disagree, you can express those ideas after showing up and listening.

Photo: Photo by Dan Mall/Unsplash

Last month, the Trump administration ordered the removal of four panels at Independence Park, the Philadelphia home of former president George Washington. The exhibit honored the names of nine enslaved people owned by Washington. Critics saw the decision as another attempt to distort and erase Black history. Frantz called the removal highly political and stressed more effort should be made to write history in a more balanced and inclusive tone.

"To rewrite history as rapidly as the administration did is a disservice to what happened during the Civil Rights Movement," Frantz contended. "It's a disservice to the professionalism of the people who had established those markers, and it helps, effectively, unfortunately, erase key narratives about what happened and why."

He underscored it is dangerous when politicians are willing to distort the past to promote a political agenda in the present. Last week, a federal judge ordered the panels restored while a lawsuit against the Interior Department proceeds.

TAGS: 2024 Gallup poll political rhetoric findings, Ted Frantz University of Indianapolis political history, Independence Park Philadelphia exhibit panel removal, bipartisan views on inflammatory political language, federal judge restoration order Interior Department lawsuit

Viewpoint |
Ride & die with the Epstein Class: They are the elites they pretend to hate

For years, MAGA has attacked minority groups in the name of “protecting women and children.” It turns out the real abusers are wealthy and powerful.

by Sonali Kolhatkar

OtherWords

Attorney General Pam Bondi’s contentious House hearing about the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files offered a clear message to the nation: sex trafficking of women and minors is perfectly acceptable as long as wealthy white men do it.

Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced late sex trafficker, fixer, and political networker, was found to have ties to huge number of the world’s elites on both sides of the political aisle — including Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Ehud Barak, Bill Gates, Steve Bannon, Larry Summers, Bill Clinton, and of course, Donald Trump.

For years, Trump’s conservative backers have attacked LGBTQ+ people, drag queens, immigrants, and others, claiming a desire to protect women and children from rapists and groomers. Trump even boasted that “whether the women liked it or not,” he would “protect” them from migrants, whom he slandered as “monsters” who “kidnap and kill our children.”

Trump himself is named more than a million times in the files, according to lawmakers with access to the unredacted documents.

But when given the opportunity to seek justice for countless women and children who were trafficked, abused, and exploited by the world’s wealthiest, most powerful people, the MAGA movement and its leaders have shown a startling disinterest in accountability. During her hearing Bondi tried desperately to deflect attention, claiming that the stock market was more deserving of public attention than Epstein’s victims.

Even the Republican rank and file is now mysteriously detached from the Epstein files.

Polls show that in summer 2025, 40 percent of GOP voters disapproved of the federal government’s handling of the Epstein files. But by January 2026, only about half that percentage disapproved — even after the Trump administration missed its deadline to release millions of files and then released them in a way that exposed the victims while protecting the perpetrators.

While some European leaders are facing harsh consequences for associating with Epstein, no Americans outside of Epstein and his closest associate Ghislaine Maxwell have faced any consequences, legal or otherwise.

Epstein was a glorified drug dealer and his drugs of choice were the vulnerable bodies of women and children...

That’s despite very concrete ties between the Trump administration and the sex trafficker. Not only did Trump’s Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick admit to visiting Epstein island after lying about it (and has so far faced no consequences), but Trump himself is named more than a million times in the files, according to lawmakers with access to the unredacted documents. Several victims identify Trump by name, alleging he raped and assaulted them.

And it’s not just Trump. Epstein was an equal opportunity fixer. He was just as friendly with liberals as he was with conservatives, including Summers, Clinton, and, disconcertingly for the American left, Noam Chomsky. For elites like Epstein, ideological differences were superficial. The real distinction was money, power, and connections.

Epstein was a glorified drug dealer and his drugs of choice were the vulnerable bodies of women and children, offered up to his friends and allies as the forbidden currency he traded in. A useful moniker has emerged to describe the global network of elites whose power and privilege continues to protect them from accountability: the Epstein Class.

Georgia Senator John Ossoff, who faces reelection in 2026, is deploying this label, understanding that voters — at least those who haven’t bought into the MAGA cult — are increasingly aware of the double standards that wealthy power players are held to.

“This is the Epstein class, ruling our country,” said Ossoff in reference to those who make up the Trump administration. “They are the elites they pretend to hate.”

He’s right. And if the Trump administration won’t hold them to account, Americans should demand leaders who will.

About the author:
Sonali Kolhatkar is host and executive producer of Rising Up With Sonali, an independent, subscriber-based syndicated TV and radio show. She’s an award winning journalist and author of Talking About Abolition: A Police Free World is Possible, and Rising Up: The Power of Narrative in Pursuing Racial Justice. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.

How to vote in Illinois in 2026: Early voting begins this week for most of the state

Voters in most of the state’s counties can cast their vote in the March primary as soon as Feb. 5 at their local election authority. Chicago and suburban Cook County offer early voting beginning between Feb. 12 and March 2, depending on where you live.

by Jenna Schweikert & UIS Public Affairs Reporting
Capitol News Illinois

Capitol News Illinois has launched its revamped 2026 Election Guide to coincide with the opening of early voting throughout much of the state.

The guide has a rundown of key dates, information on how to register and vote early, and a lookup tool to put voters in touch with their local election authority. It also links to our coverage of the various races for statewide office.

Access the guide here

Early voting opens

The guide launched this week to coincide with early voting opening on Feb. 5 for the March 17 primary in most of the state, outside of Cook County. Early voting kicks off on Feb. 12 in downtown Chicago and either Feb. 18 or March 2 in suburban Cook County, depending on where you live. Early voting for all jurisdictions ends on March 16.

Most early voting takes place at the local election authority’s offices, which for most residents is their county clerk’s office. Some churches, libraries, colleges and universities and other government buildings are also offering early voting. Voters can find local polling locations and hours at the Illinois State Board of Elections website.

Registration is also open at most polling locations through Feb. 17. Grace period registration, available at some polling locations, opens Feb. 18 and closes on Election Day, March 17.

Registration is also open online at ova.elections.il.gov until March 1 and will reopen on March 19.

Registration identification

Any voter who needs to register for the first time or file an address change must present two forms of ID, one of which shows the voter's current address.

Valid forms of identification include work, school, state and military ID, passports and drivers licenses, leases and mortgages, utility bills, vehicle registration, credit and debit cards and insurance cards.

Voters who do not present a valid form of ID if needed can cast a provisional ballot and present ID to the election authority by March 24.

ID requirements vary at polling locations, but election authorities recommend bringing at least one form of identification in case of any questions.

Mail-in ballots

Mail-in ballots will also be sent to voters who’ve requested them beginning Feb. 5. The last day to request a mail-in ballot is March 12.

They must be postmarked by Election Day, but county clerks recommend mailing these ballots at least a week in advance of the election, due to United States Postal Service changes that could delay mail.

Election authorities will also accept mail ballots delivered by hand, and some have drop boxes where ballots can be delivered. Voters who requested a mail-in ballot can still vote in person but must surrender the mailed ballot before doing so.

Polls will be open 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Election Day. If voters are in line before the polls close, they are guaranteed a chance to vote.

Democrats denounce Trump agenda as GOP slams Illinois House session as political theater

The Illinois House met Wednesday, passing several Democrat-introduced symbolic resolutions against the current administration's federal policies. House Republicans opposed the measures, characterizing them as unproductive.

by Georgia Epiphaniou & Erika Tulfo
Capitol News Illinois

SPRINGFIELD - Illinois House Democrats kicked off their spring session this week in a mostly symbolic fashion, denouncing President Donald Trump’s policies in a series of resolutions criticizing immigration raids and cuts to health care and child care programs.

“The session was an opportunity for us to emphasize how these policies in the federal government impact Illinois,” House Rep. Lillian Jiménez, D-Chicago, said.

The Democrat-led symbolic resolutions targeted Trump’s tariffs, excessive use of force by federal immigration agents, the freezing of affordable child care funds and the expiry of Affordable Care Act subsidies. They even denounced the administration’s push to acquire territory overseas while Illinoisans face affordability challenges at home.

Rep. Lilian Jimenez from Illinois — Rep. Lilian Jiménez speaks on the House floor during the October 2025 veto session.

They all passed overwhelmingly over Republican objections.

“We basically did nothing but allow Democrats in the General Assembly to grandstand on things that are happening in D.C, that we have zero impact on,” House Rep. Jeff Keicher, R-Sycamore, told Capitol News Illinois.

House Rep. Jaime M. Andrade Jr., D-Chicago, kicked off the Wednesday session by calling out aggressive actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, citing the killing of Silverio Villegas González in Franklin Park in September last year and Renee Good in Minnesota early this month.

Andrade filed House Resolution 622 which condemned the use of “excessive and deadly force” by ICE agents, and called for an independent investigation into the Department of Homeland Security for killings and deaths of detainees in custody. Democrats also called for the resignation of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem over her handling of immigration enforcement.

Democrats then focused on the impact of federal funding cuts.

Jiménez filed House Resolution 621, which called for the immediate unfreezing of federal child care funds, saying the session was a way to signal to constituents what their priorities are.

House Resolution 620 called on Congress to reinstate health care subsidies that expired on Dec. 31, 2025, and end what they called the “Trump healthcare affordability crisis.”

Democrats voted to approve House Resolution 624, filed by Rep. Lisa Hernandez, D-Cicero, condemning “Trump’s efforts to acquire territories and titles overseas, while leaving working families at home to pay the bill.”

She told Capitol News Illinois that taxpayer money was being used to fund operations that could be used to prioritize the needs of Americans. It came just hours after President Trump spoke to global leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday. He made the case earlier that day for why the U.S. should own Greenland, a self-governing territory under NATO ally Denmark.

But the resolutions met fierce pushback from House Republicans, who slammed the proposals as symbolic rather than productive and characterized them as theatrics.

Only one actionable joint resolution passed, which confirmed the House and Senate will convene in a joint session on Feb. 18 for Gov. JB Pritzker’s budget address.

Georgia Epiphaniou and Erika Tulfo are graduate students in journalism with Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, Media, Integrated Marketing Communications, and fellows in its Medill Illinois News Bureau working in partnership with Capitol News Illinois.

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

TAGS: Illinois House symbolic resolutions, Illinois Democrats Trump criticism, Illinois General Assembly spring session, GOP response Illinois House resolutions, Trump policies Illinois legislature

Viewpoint |
How ICE raids on homes violates the constitutional rights

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents are using aggressive and sometimes violent methods to make arrests in its mass deportation campaign.

by John E. Jones III
Dickinson College

As Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents continued to use aggressive and sometimes violent methods to make arrests in its mass deportation campaign, including breaking down doors in Minneapolis homes, a bombshell report from the Associated Press on Jan. 21, 2026, said that an internal ICE memo – acquired via a whistleblower – asserted that immigration officers could enter a home without a judge’s warrant. That policy, the report said, constituted “a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches.”

Those limits have long been found in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed Dickinson College President John E. Jones III, a former federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 2002, for a primer on the Fourth Amendment, and what the changes in the ICE memo mean.

Okay, I’m going to read the Fourth Amendment – and then you’re going to explain it to us, please! Here goes:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Can you help us understand what that means?

Since the beginning of the republic, it has been uncontested that in order to invade someone’s home, you need to have a warrant that was considered, and signed off on, by a judicial officer. This mandate is right within the Fourth Amendment; it is a core protection.

In addition to that, through jurisprudence that has evolved since the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, it is settled law that it applies to everyone. That would include noncitizens as well.

What I see in this directive that ICE put out, apparently quite some time ago and somewhat secretly, is something that, to my mind, turns the Fourth Amendment on its head.

What does the Fourth Amendment aim to protect someone from?

In the context of the ICE search, it means that a person’s home, as they say, really is their castle. Historically, it was meant to remedy something that was true in England, where the colonists came from, which was that the king or those empowered by the king could invade people’s homes at will. The Fourth Amendment was meant to establish a sort of zone of privacy for people, so that their papers, their property, their persons would be safe from intrusion without cause.

So it’s essentially a protection against abuse of the government’s power.

That’s precisely what it is.

Has the accepted interpretation of the Fourth Amendment changed over the centuries?

It hasn’t. But Fourth Amendment law has evolved because the framers, for example, didn’t envision that there would be cellphones. They couldn’t understand or anticipate that there would be things like cellphones and electronic surveillance. All those modalities have come into the sphere of Fourth Amendment protection. The law has evolved in a way that actually has made Fourth Amendment protections greater and more wide-ranging, simply because of technology and other developments such as the use of automobiles and other means of transportation. So there are greater protected zones of privacy than just a person’s home.

ICE says it only needs an administrative warrant, not a judicial warrant, to enter a home and arrest someone. Can you briefly describe the difference and what it means in this situation?

It’s absolutely central to the question here. In this context, an administrative warrant is nothing more than the folks at ICE headquarters writing something up and directing their agents to go arrest somebody. That’s all. It’s a piece of paper that says ‘We want you arrested because we said so.’ At bottom that’s what an administrative warrant is, and of course it hasn’t been approved by a judge.

This authorized use of administrative warrants to circumvent the Fourth Amendment flies in the face of their limited use prior to the ICE directive.

A judicially approved warrant, on the other hand, has by definition been reviewed by a judge. In this case, it would be either a U.S. magistrate judge or U.S. district judge. That means that it would have to be supported by probable cause to enter someone’s residence to arrest them.

So the key distinction is that there’s a neutral arbiter. In this case, a federal judge who evaluates whether or not there’s sufficient cause to – as is stated clearly in the Fourth Amendment – be empowered to enter someone’s home. An administrative warrant has no such protection. It is not much more than a piece of paper generated in a self-serving way by ICE, free of review to substantiate what is stated in it.

ICE agents continued raids in Minnesota on Jan. 18, 2026, pulling a man who was wearing only underwear and a blanket out of a house in St. Paul.

Have there been other kinds of situations, historically, where the government has successfully proposed working around the Fourth Amendment?

There are a few, such as consent searches and exigent circumstances where someone is in danger or evidence is about to be destroyed. But generally it’s really the opposite and cases point to greater protections. For example, in the 1960s the Supreme Court had to confront warrantless wiretapping; it was very difficult for judges in that age who were not tech-savvy to apply the Fourth Amendment to this technology, and they struggled to find a remedy when there was no actual intrusion into a structure. In the end, the court found that intrusion was not necessary and that people’s expectation of privacy included their phone conversations. This of course has been extended to various other means of technology including GPS tracking and cellphone use generally.

What’s the direction this could go in at this point?

What I fear here – and I think ICE probably knows this – is that more often than not, a person who may not have legal standing to be in the country, notwithstanding the fact that there was a Fourth Amendment violation by ICE, may ultimately be out of luck. You could say that the arrest was illegal, and you go back to square one, but at the same time you’ve apprehended the person. So I’m struggling to figure out how you remedy this.

About the author:

John E. Jones III, President, Dickinson College. He is also affiliated with Keep Our Republic’s Article Three Coalition.

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

Viewpoint |
Trump's costly deportation policy producing unwhelming results

Photo: Chad Stembridge/Unsplash

ICE’s stated enforcement goals with publicly available data, highlights the agency’s increasingly militarized presence in urban neighborhoods, and documents the erosion of due process protections.

by Van Abbott

A budget tells a story. It reveals priorities, exposes intentions, and signals how power will be used. The newly expanded budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement tells a story that should alarm anyone who values fiscal integrity, constitutional limits, and democratic accountability.

In fiscal year 2024, ICE operated on a budget of roughly 10 billion dollars. Under the 2025 “Big Beautiful Bill,” the agency retained that base while receiving an additional 75 billion dollars in multiyear enforcement funding, available over approximately four years. Even if those supplemental funds are spread evenly, ICE now commands effective spending power of about 29 billion dollars annually. This is not an incremental increase. It is a structural transformation. An agency once described as a targeted enforcement body now wields resources approaching those of a national security institution, with little explanation and even less oversight.

The administration insists this surge in funding is about deportation. The observable outcomes suggest otherwise.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, a forced deportation costs approximately 18,000 dollars per person. By contrast, self deportation through the CBP Home app, including airfare, processing, and a cash stipend, costs about 5,100 dollars.

United States citizens are detained and required to prove their citizenship. Detainees report harsh and degrading treatment.

Using limited and unaudited publicly available data, ICE appears to have conducted roughly 300,000 to 330,000 formal forced removals over the past twelve months. In the final Biden administration fiscal year, ICE conducted approximately 271,000 forced removals. Even using the highest current estimate of 330,000, the increase amounts to about 59,000 removals, or roughly 22 percent.

Given the intensity of MAGA rhetoric and the extraordinary budgetary expansion directed at illegal immigration, one would expect a far greater increase in deportations during the first year of Trump’s return to office. That has not occurred.

This disparity raises a fundamental question. Are taxpayers funding effective immigration enforcement, or underwriting a vastly expanded apparatus whose mission now extends far beyond its original purpose? When spending multiplies while outcomes stagnate, and budgets swell while transparency shrinks, skepticism is not partisan. It is prudent.

What makes this moment especially troubling is how ICE now operates inside American cities. In Minneapolis and other urban centers, the agency has effectively occupied neighborhoods through sustained deployments, visible patrols, coordinated raids, and multiple deadly shootings. These actions resemble federal policing campaigns more than immigration enforcement. Streets are saturated with armed agents. Communities report a constant presence. The message is unmistakable. This is not about processing cases. It is about asserting control.

Alongside this urban expansion has come a collapse of constitutional safeguards. Masked agents conduct operations without visible identification. Homes are entered without warrants. Traffic stops occur without clear cause or authority. United States citizens are detained and required to prove their citizenship. Detainees report harsh and degrading treatment. To date, there is no public record of ICE officers being meaningfully disciplined for these actions. Authority expands. Accountability disappears. Due process erodes.

These are not isolated incidents. They reflect an institutional posture increasingly untethered from the rule of law. When agents conceal their identities, bypass judicial oversight, and face no consequences, the result is not enforcement but intimidation. The Constitution does not yield to expediency. Rights do not evaporate because an agency is well funded.

$85 billion dollars and no answers is not merely a budgeting problem.

The human cost is substantial. Raids executed with overwhelming force to apprehend nonviolent individuals traumatize families and destabilize neighborhoods. Faulty intelligence leads to mistaken targets, emotional harm, and property damage that is rarely reimbursed. Children watch parents taken away. Citizens discover that documentation offers no protection when an unaccountable force decides otherwise. Fear becomes routine. Trust becomes impossible.

The budget surge demands a more candid interpretation. A force that is lavishly funded, lightly supervised, and aggressively deployed within cities begins to resemble a national police force rather than an immigration service. It arrests without warrants, detains without explanation, and occupies neighborhoods without consent. It answers upward to executive authority, not outward to the public.

Three questions deserve direct answers. What problem justified a nearly threefold increase in annual spending power? Why do expenditures so dramatically exceed measurable outcomes? Who benefits from an enforcement body that grows more powerful as it grows less accountable?

Democracies rarely fail all at once. They erode through normalized excess, tolerated abuse, and unchecked authority. When budgets explode, rights contract, and accountability vanishes, the warning signs are unmistakable. Eighty five billion dollars and no answers is not merely a budgeting problem. It is a governance crisis.

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: newly expanded budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement tells a story, one would expect a far greater increase in deportations, how ICE now operates inside American cities, agents conceal their identities, bypass judicial oversight, and face no consequences

Urbana announces application process for Ward 4 city council appointment

Urbana officials announced an open application process for a vacant Ward 4 City Council seat. Eligible residents must meet residency and voting requirements and have no outstanding city debts or felony convictions.

URBANA - The City of Urbana is accepting applications to fill a vacant seat on the City Council following the resignation of Ward 4 Council Member Jaya Kolisetty, which will take effect Feb. 2, 2026.

The appointment will fill the Ward 4 seat through the next general election in 2027, offering residents an opportunity to step into a leadership role during a key stretch for the city.

To be eligible, applicants must be qualified to vote in municipal elections and must have lived in both Urbana and Ward 4 for at least one year. Applicants also must not have any delinquent city taxes, fees or fines and must not have any felony convictions.

The Urbana City Council meets on Mondays at 7 p.m., with additional meetings scheduled as needed throughout the year.

Applications may be submitted electronically through the city’s website at go.urbanail.gov/ApplyWard4. Paper applications are also available at the City Clerk’s Office and The Urbana Free Library. Completed paper applications can be submitted by email to CityClerk@UrbanaIL.gov with the subject line “City Council Application,” or delivered in person to the City Clerk’s Office at 400 S. Vine St. in Urbana.

The deadline to apply is 5 p.m. Friday, Jan. 30, 2026.

Urbana Ward 4 City Council vacancy, Urbana City Council appointment 2026, apply for Urbana City Council seat, Ward 4 Urbana council application, Urbana municipal government vacancy

Cold and Bold – March for America planned for Jan. 18 at West Side Park

The Cold and Bold – March for America is scheduled to take place around West Side Park in Champaign. The one-day demonstration is expected to be brief.

CHAMPAIGN — Champaign-Urbana Resistance Effort (CURE) will hold a demonstration titled “Cold and Bold – March for America” on Sunday, Jan. 18, at 2 p.m. around West Side Park in Champaign.

Organizers have scheduled the event to last approximately 30 minutes due to anticipated winter weather conditions. Forecasts call for a high temperature of about 19 degrees.

Photo: Sentinel/Clark Brooks

A Hands-Off rally was held near downtown Champaign last spring. Protesters will be back at Westside Park another rally expected to last about 30-minute to protest the latest Trump Administration policies.

The march is planned during the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term. During that period, the administration has undertaken a series of actions that have prompted national attention and legal challenges, including the acceptance of a new Air Force One from Qatar, the imposition of tariffs that have slowed U.S. economic growth, and the approval of advanced artificial intelligence chip sales to China.

Several administration actions have also been addressed in federal court. In December 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in *Trump v. Illinois* that the president did not have authority to federalize the Illinois National Guard. Following that decision, efforts to federalize the California National Guard were withdrawn. A federal judge also blocked an attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, with that case scheduled for review by the Supreme Court in January 2026.

Additional court rulings have required the administration to restore clean energy funding in certain states, reinstate equal pay data collection requirements, resume funding for the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, and overturn a rule related to healthcare workers’ refusal of care. Earlier this week, a federal court ordered the restoration of nearly $12 million in pediatric health funding to the American Academy of Pediatrics while litigation continues.

The demonstration is scheduled to take place regardless of cold weather conditions.

Champaign Cold and Bold March for America, West Side Park Champaign protest January 18, CURE Champaign winter demonstration, January protest Champaign Illinois park, Cold weather march Champaign-Urbana, Champaign community protest event

Op-Ed |
Billions in the balance: Is the White House becoming a profit machine?

Power drain panic: Amid soaring consumer costs state looks for solutions for data center business

Data center negotiations continue

‘Little type of war’

Consumer backlash

Spreading the costs

Bill to regulate soaring homeowners insurance rates is making comeback in Springfield

Current environment

Proposed changes

94% of Democrats, 93% of Republicans agree: Toxic politics is tearing the nation apart

Viewpoint |
Ride & die with the Epstein Class: They are the elites they pretend to hate

How to vote in Illinois in 2026: Early voting begins this week for most of the state

Early voting opens

Registration identification

Mail-in ballots

Democrats denounce Trump agenda as GOP slams Illinois House session as political theater

Viewpoint |
How ICE raids on homes violates the constitutional rights

Viewpoint |
Trump's costly deportation policy producing unwhelming results

Urbana announces application process for Ward 4 city council appointment

Cold and Bold – March for America planned for Jan. 18 at West Side Park

Editor's Choice

Sentinel area baseball scores for April 4

More Sentinel Stories

Sentinel Prep Sports

Photo Galleries

Varsity Snapshot

Search the Sentinel

Top stories this year

More Editorial Viewpoints

Data center negotiations continue

‘Little type of war’

Consumer backlash

Spreading the costs

More on Illinois politics

Current environment

Proposed changes

More on Illinois politics

More that might interest you

Early voting opens

Registration identification

Mail-in ballots

More on Illinois politics

More on Illinois politics

More Editorial Viewpoints

Editor's Choice

More Sentinel Stories

Sentinel Prep Sports

Photo Galleries

Varsity Snapshot

Search the Sentinel

Top stories this year