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.





Letter to the Editor |
Bigotry undermines the principles of our nation


Sentinel logo
President Trump claimed these violent felons did not attack anyone after issuing a blanket pardon to Daniel Rodriguez and others after the attack of Michael Fanone.


Dear Editor,

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) recently posted on social media that “Muslims don’t belong in American society.”

Similarly, in February, Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) wrote on X: "If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one."

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has declined to condemn these comments, asserting, “I’ve spoken to those members and all members, as I always do, about our tone and our message and what we say.”

Anti-Muslim racism receives little pushback in our country. Imagine the furor if the word "Jews" was substituted for "Muslims" in these statements.

Bigotry against any faith community undermines the principles our nation claims to uphold. History shows where such dehumanization leads. Both citizens and elected leaders must insist that dignity and equality belong to all Americans, without exception.


Terry Hansen
Grafton, WI

Terry Hansen is a retired educator from Grafton, WI, who writes frequently about climate change and on human rights. He lives in Grafton, WIsconsin.



TAGS: Muslim hate is growing in America, American politicians push xenophobia against Muslims, religious freedom is prohibited in the United States, Muslim bigotry goes against the ideas that built this country

Foundation trip or flight scandal? Pritzker pushes back on Clinton claim


Former President Bill Clinton mentioned he might have traveled on Epstein’s plane with JB Pritzker and his wife. A spokesperson for Clinton quickly clarified the former president was referring to a trip he took with Pritzker to Africa in 2008.


Ben Szalinski
Capitol News Illinois


SPRINGFIELD - Gov. JB Pritzker denied a since-recanted comment by former President Bill Clinton that Clinton thought the pair may have traveled together on a plane owned by convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

His denial was in response to a 90-second video clip of Clinton’s closed-door deposition before the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that began circulating online Monday night.

“No, I have never, had never met Jeffrey Epstein,” Pritzker said Tuesday. “I was never on Jeffrey Epstein's plane. I was never on any plane with Jeffrey Epstein or with Ghislaine Maxwell. Never met her.”

Pritzker added he had never heard of Epstein until about 2019 when Epstein was indicted for child sex trafficking in the early 2000s.

Clinton’s testimony

In his deposition, the ex-president was asked to recall who he brought on more than two dozen flights he took on Epstein’s plane. He said it was often people who worked with him, for his foundation, including staffers and Secret Service agents, but also the governor of Illinois and his wife.

“On occasion, I had people who had volunteered to help us and wanted to see what we were doing,” Clinton said. “For example, I think it was on one of these trips — I think — that I had my first trip for a man who is now the governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker, and his wife. They gave me — they helped me get started.”

Speaking to reporters Tuesday in Chicago, Pritzker said Clinton “clearly was mistaken.”

A spokesperson for Clinton on Tuesday also reframed the president’s comments.

“President Clinton was simply giving an example of the many people he traveled with to see the Clinton Foundation’s work,” spokesperson Angel Ureña said in a statement to Capitol News Illinois. “Gov. Pritzker joined a Clinton Foundation trip in 2008. Not on Epstein’s plane. Not with Epstein. Not with Maxwell.”

Clinton has said he cut ties prior to when Epstein was first arrested in 2005 for sex crimes and first sentenced to 18 months behind bars in June 2008. Clinton and Pritzker were photographed by Getty Images together in Rwanda in August 2008 on a Clinton Foundation trip. Pritzker said the plane for that trip was donated by Google.

Neither Pritzker nor the Clintons have been accused of any wrongdoing related to Epstein. The Illinois governor’s name appears about two dozen times in the Epstein files — all references to news stories with Pritzker in the headline. The governor’s last name appears more than 7,100 times, likely in relationship to the governor’s cousin, Thomas Pritzker, who has acknowledged a connection with Epstein.

Illinois GOP response

Illinois Republicans still pounced at the chance to tie the governor to Epstein.

“Time to do some explaining! Why were you on pedophile Epstein’s plane?” Rep. John Cabello, R-Machesney Park, posted at Pritzker on X.

One person who is mentioned in the more than 3 million Epstein documents released so far is President Donald Trump, whose name appears 38,000 times, according to The New York Times. Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

Illinois Republicans skipped a vote on a nonbinding resolution in the Illinois House last week that called on the Trump administration to release all files related to Epstein with redactions only for victims.

“It's a wag the dog,” Pritzker said. “Let's, you know, ‘look over here, look over here.’ Don't look at the leader of their party, the leader of this country, who is a Republican, Donald Trump, who clearly is somebody that needs to be investigated, needs to be answering for his relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell, with Jeffrey Epstein, and has done none of that. You saw other people testifying. Where is President Trump’s testimony?”

Pritzker’s relationship with the Clintons

Pritzker’s relationship with the Clintons dates back two decades. According to the Washington Post, Pritzker connected as a political ally with then-New York Sen. Hillary Clinton in 2006 through a mutual friend.

Hillary Clinton then asked Pritzker to be co-chair of her 2008 presidential campaign in the Democratic primary against then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. Pritzker remained a top fundraiser and advisor to her unsuccessful 2016 campaign against Trump.

Pritzker and Hillary Clinton even watched part of the 2024 Democratic National Convention together from balcony seats at the United Center in Chicago.

Pritzker, who is worth $3.9 billion, according to Forbes, and is one of the wealthiest elected officials in American history, also gave $17 million to the Clinton Foundation between 2002 and 2016, according to a 2018 Illinois Answers Project investigation.

Another Pritzker

The governor’s cousin, Thomas Pritzker, recently resigned from his role as the executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels after his association with Epstein and Maxwell came into clearer view through emails released in the Epstein files tranche.

When asked about his cousin’s connection to Epstein in a recent interview, the governor said anyone who has done something wrong should be held accountable.

“I’m not close to my cousin, but I can tell you that it’s very important that people be held to pay the price for whatever it is that they may have done,” Pritzker said.

Illinois Democratic lawmakers Monday joined advocates for women and survivors of sexual abuse to introduce House Bill 5723, called the Illinois Epstein Files Investigation Act.

The bill, if passed, would create a governor-appointed commission to investigate Illinois-based crimes connected to Epstein’s network. Those would focus primarily on the stories of victims in Illinois and crimes that may have occurred in Illinois.


Maggie Dougherty contributed.

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.

This article first appeared on Capitol News Illinois and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.




Tags: JB Pritzker Jeffrey Epstein plane denial, Bill Clinton deposition Illinois governor 2008 trip, Illinois Epstein Files Investigation Act House Bill 5723, Thomas Pritzker Hyatt resignation Epstein connection, Illinois political reaction to Epstein documents


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


oursentinel.com viewpoint
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.


oursentinel.com viewpoint
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


Data Center server room
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.


Data Center server room
Illustration: PromptPlay/Pixabay

Data centers house thousands of interconnected servers and storage systems that process, manage and deliver digital information through private networks and the internet. Their intensive energy demands can strain local power grids and contribute to higher electricity costs for surrounding communities.

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

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

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


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

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

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

Data center negotiations continue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

‘Little type of war’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consumer backlash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spreading the costs

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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




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.


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 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


Independence Hall in Philly
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

Letter to the Editor |
Small towns don’t forget who shows up


As the primary approaches, a Homer resident urges voters to choose responsive leadership.


Dear Editor,

In the village of Homer, our "downtown" features more false fronts and vacant lots than businesses. Like many communities in the 15th Illinois Congressional District, we are hardworking people who feel more like "flyover country" to the Washington elite than a priority.

As the March 17th primary approached, I invited all seven congressional candidates to sit down for coffee with my neighbors. Six candidates accepted. Representative Mary Miller didn't even acknowledge the invitation.

Living just 35 miles away, her silence is deafening. While she makes headlines speaking to national influencers, she couldn't find an hour for the people of Homer. To make matters worse, after years of calling earmarks corrupt, she has suddenly reversed course now that she’s facing a primary challenge. It’s hard to trust a "foundation" that shifts as soon as an election gets close.

The 15th District is conservative, but we shouldn’t be a rubber stamp for an absentee representative. Republican candidates Judy Bowlby and Ryan Tebrugge actually showed up to listen. In the 15th, we know the difference between a politician seeking a platform and a leader seeking to serve.

This March, let’s choose someone who knows we exist.


Patrick Boylan
Homer





TAGS:

Letter to the Editor 15th Congressional District Illinois, Homer Illinois political opinion primary election, community concerns about congressional representation, Illinois 15th District voter perspective letter, local engagement issues in congressional primary race



Editor's Choice


Sentinel area softball scores for March 30

Photo: Sentinel/Clark Brooks After scooping up a ground ball, Adilynn Wilson throws a runner out at second in Unit...



More Sentinel Stories