Insurance industry officials defended recent homeowners insurance rate spikes this week, blaming such factors as inflation and climate change while warning that attempts to regulate their ability to set rates would be bad for consumers.

In testimony during a virtual meeting Wednesday of the Senate Insurance Committee, officials pushed back against criticisms by Gov. JB Pritzker and legislative leaders who said the hikes raise suspicions that Illinois homeowners are being charged extra to help cover insurance losses caused by wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters elsewhere in the country.

Robert Gordon, a senior vice president at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, said property losses from natural disasters are common in Illinois, and they have been growing more frequent.

“Chicago is the most at-risk of any major city for severe convective storms,” he said. “That’s storms like thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes. … Both the average annual losses and the number of billion-dollar-plus disasters in Illinois has dramatically increased over the last several years.”

Calls for regulation

In July, Pritzker called on lawmakers to pass legislation in the upcoming fall veto session that would give the Illinois Department of Insurance regulatory authority over the rates companies charge for homeowners insurance.

That came after one of the largest insurers in the Illinois market, Bloomington-based State Farm Insurance, announced it was raising premiums for residential property casualty insurance in Illinois by an average 27.2%.

“These increases are predicated on catastrophe loss numbers that are entirely inconsistent with the Illinois Department of Insurance’s own analysis — indicating that State Farm is shifting out-of-state costs onto the homeowners in our state,” Pritzker said in a statement. “Hard-working Illinoisans should not be paying more to protect beach houses in Florida.”

Read more: Pritzker seeks more regulatory authority over homeowners insurance business

State Farm disputed that claim, saying the rate increases were the direct result of property insurance losses in Illinois. It noted the company had lost money in its homeowners’ line of business in 13 of the last 15 years.

But State Farm’s action also highlighted the fact that Illinois is the only state in the nation whose insurance regulators do not have authority to review and either approve, modify or reject proposed premium changes in the homeowners insurance market. Only in recent years has the General Assembly given the department regulatory authority over health insurance premiums.

‘Competition’ as a regulator

Nat Shapo, a former director of the Illinois Department of Insurance under former Gov. George Ryan from 1999 to 2003 who is now an attorney in private practice, testified that the primary job of state regulators should be to make sure insurance companies remain solvent, not to put caps on the premiums they charge.

“That’s because the greatest harm to policyholders that your constituents is when a carrier can’t pay their claims,” he said.

Instead of regulating premiums, Shapo said, Illinois has traditionally relied on market competition to keep rates affordable while regulators have focused on making sure the premiums companies charge are sufficient to provide them with enough capital to pay claims.

He said regulating premiums in a way that inhibits companies from adapting to changing circumstances often results in driving some carriers out of the market, thereby weakening competition and raising prices for consumers even further.

“For 50 years since the market became competitive, (Illinois) has used competition, the most ruthless regulator of price, to regulate insurance rates,” Shapo said. “The results have been very good.”

Sen. Julie Morrison, D-Lake Forest, who chairs the committee, said Wednesday’s hearing was for informational purposes only. She said more hearings will be held before the committee considers any legislation, but she did not indicate when the next hearing would be.

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.

The post Insurance industry opposes regulation, blames inflation, climate change for rate hikes first appeared on SJO Daily.

The U.S. economy demonstrated resilience in the second quarter of 2025, with gross domestic product (GDP) expanding at an annualized rate of 3.0% according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s advance estimate.

The economic fluctuations were largely driven by dramatic swings in international trade patterns as businesses and consumers responded to President Trump’s comprehensive tariff program. Imports surged in the first quarter as companies rushed to stockpile foreign goods ahead of tariff implementation, then fell sharply in the second quarter as the trade barriers took effect.

The second-quarter growth was primarily fueled by decreased imports, which are subtracted from GDP calculations, and increased consumer spending. These positive factors were partially offset by declines in business investment and exports. Consumer spending, the economy’s main engine, increased modestly after nearly stagnating in the first quarter due to tariff-related uncertainty.

However, economists warn that the headline growth figure masks underlying economic weakness. Real final sales to private domestic purchasers – a key measure that excludes inventory changes and government spending – increased just 1.2% in the second quarter, down from 1.9% in the first quarter. This suggests domestic demand is slowing despite the strong headline GDP number.

Price indicators presented a more encouraging picture for policymakers. The personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index increased 2.1% in the second quarter, significantly lower than the 3.7% rate in the first quarter. Core PCE inflation, excluding food and energy, also moderated to 2.5% from 3.5% in the previous quarter.

Despite these improvements, inflation remains above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. Recent data shows the annual inflation rate accelerated to 2.7% in June, up from 2.4% in May, marking the highest level since February. The uptick was driven by higher prices for food, transportation services, and used vehicles, while energy costs declined less than expected.

Federal Reserve officials have expressed concern that tariffs are beginning to show through more clearly in consumer prices. The Budget Lab at Yale estimates that all 2025 tariffs could raise the overall price level by 1.7% to 2.1% in the short run, equivalent to an average household income loss of $2,300 to $2,800.

The Federal Reserve voted 9-2 to keep its benchmark interest rate unchanged in the 4.25% to 4.5% range, marking the fifth consecutive meeting without a rate change. However, the decision was notable for the rare dissent from two Fed governors – Michelle Bowman and Christopher Waller – both Trump appointees who favored a quarter-point rate cut.

This marked the first time since 1993 that two Fed governors dissented from a policy decision.

The Fed’s cautious approach comes from the uncertain effects of Trump’s tariff policies. Powell has indicated that tariffs could have either temporary or persistent inflationary effects.

While unemployment remains low at 4.1% in June, down slightly from 4.2% in May, economists are observing signs of labor market softening. The economy added 147,000 jobs in June, with notable gains in state government (+47,000) and healthcare (+39,200).

However, labor force participation rate declined to 62.3%, and there was a record monthly increase in discouraged workers – people who want jobs but are having difficulty finding them. Manufacturing employment declined by 7,000 jobs, while federal government employment continued to contract.

Economists forecast further softening in the July jobs report, with nonfarm payroll employment projected to rise by only 117,500, down from June’s 147,000. The unemployment rate is expected to tick up to 4.2%.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the Trump administration celebrated the GDP figures, with the White House stating that “President Trump has reduced America’s dependence on foreign goods, boosted domestic investment, and created thousands of jobs”. However, economists caution that the trade-driven volatility obscures the economy’s true underlying performance.

The post US Economy Shows Resilience with 3% Q2 Growth While Fed Holds Rates Steady Amid Tariff Uncertainty first appeared on SJO Daily.

U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, a Biden appointee, found that there was a “mountain of evidence” that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Border Patrol agents were “indiscriminately rounding up numerous individuals without reasonable suspicion” in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The judge determined that federal agents were conducting unlawful “roving patrols” that relied primarily on racial profiling rather than legitimate law enforcement concerns.

The lawsuit, Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, was filed on July 2, by a coalition of civil rights organizations, including the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Public Counsel, and other advocacy groups. The case was brought on behalf of five individual plaintiffs who alleged they were racially targeted and unlawfully detained, as well as three membership organizations: the Los Angeles Worker Center Network, United Farm Workers, and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights.

The court issued two separate temporary restraining orders:

First TRO: Prohibiting Discriminatory Stops

The first order bars immigration agents from stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion and specifically prohibits relying on four factors – alone or in combination – including:

• Apparent race or ethnicity
• Speaking Spanish or English with an accent
• Presence in particular locations like bus stops, car washes, or agricultural sites
• The type of work the person performs

Second TRO: Ensuring Legal Access

The second order requires the Department of Homeland Security to provide access to counsel for people detained at B-18, the federal building in downtown Los Angeles, for eight hours on weekdays and four hours on weekends and holidays.

Since June 6, the Trump administration has deployed hundreds of federal agents from ICE, Border Patrol, and other agencies throughout Los Angeles and surrounding counties in what officials described as an effort to meet a daily quota of 3,000 immigration arrests nationwide. The operation has been supported by 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines tasked with protecting federal buildings and immigration agents.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has defended the operations, stating that agents were preparing to round up “literally tens of thousands of targets” in Los Angeles and vowing that the administration would “not let up” in its immigration crackdown.

The court’s ruling detailed disturbing conditions at the B-18 facility in the basement of the federal building at 300 N. Los Angeles Avenue. Judge Frimpong found that as of June 20, over 300 individuals were being held in cramped, unsanitary conditions, often without access to food and fresh water for extended periods. Some detainees reportedly were so thirsty they had been drinking from toilets.

The facility, known as “the basement” among immigration attorneys, is designed for temporary processing of individuals for less than 12 hours before they are either released or transferred to longer-term detention facilities.

The Trump administration has strongly criticized the ruling. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said, “A district judge is undermining the will of the American people,” she said.  “America’s brave men and women are removing murderers, MS-13 gang members, pedophiles, rapists—truly the worst of the worst from Golden State communities.” 

“Law and order will prevail.”

A recent Supreme Court decision has restricted the ability of lower federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions, broad orders that block federal policies across the entire country while a case is being litigated. The Court’s ruling means that district judges, like the one in Los Angeles, generally cannot block federal immigration enforcement actions outside their own jurisdiction unless the case is certified as a nationwide class action.

The Supreme Court’s decision does not eliminate all forms of nationwide relief, but it does require lower courts to tailor their orders to provide relief only to the plaintiffs or within their judicial district, unless a broader class is certified.

Attorney Bilal A. “Bill” Essayli maintained that federal agents “have never detained individuals without proper legal justification.”

Approximately half of the people currently held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention do not have a criminal conviction. Specifically, data from June 2025 indicates that around 41% to 72% of ICE detainees have no criminal convictions.

The immigration raids have had profound effects on immigrant and Latino communities throughout Southern California. Local hospitals report that cancellation rates have tripled since the raids began, with St. John’s Community Health noting significant drops in patient visits. A neighborhood farmer’s market in Los Angeles closed temporarily because farmers were “scared” to attend due to increased ICE activity.

The operations have also created widespread fear, with many residents afraid to leave their homes. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass condemned the raids, stating: “When you raid Home Depots and workplaces, when you tear parents and children apart, and when you run armored caravans through our streets, you’re not trying to keep anyone safe. You’re trying to cause fear and panic.”

The post Federal Judge Blocks Indiscriminate Immigration Raids in Southern California, Citing Racial Profiling and Constitutional Violations first appeared on SJO Daily.

Two Shoes, known for their energetic performances and genre-blending style, will share the stage with Urbana Review, a group celebrated for their soulful sound and dynamic musicianship. Both acts are favorites in the Champaign-Urbana music scene.

The Summer Concert Series is a signature program by the Champaign County Forest Preserve District, designed to connect residents with nature and the arts. Organizers encourage attendees to bring lawn chairs, blankets, and picnic baskets, making it a family-friendly outing surrounded by the natural beauty of the Middle Fork River Forest Preserve.

Admission to the concert is free, and all ages are welcome. The preserve’s ample open space provides plenty of room for families and friends to relax and enjoy the show. The Forest Preserve District recommends arriving early to secure a good spot and to take advantage of the preserve’s trails and amenities before the music begins.

The post Two Shoes and Urbana Review to Headline Summer Concert Series at Middle Fork River Forest Preserve first appeared on SJO Daily.

The dispute centered on St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School, a proposed online institution backed by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa. Approved by the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board in 2023, St. Isidore would have been the first explicitly religious charter school in the United States, openly integrating Catholic doctrine and mission into its curriculum.

Oklahoma’s Attorney General Gentner Drummond challenged the charter, arguing that state law and constitutional provisions require public charter schools to remain nonsectarian. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed, ruling that allowing a religious public school would violate both state and federal prohibitions on government establishment of religion. The state’s highest court emphasized that public funds cannot be used for religious instruction, a principle rooted in the First Amendment.

After the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision, the school and the charter board appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the ruling. However, the nation’s highest court issued a brief, unsigned order affirming the state court’s judgment by an equally divided vote. The decision does not set a national precedent but leaves the Oklahoma ruling intact and binding within the state.

Justice Barrett did not participate in the case, likely due to her longstanding ties to Notre Dame Law School, whose religious liberty clinic represented the school, and her personal relationship with one of the school’s advocates.

Because the Supreme Court’s decision was a tie, it does not create binding precedent outside Oklahoma. The question of whether religious organizations can operate publicly funded charter schools may return to the Supreme Court in the future, should a similar case arise in another state or with a full bench of justices.

For now, the ruling ensures that Oklahoma’s charter schools must remain secular, reaffirming the constitutional barrier between public education and religious instruction within the state.

The post Supreme Court Deadlocks, Leaving Oklahoma Ban on Religious Charter School in Place first appeared on SJO Daily.

The proposed legislation builds on a law passed last year that required the State Employees Group Insurance Program to cover all medically necessary, FDA-approved treatments and medications designed to slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. That law, which also mandates coverage for diagnostic testing to help physicians determine the most appropriate treatment, is set to take effect for state employees on July 1, 2025.

The newly advanced bill, House Bill 1360, seeks to extend these requirements to all health insurance plans in Illinois, both public and private. If enacted, the measure would:

• Require all group and individual health insurance policies, as well as managed care plans, to cover FDA-approved treatments and medications for Alzheimer’s and related dementias, as prescribed by a licensed physician.
• Prohibit insurers from imposing step therapy protocols, meaning patients would not have to try and fail other treatments before accessing the latest approved therapies.
• Mandate coverage for any diagnostic testing deemed medically necessary by physicians to determine the best course of treatment.
• Expand protections to employees of self-insured counties, municipalities, and school districts, in addition to state employees.

The bill is now poised to move to the full House for further consideration.

If passed into law, the expanded coverage requirements for private and public insurance plans would take effect beginning January 1, 2027, ensuring that patients across the state have access to the latest advancements in Alzheimer’s treatment.

The post Illinois House Committee Unanimously Advances Bill to Expand Alzheimer’s first appeared on SJO Daily.

The decision will rescind and reconsider enforceable limits for four out of six regulated per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of chemicals linked to cancer and other serious health problems.

PFAS, often called “forever chemicals,” are a family of thousands of man-made substances used in products ranging from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and water-resistant fabrics. They are notable for their persistence in the environment and the human body, accumulating over time and resisting natural breakdown. Research has found PFAS contamination in the blood of nearly every American and in water systems nationwide.

Health studies have linked PFAS exposure to increased risks of cancer, developmental delays in children, reproductive issues, immune system dysfunction, and other ailments.

Under the Biden administration, the EPA finalized the first-ever national drinking water standards for six PFAS chemicals in April 2024. These rules set strict limits: 4 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS (the two most common PFAS), and 10 parts per trillion for four additional chemicals, including GenX, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS.

The new rollback will:

• Maintain limits on PFOA and PFOS, but extend the compliance deadline for water utilities from 2029 to 2031.
• Rescind and reconsider limits for GenX, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS, effectively removing enforceable standards for these chemicals until a new rulemaking process is completed, expected by spring 2026.
• Delay data reporting requirements for companies, which were set to begin in 2027.

Studies show PFAS are present in nearly half of the nation’s tap water, and the EPA itself has acknowledged that these chemicals can inflict harm at exposure levels “much lower than previously understood”.

The rollback follows lawsuits and pressure from water utilities and industry groups, who argued that the Biden-era standards were too costly and difficult to achieve. The EPA estimates compliance would cost utilities about $1.5 billion annually. Trade associations have questioned the scientific basis and feasibility of the original rules.

The EPA plans to launch a new rulemaking process for the four rescinded chemicals this fall, with updated rules expected next spring.

In the meantime, only two PFAS chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, will remain subject to enforceable federal limits, and utilities will have additional time to comply. 

The post EPA Rolls Back “Forever Chemical” Limits, Reversing Key Biden-Era Drinking Water Protections first appeared on SJO Daily.

The measure saw unanimous Republican support and was joined by four Democrats: Reps. Jared Golden (Maine), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Washington), Henry Cuellar (Texas), and Ed Case (Hawaii).

Republicans championed the SAVE Act as a measure to protect election integrity by preventing noncitizens from voting—a practice that is already illegal and exceedingly rare. Critics argue that the bill addresses a non-issue while creating unnecessary barriers to voting.

The SAVE Act introduces stringent requirements that critics say will disproportionately affect marginalized groups. Under the bill, individuals seeking to register or update their voter information must present documentary proof of citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate, or naturalization papers. This provision would effectively eliminate popular registration methods like online and mail-in systems, as well as voter registration drives.

These changes are expected to create significant hurdles for naturalized citizens, low-income voters, rural residents, and first-time voters who may lack easy access to the required documents. Married women—an estimated 69 million of whom have changed their names— could also face challenges if their birth certificates do not match their current legal names. Challenges would be the same for people within the LBGTQIA+ communities who have changed their names.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, over 21 million U.S. citizens do not have citizenship documents readily available, with nearly 4 million lacking any form of proof entirely.

The SAVE Act also poses significant challenges for military service members, their families, and other overseas voters, potentially undermining their ability to participate in U.S. elections. 

Military personnel stationed abroad and their families often rely on mail or online systems to register to vote and update their voter information under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). The SAVE Act would require in-person proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, effectively ending these convenient registration methods.

Absentee voting through the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA), a widely used tool for military members to register and request absentee ballots, could become obsolete under the SAVE Act’s requirements. 

Under this bill, election officials could face up to five years in prison or civil lawsuits for mistakenly registering voters without proper documentation—even if those voters are citizens. The measure also mandates frequent voter roll maintenance to remove undocumented individuals, which could lead to errors and disenfranchisement of legitimate voters through faulty data.

Mail-in ballots after election day would also be null and void.

The legislation now moves to the Senate, where it will need 60 votes to overcome an anticipated Democratic filibuster. Although Republicans hold a 53-seat majority in the chamber, the bill’s prospects appear slim given unified Democratic opposition.

President Donald Trump has endorsed the measure and is likely to sign it into law if it reaches his desk.

The post House Approves GOP-Backed SAVE Act, Potentially Disenfranchising Millions of Voters first appeared on SJO Daily.

Key Provisions of the Trade Review Act

The proposed legislation would amend the Trade Act of 1974 by imposing several checks on presidential tariff powers:

• Notification Requirement: The president must notify Congress within 48 hours of imposing or increasing tariffs. This notification must include an explanation of the rationale behind the tariffs and an assessment of their potential impact on U.S. businesses and consumers.
• Time Limit on Tariffs: Any new tariffs would expire after 60 days unless Congress passes a joint resolution of approval. Conversely, Congress could terminate tariffs at any time through a resolution of disapproval.
• Exclusions: The bill explicitly excludes antidumping and countervailing duties, which are governed under separate provisions of trade law.

Motivation Behind the Legislation

The bill comes in response to President Trump’s recent announcement of a 10% baseline tariff on all imports, alongside higher levies targeting dozens of countries deemed “worst offenders” in trade practices. These tariffs, set to take effect in the coming days, have sparked widespread criticism from lawmakers, business groups, and economists who warn of inflationary pressures and disrupted supply chains.

Senator Cantwell emphasized that arbitrary tariffs harm U.S. export opportunities and raise costs for American consumers. 

“Trade wars can be as devastating, which is why the Founding Fathers gave Congress the clear Constitutional authority over war and trade. This bill reasserts Congress’s role over trade policy to ensure rules-based trade policies are transparent, consistent, and benefit the American public. Arbitrary tariffs, particularly on our allies, damage U.S. export opportunities and raise prices for American consumers and businesses,” Cantwell said. “As representatives of the American people, Congress has a duty to stop actions that will cause them harm.”

Grassley echoed these sentiments, stating that Congress has “delegated its clear authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce to the executive branch for too long” and arguing for a balanced approach that preserves national security while preventing economic harm.

Economic Impact and Political Context

Trump’s tariff strategy has already rattled global markets, with critics warning that increased import duties could exacerbate inflation, slow economic growth, and burden American businesses reliant on international supply chains. 

For example, Cantwell noted that tariffs on foreign-made vehicles could increase car prices by as much as $15,000—a significant blow to her state’s economy, which heavily depends on imports through its ports.

Grassley’s home state of Iowa also faces potential repercussions, as agriculture exports are central to its economy. 

Historical Context

Congress technically retains authority over tariffs under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution but has delegated much of this power to the executive branch over the past century. The Trade Review Act draws inspiration from the War Powers Resolution of 1973 in its effort to reassert Congressional oversight. Grassley highlighted that this bill builds on reforms he proposed in 2019 to enhance consultation and reporting obligations for presidential trade actions.

The post Bipartisan Bill Aims to Rein in Presidential Tariff Powers, Restore Congressional Oversight on Trade first appeared on SJO Daily.

SPRINGFIELD — President Donald Trump’s administration is pulling back $477 million from Illinois that was to be used to prevent infectious disease and treat mental health and substance abuse issues.

The Illinois Department of Public Health announced this week the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is taking back $125 million allocated to IDPH and 97 local health departments for infectious disease prevention. Another $324 million appropriated by Congress for “future use” in preventing and treating infectious disease also is being blocked.

Separately, the Illinois Department of Human Services was notified this week that $28 million from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for mental health and substance use disorder treatment would be terminated. The funds had been appropriated by Congress in the American Rescue Plan Act for 77 Illinois community organizations providing mental health and substance abuse treatment services to residents.

“This decision to terminate already awarded federal funding will cause immeasurable harm and disruption to the health and safety of the people of Illinois and generate larger expenses in the longer run,” Gov. JB Pritzker said in a statement.

IDPH’s funding for infectious disease prevention will see a “debilitating impact,” Director Sameer Vohra said in a statement. IDPH has been using the funding to track the spread of diseases, invest in lab upgrades, build up the public health workforce, and improve vaccination efforts.

A report published Thursday by Trust for America’s Health, a non-profit research organization, ranked states into one of three tiers based on their preparedness for a public health emergency, and Illinois ranked in the middle tier.

Illinois is one of 47 states with detailed “surge plans,” that outline IDPH’s ability to handle a sudden surge in testing demand and implement changes like reallocating staff and acquiring supplies, according to the report.

Over the past decade, IDPH published several surge plans including an “Ebola Virus Disease Preparedness and Response Plan” in 2019 and a “Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response Plan” in 2020.

A surge plan is a “critical indicator of a state’s emergency preparedness” that demonstrates a state’s capabilities to tackle a crisis, the report said.

It noted that seasonal flu vaccination rates also give an insight into the state’s emergence response capabilities. According to IDPH, about 28% of Illinoisans received a flu shot for the current season.

IDPH also is keeping an eye on the spread of bird flu with the now-ceased federal funds. Although the CDC says bird flu does not currently pose a threat to humans, there is concern that interaction between the seasonal flu virus and the bird flu virus might create a new strain that could start human-to-human transmissions and increase the risk of a pandemic, Vohra said in a February interview with Capitol News Illinois.

Read More: Illinois health officials taking bird flu precautions despite assessing no ‘active risk’ to humans

Legal and budget impacts

Funding for IDPH’s and DHS’ programs was appropriated by Congress but is now being rescinded by executive agencies. The Illinois Attorney General’s Office has already sued the Trump administration over other spending cuts, including on disaster funding, clean energy grants and teacher preparation grants.

Funding for IDPH’s infectious disease prevention programs was appropriated by Congress in the 2020 CARES Act — a law signed by Trump designed to help businesses, individuals, and health care institutions access funding during the height of the pandemic. Funding for DHS’ mental health and substance abuse program was appropriated by Congress in the American Rescue Plan of 2021 — a wide-ranging stimulus bill signed by President Joe Biden that included funding for programs intended to alleviate effects of the pandemic.

“The State of Illinois will do everything in our power to restore this vital federal funding and continue to invest in common sense public health solutions to keep our state safe and healthy,” Pritzker said.

A judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s broad federal spending freezes in January, but Illinois and other states have continued to be notified that money already destined for the state’s use is being rescinded.

Read more: Pritzker says federal funds still being withheld

The $477 million being pulled from IDPH and DHS is part of roughly $1.8 billion in federal funding the state is expecting to receive but remains in limbo. It’s also the latest example of the state losing money that’s already being put to use.

At the beginning of March, the Illinois Department of Agriculture learned the Trump administration will not reimburse the state for costs in the Illinois-EATS program incurred after Trump took office, leaving the state without $18 million of reimbursements. The program provides fresh food from Illinois farms to community distribution sites.

Read more: Trump administration ends reimbursements for Illinois food programs

The U.S. Department of Agriculture terminated a $26.3 million grant earlier this month to the Illinois State Board of Education that helped Illinois schools and child care facilities buy locally grown fresh produce from Illinois farmers for use in meals and snacks.

Read more: In remarks to teachers union, Pritzker lashes out at Trump’s education cuts

Other areas of funding also remain uncertain as federal judges issue injunctions preventing the federal government from blocking funding already obligated to states and the Trump administration changes course about whether it will end or continue programs.

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 license.

The post Trump administration blocks more than $400M in funding for Illinois health programs first appeared on SJO Daily.