Findings highlight wide-ranging health impacts and alarming cost implications
by Patty Starr President and CEO, Health Action Council
Newly released claims data from more than 220,000 people reveal the latest evidence on the role obesity plays in health and health care costs, underpinning the need for supportive measures and interventions.
The new study, which analyzed Health Action Council (HAC) members with health plans administered by UnitedHealthcare, found that people with obesity cost their employers 2.3 times more than those without the condition and paid 66% more out-of-pocket ($662) per year than their peers without obesity. Notably, Millennials with obesity incurred over 8% higher per member per month (PMPM) costs than Baby Boomers without obesity who were 27 years older, due to the increased likelihood of chronic condition diagnoses.
Multifaceted health consequences
Comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and musculoskeletal issues were major cost drivers. The more comorbidities a person with obesity experienced, the higher their costs became. Obesity significantly increased the risk of various cancers, including breast, colon, rectum, and upper stomach cancers, and increased the risks for anxiety, substance use disorders, and depression.
Obesity among women of childbearing age
The report highlighted a 19-percentage-point rise in obesity rates between Gen Z women (9%) and Millennial women (28%), the largest generation in today’s workforce. This was particularly concerning due to the heightened maternal mortality risks and mental health issues associated with obesity.
The ripple effect on children
Children of parents with obesity are generally twice as likely to develop the condition themselves, but this risk tripled for children of HAC members if at least one parent had obesity. These children were also 44% more likely to experience depression, 39% more likely to have ADHD, and had higher rates of developmental disorders, asthma and diabetes.
Whole person weight management solutions
Effective strategies will require more than GLP-1s, which are unlikely to meaningfully impact obesity rates due to their high costs and low compliance rates. Consistent with the Food and Drug Administration’s label, these medications should be used in tandem with a life-style modification program for the treatment of obesity.
Strategies for employers
Following are a few steps employers can take to build a healthier workplace culture.
Understand your population. Analyze claims to determine the percentage of your workforce and dependents impacted by obesity. Identify prevalence, most impacted groups, as well as other health risks and social drivers of health.
Foster a healthy environment. Encourage a positive relationship with food, activity, and stress management by offering classes on exercise, nutrition, and mindfulness and providing non-processed foods at meetings, events, and in common areas. Encourage daily physical activity, less screen time, and quality sleep.
Offer comprehensive health solutions. Implement wellness solutions that integrate whole-person health by providing access to virtual providers such as network dietitians, digital health tools like mental health apps, and wearable technologies such as continuous glucose monitors.
About the author ~
Patty Starr is President and CEO of Health Action Council and is responsible for driving the strategic direction of the organization--build stronger, healthier communities where business can thrive.
But the administration’s response to the tragic January collision that killed 67 people over the Potomac is worth revisiting. Not only because the loved ones of those lost deserve answers, but because it highlights a MAGA playbook we’ve seen repeatedly now — and we’ll see again very soon.
Trump suggested that unqualified minority hires caused the accident ...
We don’t yet know what caused the crash. But shortly before it, President Trump disbanded a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety committee, fired the FAA administrator, and implemented a federal hiring freeze despite a shortage of air traffic controllers. (Staffing at the local tower was “not normal” the night of the collision, The New York Times reported.)
Did any of that contribute? That’s for a proper investigation to determine. But one thing’s for sure: It wasn’t the “DEI” initiatives President Trump immediately blamed.
Trump suggested that unqualified minority hires caused the accident because the prior administration thought “the workforce was too white.” When pressed for even a shred of evidence, he shrugged that it was “common sense.” Administration figures like Vice President Vance stuck with the claim even after learning that both pilots involved were white.
The claim was ridiculous, but it sucked up attention that might have gone to the Trump administration’s own moves instead. And that’s exactly why we keep seeing lies like these — to protect incompetent politicians and the corporate interests that prop them up.
Once you realize that, you’ll start noticing it everywhere.
About a year ago, when a foreign cargo ship destroyed Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, the same crowd had nothing to say about regulating shipping companies or infrastructure safety. Instead, they just started calling the city’s Black mayor, Brandon Scott, the “DEI mayor.”
At best, these obviously false claims suck the oxygen out of any discussions that might involve the incompetence of politicians or misdeeds of their corporate supporters.
Norfolk Southern had skimped on maintenance, overstretched its workers, and plowed the savings into stock buybacks rather than safety. The company had also poured money into Ohio’s statehouse, which killed a bipartisan rail safety bill the company had lobbied against.
The talking heads on Fox News didn’t have anything to say about that — or about President Trump’s decision to nix an Obama-era regulation to prevent accidents like these during his first term.
Instead, right-wing multimillionaires like Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk claimed the accident happened because President Biden didn’t care about the poor whites of rural Ohio. (Kirk even claimed the episode proved there was a whole “crusade against white people.”)
At best, these obviously false claims suck the oxygen out of any discussions that might involve the incompetence of politicians or misdeeds of their corporate supporters. At worst, they foster division for its own sake. Neither makes us safer.
As Trump, Musk, and their allies illegally purge federal agencies and open the floodgates to corporate malfeasance of all varieties, more disasters like these are almost inevitable. And just as inevitably, they’ll blame DEI, immigrants, LGBTQ people, or some other scapegoat when that happens.
For our hard-earned tax dollars, most of us just want the government to protect our communities and our planet — even when that’s less profitable for a few corporations. But to get that, we’ll have to pull together across the divides their backers like to drive between us.
Peter Certo is the communications director of the Institute for Policy Studies and editor of OtherWords.org.
Op-Ed by Dr. Todd J. Barry
In 2012, United States President Barack Obama faced a choice regarding how to legislate the permanency of the President George W. Bush Tax Cuts. In some ways, the dire economic growth of “the Great Recession” called for one obvious path, of making the tax cuts permanent. But, in other ways, President Obama was “suckered” into supporting this path, because of exhortations that economic calamity would otherwise result (then termed the “fiscal cliff”) which was largely an exaggeration. Mr. Obama opted to push to make some of the tax cuts permanent, for the middle-class, but this policy still greatly increased the United States (U.S.) deficit and debt.
Trump tax cuts will cause excessive demand, much of it going to people who do not need it, leading to higher prices.
Currently, Democrats in Congress will have to decide whether or not to be “suckered” into Mr. Trump’s tax permanency proposals, which are reminiscent of Mr. Bush’s. But, the economic situation today is different. Illinois Senators Dick Durban-(D) and Tammy Duckworth-(D) have, previously, sent letters to Republican leaders calling for tax “bipartisanship.” More recently, a similar letter from Michigan’s Senators was vague, though saying than that the tax cuts’ “permanency” would increase the U.S. deficit from $1.9 trillion dollars to $2.9 trillion.
America’s economy grew in 2024’s 3rd quarter at 3.1%, a very strong number. However, several Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson-(R-LA), have said, paraphrasing, that “we have to get the economy going again,” but the problem is not that the economy is sluggish, but that it is overheated.
This situation also has little to do with the absence of shovel-ready projects, that outgoing-President Joseph Biden lamented about. Consequently, a best-policy approach would not be one that is expansionary, but one that is actually contractionary, yet at the same time helps Americans buy more at the grocery store.
Hillary Clinton’s economic team created a novel idea, of giving tax credits for businesses that would share that money with workers.
To put it simply, the Trump tax cuts will cause excessive demand, much of it going to people who do not need it, leading to higher prices. These prices are on top of the proposed tariffs, whereby it is unfathomable that since the middle of the 20th Century presidents have had powers uncheckable by Congress. Also, the inflation is largely due to the dovish policies of the Federal Reserve, which continues to cater to gullible investors on Wall Street. Deficits will soar, leading to higher interest rates, to even more inflation, and eventually to greater unemployment.
In 2016, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s economic team created a novel idea, of giving tax credits for businesses that would share that money with workers. The plan, though, was ambiguous, and poorly promoted. Alternatively, a supply-side approach, of giving tax credits to businesses that cut prices, risks becoming bureaucratically complex in American’s capitalist framework, an enforcement conundrum.
Wage controls, vis-a-vie the President Nixon era, are equally complex, as are anti-price-gouging measures. While making the middle-class tax cuts alone permanent is feasible, it could engender political challenges. And, unfortunately, these topics did not arise during the 2024 presidential election, because political leaders misinterpret economics, albeit 16 Nobel Laureate economists sent a petition to Washington warning about the economy’s’ health.
Yet, today, I propose an idea similar to Mrs. Clinton’s, which could help Americans to buy more, while costing the government less. Congress could provide a tax credit to businesses sharing 50% of the credit to workers’ wages. Here-named “demand-supply-side economics,” the supply-side aspect would expand production, but even if some resources ended up in CEO’s pockets, the other half going to blue collar workers would increase demand. The combination of the increase in the demand and supply curves at the same time, albeit disregarding their elasticities (the slope of the curves), would result in little changes to prices, but a greater output for Americans- more “bang for the dollar” at the grocery store.
Unfortunately, unresponsive companies might experience labor strikes, but the labor market helps to keep wages consistent with inflation. Furthermore, the government could choose the size of the program, and its time-length, without adding as much to the debt, which is now $31.5 trillion dollars and growing, every time one blinks.
The permanency and details of the Trump tax cuts, including those for the middle-class, need to debated, carefully, before mistakes are made that lead to even higher prices, and to even greater deficits and debt into the future.
Dr. Todd J. Barry holds a PhD from the U. of Southern Mississippi, and teaches economics, with Hudson County Community College in NJ, USA. Sean R. Barry holds a master’s degree in public administration, and has served on town committees in Branford, CT.
Instead, governments should prioritize safe, affordable, dignified, and permanent housing for all.
Image: Pete Linforth/Pixabay
byFarrah Hassen
OtherWords
This summer, the Supreme Court’s Grants Passruling made it much easier for local governments to criminalize homelessness. Since then, cities and states across the country have stepped up their harassment of people for the “crime” of not having a place to live.
Penalizing homelessness has increasingly taken the form of crackdowns on encampments — also known as “sweeps,” which have received bipartisan support. California Governor Gavin Newsom has ordered state agencies to ramp up encampment sweeps, while President-elect Donald Trump has also pledged to ban encampments and move people to “tent cities” far from public view.
Evidence shows that these sweeps are harmful and unproductive — and not to mention dehumanizing.
Housing justice advocates caution that sweeps disrupt peoples’ lives by severing their ties to case workers, medical care, and other vital services. Many unhoused people also have their personal documents and other critical belongings seized or tossed, which makes it even harder to find housing and work.
According to a ProPublica investigation, authorities in multiple cities have confiscated basic survival items like tents and blankets, as well as medical supplies like CPAP machines and insulin. Other people lost items like phones and tools that impacted their ability to work.
Teresa Stratton from Portland toldProPublica that her husband’s ashes were even taken in a sweep. “I wonder where he is,” she said. “I hope he’s not in the dump.”
Over the summer, the city of Sacramento, California forcefully evicted 48 residents — mostly women over 55 with disabilities — from a self-governed encampment known as Camp Resolution. The camp was located at a vacant lot and had been authorized by the city, which also owned the trailers where residents lived.
Sweeps, like punitive fines and arrests, don’t address the root of the problem — they just trap people in cycles of poverty and homelessness.
One of the residents who’d been at the hospital during the sweep was assured that her belongings would be kept safe. However, she told me she lost everything she’d worked so hard to acquire, including her car.
The loss of her home and community of two years, along with her possessions, was already traumatizing. But now, like most of the camp residents, she was forced back onto the streets — even though the city had promised not to sweep the lot until every resident had been placed in permanent housing.
Aside from being inhumane, the seizure of personal belongings raises serious constitutional questions — especially since sweeps often take place with little to no warning and authorities often fail to properly store belongings. Six unhoused New Yorkers recently sued the city on Fourth Amendment grounds, citing these practices.
Sweeps, like punitive fines and arrests, don’t address the root of the problem — they just trap people in cycles of poverty and homelessness. Encampments can pose challenges to local communities, but their prevalence stems from our nation’s failure to ensure the fundamental human right to housing.
People experiencing homelessness are often derided as an “eyesore” and blamed for their plight. However, government policies have allowed housing, a basic necessity for survival, to become commodified and controlled by corporations and billionaire investors for profit.
Officials justify sweeps for safety and sanitation reasons, but in the end they harm and displace people who have nowhere else to go.
While shelters can help some people move indoors temporarily, they aren’t a real housing solution, either.
Human rights groups report that shelters often don’t meet adequate standards of housing or accommodate people with disabilities. Many treat people like they’re incarcerated by imposing curfews and other restrictions, such as not allowing pets. Safety and privacy at shelters are also growing concerns.
Officials justify sweeps for safety and sanitation reasons, but in the end they harm and displace people who have nowhere else to go. Instead, governments should prioritize safe, affordable, dignified, and permanent housing for all, coupled with supportive services.
Anything else is sweeping the problem under the rug.
About the author:
Farrah Hassen, J.D., is a writer, policy analyst, and adjunct professor in the Department of Political Science at Cal Poly Pomona. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.
Republicans are counting on fears of immigrants to draw white conservatives to the polls. This calculation is dangerous — and it lets the real villains in our politics off the hook.
There’s a direct line between Donald Trump’s 2015 declaration about Mexican “rapists” and his 2024 lie about Haitians eating pets. Trump’s running mate, Senator JD Vance (R-OH), has echoed the horrific contention about Haitians even while admitting it was a lie.
In Vance’s world, immigrants are smuggling fentanyl and importing illegal guns.
Both men are married to women of immigrant origins and may not even believe their own lies. In fact, as a Yale law student in 2012, Vance wrote a blog post decrying Republican anti-immigrant rhetoric. But after he found how convenient it is to bash immigrants for votes, Vance asked his former professor to delete it.
During the vice presidential debate between Vance and Governor Tim Walz (D-MN), Vance scapegoated immigrants every chance he got. In Vance’s world, immigrants are smuggling fentanyl and importing illegal guns. They’re also driving up housing prices while simultaneously putting downward pressure on wages by working for pittances.
Never mind that it’s mostly U.S. citizens smuggling fentanyl, and that illegal guns are flowing the other way across the border — from the U.S. into Mexico. Never mind that it makes no sense for immigrants to be working for less while paradoxically being able to afford homes that Americans cannot.
Truth and logic are beside the point. Fear of the “other” is the plan. This makes life very dangerous for immigrants. Haitian migrants, among others, are facing threats to their safety.
Beating the racist, anti-immigrant drum is the first step toward violence.
Trump has repeatedly deployed Hitlerian language to describe immigrants, blaming them for “poisoning the blood” of the country and claiming that they commit homicide because they have “bad genes.” (One can hardly imagine him extending the same logic to mass shooters, who tend to be overwhelmingly white and male, or to the two white men who recently tried to assassinate him. According to Trump, being white means you have “good genes.”)
Beating the racist, anti-immigrant drum is the first step toward violence. The United Nations identifies hate speech as a “precursor to atrocity crimes, including genocide,” and scholars of past genocides have drawn clear links between language that “otherizes” whole communities and pogroms aimed at them.
Anti-immigrant lies also harm native-born Americans. Trump, Vance, and their supporters recently unleashed rumors falsely blaming immigrants for disaster relief difficulties. Elon Musk jumped on the bandwagon, claiming that “FEMA used up its budget ferrying illegals into the country instead of saving American lives.”
FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell called these lies part of a “truly dangerous narrative.” Even Republican governors of hurricane-hit states are deeply appalled, warning that these lies threaten to disrupt disaster recovery efforts.
If right-wing politicians really want to help Americans struggling with economic stressors, they could ban hedge fund managers from buying up homes.
Most importantly, the purveyors of anti-immigrant hate let corporate power and wealthy elites — like Musk — off the hook for the problems facing Americans. Hedge fund managers, not immigrants, are outbidding Americans for housing. Corporate employers keep wages low and privatization has ruined healthcare, not immigrants.
Oil and gas corporations are responsible for the catastrophic climate change fueling hurricanes like Helene and Milton, not immigrants. (Indeed, migrant workers often help rebuild after these catastrophes as communities struggle with a labor shortage).
Attacking immigrants and calling for mass deportations will do nothing to ease the very real struggles people face. What it will do is whip up hate and violence, give the purveyors of hate the political power they desperately seek, and let corporate vultures off the hook.
About the author:
Sonali Kolhatkar is the host of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a television and radio show on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.
Both major presidential candidates have called for eliminating taxes on tips. But that won’t help most restaurant workers.
What will? Replacing the subminimum wages that tipped workers make with one fair wage nationwide.
The vast majority of tipped workers in America ... don’t earn enough to have to pay federal payroll taxes.
The federal minimum wage for most workers is just $7.25. But for workers who get tips, employers are allowed to pay them $2.13 an hour. If tips don’t raise your hourly pay to at least the regular minimum wage, bosses are supposed to make up the difference — but very often don’t.
I was a bartender in Boston for over a decade. Technically, I was paid $6.75 an hour — the current subminimum in Massachusetts, which is thankfully higher than the $2.13 federal rate. But my coworkers and I made next to nothing anyway.
Like us, the vast majority of tipped workers in America — 66 percent — don’t earn enough to have to pay federal payroll taxes. So eliminating those taxes won’t benefit two-thirds of us at all.
Donald Trump has proposed ending taxes on tips as a clear attempt to pander to tipped workers. But as president, Trump actually gutted overtime regulations and tried to make it easier for our employers to steal our tips. So it’s clear to me he doesn’t really want to help us.
It’s a telling sign that the National Restaurant Association (NRA), which is backed by corporations and wealthy business owners, has embraced Trump’s plan.
Many of my coworkers and I are pressured to tolerate inappropriate customer behavior because our livelihood depends on being likable.
Kamala Harris has also embraced ending taxes on tips. But unlike Trump, Harris has also voiced support for ending the subminimum wage. That would mean that my coworkers and I would be paid a full, fair minimum wage just like all other workers in our country — plus get tips on top.
In that scenario, not having to pay taxes on tips would be meaningful for all of us.
When employers can pay a subminimum wage, it forces our income to depend on uncontrollable factors — like weather, customer traffic, and tips.
Even worse, many of my coworkers and I are pressured to tolerate inappropriate customer behavior because our livelihood depends on being likable. This especially harms women and contributes to the restaurant industry’s notoriously high rates of harassment.
That’s why I’m helping turn out votes for a ballot measure this fall that would end the subminimum wage in Massachusetts and ensure all restaurant workers are paid one fair wage with tips on top. There’s similar legislation pending in 12 more states.
The good news is we know this policy works.
It’s great that politicians are talking about tipped workers.
One fair wage is already law in seven states and two major metro areas (Chicago and Washington, D.C.). And in those places, wages are higher, rates of tipping are the same or higher, and restaurant growth is higher.
Tipping is so ingrained in our culture that in places like California, which recently eliminated its subminimum wage, customers routinely continue to tip their usual amount — which workers receive on top of the full minimum wage. It’s a win-win solution.
It’s great that politicians are talking about tipped workers. We’re a powerful voting block and we’re invested in voting for meaningful change. Tipped workers see beyond the lies and the pandering and know that one fair wage is the change we need to put more dollars in our pockets.
About the author:
Red Schomburg is a worker and leader with One Fair Wage. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.
Keywords: Minimum Wage, Restaurant Workers, National Restaurant Association, Tipped Workers, Federal Minimum Wage
There has been a lot of research on the types of people who believe conspiracy theories, and their reasons for doing so. But there’s a wrinkle: My colleagues and I have found that there are a number of people sharing conspiracies online who don’t believe their own content.
They are opportunists. These people share conspiracy theories to promote conflict, cause chaos, recruit and radicalize potential followers, make money, harass, or even just to get attention.
There are several types of this sort of conspiracy-spreader trying to influence you.
Chaos conspiracists, aka trolls, a high “need for chaos” are more likely to indiscriminately share conspiracies, regardless of their personal beliefs.
I don’t believe in anything. I’m only here for the violence.
Research shows that people with positive feelings for extremist groups are significantly more likely to knowingly share false content online. For instance, the disinformation-monitoring company Blackbird.AI tracked over 119 million COVID-19 conspiracy posts from May 2020, when activists were protesting pandemic restrictions and lockdowns in the United States. Of these, over 32 million tweets were identified as high on their manipulation index. Those posted by various extremist groups were particularly likely to carry markers of insincerity. For instance, one group, the Boogaloo Bois, generated over 610,000 tweets, of which 58% were intent on incitement and radicalization.
You can also just take the word of the extremists themselves. When the Boogaloo Bois militia group showed up at the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, for example, members stated they didn’t actually endorse the stolen election conspiracy, but were there to “mess with the federal government.” Aron McKillips, a Boogaloo member arrested in 2022 as part of an FBI sting, is another example of an opportunistic conspiracist. In his own words: “I don’t believe in anything. I’m only here for the violence.”
Combative conspiracists – the disinformants
Governments love conspiracy theories. The classic example of this is the 1903 document known as the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” in which Russia constructed an enduring myth about Jewish plans for world domination. More recently, China used artificial intelligence to construct a fake conspiracy theory about the August 2023 Maui wildfire.
Often the behavior of the conspiracists gives them away. Years later, Russia eventually confessed to lying about AIDS in the 1980s. But even before admitting to the campaign, its agents had forged documents to support the conspiracy. Forgeries aren’t created by accident. They knew they were lying.
As for other conspiracies it hawks, Russia is famous for taking both sides in any contentious issue, spreading lies online to foment conflict and polarization. People who actually believe in a conspiracy tend to stick to a side. Meanwhile, Russians knowingly deploy what one analyst has called a “fire hose of falsehoods.”
For instance, in the wake of the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump, a false accusation arose online about the identity of the shooter and his motivations. The person who first posted this claim knew he was making up a name and stealing a photo. The intent was apparently to harass the Italian sports blogger whose photo was stolen. This fake conspiracy was seen over 300,000 times on the social platform X and picked up by multiple other conspiracists eager to fill the information gap about the assassination attempt.
Commercial conspiracists – the profiteers
Often when I encounter a conspiracy theory I ask: “What does the sharer have to gain? Are they telling me this because they have an evidence-backed concern, or are they trying to sell me something?”
When researchers tracked down the 12 people primarily responsible for the vast majority of anti-vaccine conspiracies online, most of them had a financial investment in perpetuating these misleading narratives.
Some people who fall into this category might truly believe their conspiracy, but their first priority is finding a way to make money from it. For instance, conspiracist Alex Jones bragged that his fans would “buy anything.” Fox News and its on-air personality Tucker Carlson publicized lies about voter fraud in the 2020 election to keep viewers engaged, while behind-the-scenes communications revealed they did not endorse what they espoused.
Profit doesn’t just mean money. People can also profit from spreading conspiracies if it garners them influence or followers, or protects their reputation. Even social media companies are reluctant to combat conspiracies because they know they attract more clicks.
Often, folks are just looking for attention or other personal benefit. They don’t want to miss out on a hot-topic conversation.
Common conspiracists – the attention-getters
You don’t have to be a profiteer to like some attention. Plenty of regular people share content where they doubt the veracity, or know it is false.
These posts are common: Friends, family and acquaintances share the latest conspiracy theory with “could this be true?” queries or “seems close enough to the truth” taglines. Their accompanying comments show that sharers are, at minimum, unsure about the truthfulness of the content, but they share nonetheless. Many share without even reading past a headline. Still others, approximately 7% to 20% of social media users, share despite knowing the content is false. Why?
Some claim to be sharing to inform people “just in case” it is true. But this sort of “sound the alarm” reason actually isn’t that common.
Over time, the opportunists may end up convincing themselves. After all, they will eventually have to come to terms with why they are engaging in unethical and deceptive, if not destructive, behavior. They may have a rationale for why lying is good. Or they may convince themselves that they aren’t lying by claiming they thought the conspiracy was true all along.
It’s important to be cautious and not believe everything you read. These opportunists don’t even believe everything they write – and share. But they want you to. So be aware that the next time you share an unfounded conspiracy theory, online or offline, you could be helping an opportunist. They don’t buy it, so neither should you. Be aware before you share. Don’t be what these opportunists derogatorily refer to as “a useful idiot.”
PONTIAC - People everywhere are conquering their cabin fever and are enjoying the great outdoors after a long, bitter winter. But before you head out for that hike, health care experts remind you to take precautions to avoid tick bites. Read more . . .
CHICAGO - An Illinois law professor is weighing in on what she called a "very public and open test of due process" for immigrants being deported from the United States without court hearings. Read more . . .
CHAMPAIGN - In a show of solidarity against President Donald Trump's trade and immigration policies, which critics say are harming families and retirement savings, more than a thousand protesters gathered Saturday at West Park near downtown Champaign for the Hands-Off! Mobilization rally. Read more . . .
Photo Galleries
A couple of runners found themselves in the wrong race at this year's Illinois Marathon. Over 60 photos from the race that you should see.
by Patty Starr
