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.
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.
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.
Related articles to read:
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
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.
More on Illinois politics
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
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.
More Editorial Viewpoints
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
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.
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.
More on Illinois politics
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
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.
More on Illinois politics
Tags: Illinois bill to regulate insurance companies resurfaces, Illinois Insurance Association opposes new bill, homeowners insurance rate hikes, Illinois insurance consumers
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.
More that might interest you
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
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
More Editorial Viewpoints
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
When confronted with criticism, Trump does not respond with restraint or humility. He responds with provocation, grievance, and racial dehumanization. His latest act crossed an unforgivable line.
by Van Abbott
On the night of February 5, 2026, President Donald Trump used his social media platform to circulate a grotesque video that ended by depicting former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama as primates. The image invoked one of the oldest and most dehumanizing racist tropes in American history. Its meaning was unmistakable. Coming from a sitting president, it represented a moral breach that demanded immediate repudiation.
Instead, when questioned the following morning, Trump said he had reviewed the post but not in its entirety and deemed it acceptable. If true, that explanation suggests negligence unworthy of the office. If untrue, it suggests something worse. The public is deserving to know who prepared the post, and why was it allowed to remain online for twelve hours? Why did no senior aide accept responsibility for a mistake that, in any functioning administration, would end a career? The absence of accountability speaks for itself.
Many Republicans will insist they are not racist, and many sincerely believe it.
Only after sustained public backlash was the post removed. Trump then reversed course, he strongly condemned the image, claimed once again he had not seen the offensive ending, blamed his staff, and still offered no apology. Delay, deflection, and evasion remain his standard responses to moral failure.
This episode fits a long-established pattern. When confronted with criticism, Trump does not respond with restraint or humility. He responds with provocation, grievance, and racial dehumanization.
Many Republicans will insist they are not racist, and many sincerely believe it. Yet millions continue to support the most racially divisive president in modern American history. They excuse the language, minimize the imagery, and rationalize the behavior as strategy or humor. Racism does not require confession. It survives through tolerance, advances through silence, and hardens through justification.
For more than six decades, the United States has struggled toward a broader understanding of equality. Progress has been uneven but real. Through law, protest, and sacrifice, Americans learned that citizenship is not defined by skin color, humanity is not assigned by race, and dignity is not granted by power. That understanding was meant to prevent leaders from reviving the language of dehumanization drawn from the nation’s darkest chapters.
Trump’s record on race long predates his presidency. His father was accused by the federal government of discriminatory housing practices, and Trump carried that legacy forward. In 1989, he purchased full-page newspaper advertisements calling for the death penalty for the Central Park Five, five Black and Latino teenagers later proven innocent. Even after their exoneration, he refused to acknowledge the injustice. He later promoted the false claim that the nation’s first Black president was not a legitimate American, described immigrants from nonwhite countries in degrading terms, amplified white nationalist voices, and told elected officials of color to go back where they came from. These were not isolated incidents but a consistent narrative of exclusion and resentment.
Anti-Black racism carried a uniquely dehumanizing weight rooted in American history.
That narrative intensified during his first term and beyond. Racism became a political instrument, used to energize supporters and define enemies. Trump did not merely tolerate racist language. He normalized it and placed it at the center of his political identity.
His staffing decisions reinforced that message. Senior positions were filled for loyalty rather than competence. Officials of color who asserted independence were sidelined or dismissed. Expertise was treated as disloyalty, integrity as opposition, and public service as expendable.
Immigrants and refugees were targeted with particular cruelty, and enforcement favored spectacle over justice. Yet anti-Black racism carried a uniquely dehumanizing weight rooted in American history. The primate image aimed at the Obamas drew directly from that lineage. It was not careless. It was calculated.
At moments of national testing, leaders are judged less by what they provoke than by what they refuse to do. Trump refuses restraint, decency, and accountability. He chooses cruelty over character and division over duty.
This should be the breaking point for Republicans and for Christians who have persuaded themselves that policy outcomes excuse conduct. Faith that tolerates dehumanization is faith emptied of meaning. Patriotism that excuses racism is patriotism stripped of honor. Silence in the face of bigotry is not neutrality. It is permission.
The choice before voters is neither partisan nor abstract. You do not have to abandon conservatism to reject racism. You do not have to embrace every Democratic position to defend democracy. In 2026 and again in 2028, Americans must choose decency over degradation, conscience over comfort, and the rule of law over cult loyalty. History will record who answered that call and who looked away.
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.
The protest movement that drew 7 million in October is returning March 28. Organizers are mobilizing for the largest No Kings protest yet, targeting 9 million participants for March 28 demonstrations nationwide.
URBANA - Organizers behind the nationwide "No Kings" protest movement are planning their third demonstration on March 28, anticipating nearly 9 million participants across the country in what has become the largest sustained protest movement of President Donald Trump's second term. The No Kings Coalition, led by the progressive grassroots organization Indivisible, said the event will include a flagship march in Minneapolis and demonstrations in cities nationwide, according to organizers.
Photo: Sentinel/Clark Brooks
Hundreds participated in downtown Urbana's NO KINGS! protest last October organized by local chapters of Indivisible. A larger twin city turnout is expected in March.
The protests have grown dramatically since their inception, according to organizers. Indivisible estimated 3 million people participated in its "Hands Off" rally in April 2025, followed by 5 million at the first "No Kings" protest in June and 7 million at the second demonstration in October. Ezra Levin, a co-founder of Indivisible, said the upcoming March 28 event is a response to what organizers describe as federal enforcement actions in Minnesota and other states.
"No Kings 3 is very clearly about the secret police force terrorizing Americans and killing some of them," Levin said in an interview. Organizers cite recent incidents in Minnesota as motivation for staging the flagship event in Minneapolis, including the deployment of what the Trump administration has characterized as its largest immigration enforcement operation in the state, with 3,000 agents sent to Minnesota.
The No Kings Coalition launched its Eyes on ICE training program on Monday, a virtual training session designed to equip participants with tools to exercise their rights and monitor federal enforcement actions, according to organizers. The first training drew more than 200,000 viewers, with additional nationwide trainings planned, including one scheduled for Feb. 5.
Organizers say the protests are part of a broader resistance to Trump administration policies that began when the president returned to office a year ago. The October demonstration, which organizers said drew participants in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and cities worldwide, featured more than 2,700 events under the message that "America has no kings, and the power belongs to the people," according to organizers.
The coalition has activated what it describes as an immediate and ongoing nationwide digital organizing effort leading up to the March 28 mobilization. Organizers say Minnesota has become a focal point in the conflict between progressive activists and the White House over immigration enforcement, though the administration has defended its operations as lawful enforcement of federal immigration laws.
Konstantin Zhukov says that an FBI raid of a journalist’s home last week is not an isolated incident but part of an ongoing escalation since President Donald Trump took office.
by Judith Ruiz-Branch Public News Service
A Midwest professor is sounding the alarm on what he called the Trump administration’s authoritarian tactics to quell the press, free speech and other constitutional rights, stressing everyone should be paying attention.
Konstantin Zhukov, assistant professor of economics at Indiana University-Kokomo, argued the FBI raid of a journalist’s home last week is not an isolated incident but part of an ongoing escalation since President Donald Trump took office a year ago. He emphasized as someone originally from Russia, he recognized it as a familiar autocratic move.
"It's the story that you usually hear in Russia," Zhukov explained. "It's a common instrument that the Russian authorities use in order to scare the journalists, to signal to them that they shouldn't do their work essentially, that they shouldn't keep the government accountable."
Zhukov pointed to recent volatile policing and immigration protest dynamics in states like Illinois and Minnesota as another big concern. Last week, Chicago officials joined an Illinois lawsuit challenging allegedly unlawful and unconstitutional immigration enforcement. The Trump administration called the lawsuit “baseless” and defends its immigration actions as enforcing federal law.
Zhukov links current trends to broader free speech risks, asserting after the murder of Charlie Kirk last year, an administration-issued memorandum sets a dangerous precedent by enabling a broad classification of domestic terrorism. He argued it could potentially include anyone who disagrees with the administration’s agenda.
While he believes American institutions are strong enough to withstand the current administration, Zhukov stressed how much they are being weakened and how future administrations could undermine them more severely.
"The precedent that I think it sets is that the administration will just keep pushing the boundaries of what is accepted of the executive power to do," Zhukov projected.
Zhukov recommended countermeasures like voting in the midterm elections and continuing to speak out peacefully to normalize dissent and widen public discourse. He emphasized recognizing autocratic tactics is essential to combating them.
"What is happening right now is very dangerous and it's a classic playbook of the autocrats," Zhukov underscored. "The more people understand that these are the steps toward autocracy, the better."
Discover the headlines published on each of these days from our news and sports coverage from Champaign‑Urbana and the wider community. From local news and sports to community events, politics, and opinion pieces, The Sentinel archives capture the stories that shaped life in Champaign County year after year.
