But that’s exactly what happened late Friday night when the NEA sent letters to a variety of grantees informing them their grants were being nixed. The after-hours emails, sent from inboxes unwilling to accept replies, followed the release of Trump’s budget Friday, wherein he proposed defunding the NEA and the National Endowment for the Humanities, two entities he long has targeted. (Trump also issued an executive order late Thursday cutting off federal funding for NPR and PBS, claiming ideological bias. Court challenges are underway.)

In the case of the NEA on Friday night, theaters and other arts groups were told their grants no longer aligned with NEA priorities and were being either rescinded or immediately terminated, depending on the circumstances. Many affected groups contacted reporters and took to social media. In one example, the Portland Playhouse in Oregon said it had received a email from the endowment on the very eve of its opening a production of August Wilson’s “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone,” theoretically with $25,000 already promised from the NEA.

Let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that Trump is within his executive rights as duly elected president to change the “priorities” of the NEA, although the new NEA criteria listed in the emails we’ve been shown are bizarre indeed, even including “fostering A.I. competency,” which sure as heck is not why we attend the live arts in Chicago.

Even if they sought change or elimination, any decent president would honor previous commitments, not rescind the funding when the recipient already was in a hole dug in good faith. Trump could have started his new vision, if that’s the word, with the next funding cycle, if there is to be any funding cycle. He did not have to destroy the trusted word of an agency long known for empathetic staffers. And let’s add here that, in the world of DOGE, $25,000 is not exactly a massive amount of money. The NEA hasn’t been a major source of arts funding for years. On the one hand, that means its actions aren’t likely to be catastrophic for most grantees. On the other, it makes these actions seem all the more cruel and petty.

Perhaps that was Trump’s point. If so, it’s un-American, unbecoming to his office and, frankly, pathetic.

We’re aware many nonprofit constituencies are in the same unmoored boat as arts groups, but Friday night’s actions were especially sleazy and egregious. At a bare minimum, Trump should direct the NEA to deliver the previously promised checks for projects already underway. And whatever they think of these agencies and their priorities, Republicans in Congress should ensure these matters get a full and fair debate in the light of day.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

But Monahan also supports, as a short-term approach, pending legislation that could, for two years, insulate private agencies from liability when their negligence results in death or serious harm to a child. This would be horrible for children.

Take, for example, “Sarah” (not her real name), who was in the care of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services because her parents abused her. DCFS assigned her case to a private agency, which placed Sarah with a man who was a convicted rapist and drug offender. Over a period of two months when she was 11 years old, he repeatedly raped Sarah. How could this happen? Because the agency failed to perform the legally mandated criminal background check.

Or take “James,” who died of starvation when he was 3 months old. James and his siblings had previously been reported to DCFS as being abused, and DCFS contracted with a private agency to regularly visit and monitor the home and the family to ensure that the children were safe and appropriately cared for. The agency ignored that James gained only 3 ounces during his three months of life, that he was visibly emaciated and dehydrated, and that he had bruises and injuries on his body.

Our office sued the private agencies involved and obtained recovery for Sarah and for James’ siblings.

It would be fundamentally unfair, and violate norms of due process and equal protection, to deny these children the same access to the courts that all other injured people enjoy because these children happen to be in DCFS care. It would also create perverse incentives for private agencies, which could provide subpar care for children without civil consequences.

Yes, let’s work to make insurance affordable for private agencies. But let’s not diminish the rights of society’s most vulnerable children in the process.

— Charles P. Golbert, Cook County public guardian, Chicago

Improving outcomes

I applaud the underlying premise of Arne Duncan’s commentary to improve and strengthen the educational systems that support opportunities for our youth (“Illinois should let residents pursue a bachelor’s degree at community college,” April 28). However, simply putting more dollars into the community college system will not be sufficient.

Currently, the graduation rates at Oakton and City Colleges of Chicago are between 21% and 32%. Similar rates apply nationwide. Having spent the last 20 years researching and supporting organizations that provide quality education to the underserved, I have learned that a major key for community college programs to succeed is to provide wraparound services. Arrupe College at Loyola University Chicago starts as a two-year program that provides social services, faculty support and other student support services, all of which has resulted in a graduation rate of 50% within two years that nears 70% within three years. Most of Arrupe’s students are first-generation college students who don’t have family members or mentors that can help them through the many challenges of higher education.

They, like so many other community college students, need access to internships, career path strategies and readiness, and they need to be able to build their social networks.

I would suggest that if additional funding is approved for the community colleges in Illinois as Gov. JB Pritzker has proposed, that a portion of those funds go to replicating the services provided by Arrupe that have already demonstrated great success.

If we truly want our students to succeed, we need to provide them with more support than just dollars.

— Patricia M. Bidwill, chair, Charles W. & Patricia S. Bidwill Foundation

The ‘education myth’

Former U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan continues to spread what higher education scholars have branded the “education myth.” Education or a degree in and of itself is almost never an independent variable.

His opinion piece also shows a lack of knowledge about the factors that lead to enrollment in post-secondary institutions and the reasons and expectations.

There is no simple, direct relationship between a college degree and successful employment or anticipated rewards. The presumption, especially strong in the United States since the 20th century, that higher education automatically leads to some level of success has never been accurate. It is a matter of promotion and expectation, not highly likely results.

The “education myth” — however true for some people — is a matter of ideology, not fact.

Equally important, community colleges are not prepared to provide the instruction, academic and institutional supports, or other resources required for offering worthwhile bachelor’s degrees. To put it simply, there is a world of difference.

To be stark, Gov. JB Pritzker cannot wave his gubernatorial wand to re-create a community college.

— Harvey J. Graff, Chicago

State of ethics reform

If this article’s headline — “Ethics reforms slow in coming” — is not a finalist for “banner headline of 2025,” it should certainly be in the running. The bulk end of the story contained the same rhetoric we are already familiar with, but one part really caught my attention.

Toward the end, the Don Harmon loophole is explained. The story illustrates how Harmon, as Illinois Senate president, exploited a legal loophole for his own gain. Of course, this is just typical behavior by members of the Illinois legislature.

The article then segues into former Gov. Pat Quinn discussing why reform is needed to begin with. Quinn states that the loophole “was never, ever intended to be a technique used by individual legislators or leaders of legislative caucuses to evade the first-ever contribution limits that we adopted into law in 2011.”

Quinn can’t be serious. There is no way he could have reviewed this and not been able to see the potential pitfalls in this law. What could he have possibly thought was going to happen? Eventually, someone was going to catch on. Considering some members of the Illinois legislature are well-compensated private citizens in their day jobs, $100,001 loan/donation to their own campaign is a chip shot for some of our elected officials.

When the people writing and supporting the legislation being enacted don’t see the red flags, it’s little wonder ethics reform is slow.

— Steve Kurak, McHenry

Funded by taxpayers

I recently read the editorial urging Springfield to help Chicago (“Springfield should help Chicago despite Johnson’s past missteps,” April 30). I’d like to make a suggestion to the news media to clearly indicate in all articles that any government funding is taxpayer funding. The governor, mayor, president and other elected officials and government entities do not generate revenue. They collect taxes from citizens. This should be clearly indicated in any reference to government spending, funding, programs, etc.

All government funds are taxpayer dollars, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

— Stan Stec, Orland Park

No time for glibness

The April 28 editorial “Trump has done plenty for Illinois farm country. But are there storms ahead?” ends with the sentences: “As for everyday taxpayers, get ready to treat yourselves to a big bushel of No. 2 yellow corn. With so many of America’s traditional trade partners backing away, there should be plenty of Illinois grain available around harvesttime.”

The Tribune Editorial Board has no excuse not to be better educated on this topic. The Illinois Farm Bureau reports that 98% of corn grown in Illinois is field corn, used for livestock feed, ethanol and industrial uses. Sweet corn accounts for just 2% of Illinois-grown corn. The Illinois Corn Growers Association states that “about 50% of the corn produced in Illinois corn leaves the state, most of which is destined for markets overseas.”

President Donald Trump’s tariffs fundamentally threaten our state’s economic existence. Glib comments about enjoying more corn on the cob are insensitive at best and willfully ignorant at worst.

— Suzanne Neumann, Libertyville

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

Kilborn sued the school after UIC put him on administrative leave and conducted a full investigation into a question he posed to students on an exam. 

On his final exams, Kilborn used to include a fictional case involving workplace discrimination. To reflect the real-world experiences that soon-to-be lawyers may encounter, his exam asked students to evaluate a fictional scenario in which an employee was called various slurs by her managers. The exam censored the full slurs, and Kilborn had used the same question for years. That is until 2020, when some students got upset at the question and reported him to the dean.

Despite his attempts to resolve the situation, a university investigation ensued. Kilborn was placed on administrative leave, drug-tested, barred from campus, denied a raise and required to complete an eight-week diversity training program before he was allowed to return to the classroom. In response, Kilborn filed state and federal claims against the university for violating his constitutionally protected academic speech.

University officials filed a motion to dismiss Kilborn’s case, arguing he failed to state a claim for relief, and the district court agreed, dismissing the federal parts of the lawsuit. Once granted, the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Kilborn’s remaining state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. The district court held that Kilborn’s speech was not constitutionally protected because it did not address a matter of public concern.  

In March, in Kilborn v. Amiridis, the 7th Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision with respect to Kilborn’s First Amendment claim. It held that Kilborn had adequately stated a claim and sent the case back to the district court, signaling that public university professors have remedies for legal relief when their First Amendment rights are violated in the classroom setting. 

The decision reaches far beyond one professor’s law school exam. The question remains: Can a university truly be a marketplace of ideas if a professor risks being sanctioned for using hypothetical scenarios that reflect the messy, uncomfortable realities their students may face? 

Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court in Garcetti v. Ceballos held that public employees have no First Amendment protection for speech made pursuant to their official duties — but it expressly declined to address whether that rule applies to a professor’s academic scholarship or teaching. The 7th Circuit declined to apply Garcetti in this case because “expression related to academic scholarship or classroom instruction implicates additional constitutional interests.” By issuing its decision, the 7th Circuit joins several other circuits in holding that Garcetti’s rule does not extend to a professor’s scholarship and teaching.

Although Kilborn’s claim may still fail on the merits, this decision is a win for academic freedom and free speech supporters alike, and may have implications for other pending cases involving university faculty.

At a time when professors walk a tightrope between fostering robust debate and fostering inclusion in their classrooms, the Kilborn decision sends the message that professors should not have to choose between their careers and their constitutional rights. 

Gerry Regep is a law student at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

We agree with Roan. The major labels should contribute to musicians’ health care, whether musicians count as legal employees or not. But considering music streaming services account for 84% of music revenue, the tech giants who own those services should contribute just as much, if not more. The musicians on whose creative labor they built their business should have health insurance as part of the bargain.

Music industry’s ugly truth

Like a whistleblower offering eyewitness testimony, Roan spoke truth to power — and risked embarrassment — by admitting she lost her health insurance when she lost her original record deal. As she put it, “I got signed as a minor, and when I got dropped, I had zero job experience under my belt. And like most people, I had a difficult time finding a job in the pandemic and could not afford health insurance. It was so devastating to feel so committed to my art and feel so betrayed by the system and so dehumanized to not have (health care).” Signing a record deal not only doesn’t guarantee you’ll ever release a record — it also doesn’t guarantee that you’ll have enough money to care for yourself.

The response to Roan’s speech was as predictable as a three-chord progression: Industry defenders rushed to explain legal precedents and why things couldn’t possibly be different, while others praised her courage but missed the bigger picture entirely.

Here’s the thing about the music industry in 2025. We’re still so busy pointing fingers at the traditional villains — the major labels — that we’ve normalized the new power players who’ve quietly taken control. Think of the major labels as aging crime bosses, still throwing their weight around in their old neighborhoods while a new generation of thugs — the tech giants — has already come to dominate the latest racket across the whole city. The old guard still demands their protection money, but the real power has shifted to those who control the digital streets.

Economy of digital music

Imagine walking into a Las Vegas casino. The drinks are free, the music is pumping and everything seems designed for your entertainment. But we all know the house always wins. That’s exactly how Big Tech treats music today — except in this casino, the artists aren’t just serving the drinks. They are the drinks. Their work, creativity and very essence are the loss leaders that keep users engaged, scrolling and generating valuable data for the house. The artists’ music is the free cocktail that keeps users at the slot machines of social media and streaming platforms.

The numbers tell the story: Spotify, Apple, Amazon and Google control over 97% of music streaming subscriptions. This isn’t just market dominance; it’s a chokehold on cultural distribution. Everything runs through them. These companies have masterfully positioned themselves as the benevolent gatekeepers of culture, all while treating artists’ work as what it really is to them: engagement bait for their real business models.

We love Roan’s idea of the major labels ponying up for musicians’ health care. We’d love it even better if Big Tech paid their share. About 6% of music streaming revenue, currently shared by the major labels and the streaming services, could cover the annual premiums for every professional musician in the U.S. 

How do we figure? Estimates of the number of professional musicians vary, but the average is about 100,000. To be conservative, we looked at health care costs in a big city. Health insurance premiums through the Chicago chapter of the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) start at about $750 a month, or $9,000 a year. (Only some working musicians qualify to be in a musicians union, by the way — mostly those in classical, big band and theater orchestras.) That works out to $900 million in health care premiums. Meanwhile, music streaming revenue reached almost $15 billion last year. So just 6% of revenue would cover every professional musician. Let’s start there.

The platform paradox

When we talk about Big Tech’s responsibility to artists, the usual counterargument goes something like this: “But look at all the exposure they provide! Ten million artists can now reach audiences!” This is the digital equivalent of being paid in exposure — a currency that, last time we checked, isn’t accepted by landlords or health insurance companies.

The paradox of the internet platforms is that every artist’s work can be available, but only a few superstars get noticed. It might seem like a fair competition. But the reality of who’s getting what in online music is more complex and more insidious.

Take Spotify, as brilliantly documented in Liz Pelly’s book “The Mood Machine.” Many millennials have never known a different way of consuming music. But behind their sleek interfaces, the music streaming platforms are massive black boxes, with opaque algorithms and secretive payment systems. It’s not just that we can’t see how the sausage is made — we also can’t even be sure of what’s being counted as sausage. Self-dealing flourishes in darkness: Platforms can promote their playlists, favor certain artists over others and manipulate rankings, all without meaningful oversight or accountability.

What’s worse, Spotify isn’t satisfied with distributing music; it’s actively reshaping how music is created. The platform promotes low-royalty background music and switches out human curation for lame algorithms. It’s like replacing a supermarket with a vending machine and calling it progress.

Real cost of ‘free’ labor

When Google has $95 billion in cash on hand while musicians struggle to afford basic health care, we’re not witnessing market efficiency — we’re watching a massive transfer of wealth and value from creators to platforms. We’ve built a digital economy in which the construction workers who built the casino can’t afford to buy food at its restaurants. The standard defense is that musicians can make money from concerts and merchandise. But that ignores two crucial facts:

1. The live music industry is dominated by the Live Nation/Ticketmaster monopoly, another corporate python slowly squeezing the life out of artistic independence.
2. Merchandise accounts for only an estimated 2% of the average musician’s revenue — hardly enough to cover a single medical bill, let alone a sustainable living.

The most powerful companies in the world got that way in part by not paying for what they use. Talking about concerts and T-shirts is an abdication of their responsibility and a distraction from that simple truth.

A new path forward

What Roan’s Grammy speech really highlighted wasn’t just the failure of record labels — it was also the failure of our entire approach to creative labor in the digital age. The solution isn’t just to demand health insurance from labels (though the money Roan has raised through donations matching her own is a great start). We need to fundamentally rethink how we value and compensate creative work in an era in which tech giants are the de facto gatekeepers of the arts.

The fights that Prince, Tom Petty and Taylor Swift heroically launched against the music industry made a difference, sometimes even for other artists. But their efforts didn’t lead to structural change. The industry has closed up any openings these artists pried open. The reason is that only a few superstars have the wealth and power to stand up to the record labels or Big Tech. Spotify is happy to promote Swift’s rerecorded versions — that’s one negotiation with one superstar. It’s the exception that proves the rule.

When it comes to other musicians, however, Spotify has pulled the rug out from under them by refusing to pay artists even a penny when they get fewer than 1,000 streams.

Here’s a radical proposition: What if we treated Big Tech companies like every other business that has to pay for what it uses? What if platforms that profit from creative labor were required to contribute to the health and welfare of the creators who make their businesses possible?

It’s not just about deep pockets, though companies such as Amazon, Apple, Google and Spotify could certainly afford it. It’s about recognizing that in the digital economy, platforms have as much responsibility for artists’ livelihoods as traditional employers.

Breaking the spell

The tech industry has spent years casting a spell, convincing us that their dominance is as natural and inevitable as gravity. It took the bravery of Roan donning her wizard hat to break that spell at the Grammys. She’s freed us from the magical charms of the music industry’s — and Big Tech’s — carefully constructed narrative.

Regulation of Big Tech isn’t just possible — it’s essential. The artificial intelligence takeover is upon us. It’s mostly empty, flawed and cynical. And every day, it’s more clearly revealing itself to be the next vehicle for unfair exploitation of workers and consumers. Music isn’t the only sector being stripped for parts. Tech companies should be held to higher standards. That includes contributing to the health care and well-being of the creators who make their platforms valuable in the first place.

It might seem counterintuitive to look to music distributors to support creators. But in an age in which distribution has become more valuable than creation, it’s exactly where we need to look. The fight for the value of artists’ labor might not seem like a priority at a moment of so much uncertainty and injustice. We can’t help seeing musicians as coughing canaries in the coal mine that we’re all working in. Every sector of the post-AI economy could eventually require this kind of reform.

The free drinks at the casino aren’t free — someone always pays the price. It’s time we asked whether that price should be borne entirely by the artists who make the whole show possible in the first place.

Jenny Toomey is co-founder and former executive director of the Future of Music Coalition and co-founding member of the indie rock band Tsunami. She previously ran the independent record label Simple Machines Records. Peter DiCola is a professor of law at Northwestern University. He worked with the coalition from 2000 to 2014.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

The federal “balance of payments” shows how much in taxes a state contributes to the U.S. Treasury and how much it gets back in federal spending. For years, Illinois was a “donor state,” paying into the treasury’s coffers more than it got back.

Federal pandemic relief temporarily changed the balance, meaning Illinois came out ahead. Today, Illinois is well on its way to becoming one of Uncle Sam’s piggy banks again.

The transition could be especially punishing as President Donald Trump targets perceived enemies in blue states like Illinois, and a GOP-controlled Congress maps out spending cuts in the weeks ahead.

Trump’s first 100 days in office brought an unprecedented effort to freeze or eliminate federal funding. While many of those moves have fallen equally among the states, the Trump administration has shown a penchant for discriminating against those that supported rival Kamala Harris in the November election.

Case in point: The administration moved in April to close five of 10 regional offices of the Department of Health and Human Services, targeting Chicago and four other cities in blue states. Coincidence? Not so much. Similarly, Trump has attacked federal programs that flourished in blue states to combat climate change and promote diversity, equity and inclusion, resulting in cuts at Chicago’s Environmental Protection Agency office, for instance.

Trump has vowed to withhold funding for public education and other essentials if sanctuary cities like Chicago continue to try to stop immigrants without legal status from being rounded up and deported. And in recent weeks, under the pretext of fighting antisemitism, Trump threatened a handful of elite universities with the loss of federal funds, all in blue states, including Evanston’s Northwestern University. The effort has since expanded to include red-state universities, but the administration’s biases are clear.

Beyond Trump’s efforts to withhold funding, Republicans in Congress swiftly approved a massive tax cut this year, and now they’re undertaking the much harder work to slash spending accordingly. While some programs that benefit Illinois are safe under the GOP, like federal aid for farmers, safety net programs that expanded during COVID-19 are on the block.

Sharp cuts in Medicaid, which provides health insurance for millions of children and other low-income residents, would fall especially hard on states like Illinois with high enrollment rates. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program also faces cuts from GOP lawmakers. About 2 million Illinois residents rely on SNAP food-stamp benefits.

On the revenue side, a dozen or so Republican lawmakers from high-tax blue states are pushing to raise the $10,000 cap on federal deductions for state and local taxes imposed in the first Trump tax plan of 2017. We’re on that side too, as a matter of simple fairness, especially given the punishing, ever-rising property tax bills faced by homeowners in Illinois. We think a reasonable cap would be $50,000.  But other Republicans see this as subsidizing the tax-and-spend proclivities of blue states and many Democrats don’t like helping the upper-middle class, so the so-called SALT deduction has plenty of enemies.

The upshot, from a fiscal standpoint: Illinois will continue funding the federal government with relatively high contributions of tax dollars while a smaller share of federal spending will flow back to the state than in recent years.

As recently as 2019, Illinois similarly paid in more than it got back. The blue states of California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York were in the same position that year as well, while the 44 other states got more in federal funds than their taxpayers contributed.

When the pandemic struck in 2020, a massive increase in federal aid meant that no states were paying more than they received. Deficit spending ballooned, first under Trump, then under President Joe Biden. We all paid the price in inflation.

Over the following three years, federal dollars coming into Illinois exceeded its federal tax contributions, according to the New York State Comptroller’s Office, which ranks the balance of payments for all 50 states.

The calculation for 2024 isn’t available yet, but for 2025, Illinois can expect a return to deficits, spreading pain across the state. Factor in Trump’s trade war, which is expected to raise prices and reduce growth, and even if the nation avoids a recession, Illinois may well feel like it’s in one.

How to prepare? Financial experts suggest building up emergency funds to cover several months of living expenses. It’s also a good idea to pay down debt, if possible, or to contact creditors for hardship concessions. Challenging times mean taking stock of job opportunities and developing a backup plan in case of a layoff.

As for fighting the Trump pressure campaign, even politicians as ambitious as Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker are mostly left to file lawsuits — and fulminate. Pritzker recently urged his fellow Democrats to take their fight against Trump to the streets and to congressional offices, calling for “mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption.”

Logically, if he’s asking others to “disrupt” the Trump administration, potentially at some personal risk, the governor must be wanting to do some disrupting himself.

In theory, Illinois could protest by refusing to send tax dollars it collects from state employees to the federal government. It could require local municipalities to follow suit. Unlawful? Very likely, as are some of the steps Trump has taken in his first 100 days.

Don’t do it, Governor. The Constitution obligates our national government to allocate resources fairly among the states and, even if a president abuses that compact, responsible leaders still must keep the faith and set the right example.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

Critiquing new candidates such as Kat Abughazaleh for their tone, while ignoring the substance of their platforms, doesn’t elevate the conversation — it sidesteps it. Reducing these candidates to their occasional vulgarity is an ad hominem fallacy. It avoids engaging with their actual policy ideas — on climate, health care, labor and campaign finance — and instead critiques how they speak rather than what they stand for.

The Tribune Editorial Board also suggests that Abughazaleh is challenging U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky without noting that multiple reports indicate Schakowsky does not plan to seek reelection. While there’s been no formal announcement, the board’s omission misleads readers about the context of the race and inflames a narrative of party division where there may be none.

The editorial also claims that the country “craves political figures who can model respect, restraint and reasoned debate.” But that’s hard to square with reality. The country just reelected Donald Trump — hardly a model of civility.

If anything, the public is responding to authenticity and urgency, not polish.

The truth is, the editorial isn’t really about helping Democrats win. It’s about policing the boundaries of what’s considered acceptable within the party, even as those boundaries are being questioned by voters who want more than recycled talking points.

If a candidate is shaking things up, maybe the problem isn’t their language — it’s what that language is responding to.

— Brett Barnes, Chicago

Puritanical critique

It is both exhausting and infuriating to witness political commentators pearl-clutching as the world burns. Would whoever wrote this editorial have qualms about U.S. taxpayer-funded bombs killing scores of innocent people on the other side of the world? But dropping f-bombs is somehow beyond the pale.

The assertion regarding Kat Abughazaleh that “she offers little in the way of policy substance” is patently false. Since research seems to have gone out of fashion for editorials, let me invite the Tribune Editorial Board to peruse the “Issues” page on her campaign website where it will find a large number of policy proposals on over a dozen of the most pressing issues our country is currently facing.

As a Chicago resident who cares deeply about the political corruption at the center of virtually all of our problems, I would gladly replace every single corporate donor-funded politician with people like Kat who refuse to take their money in exchange for subverting our democracy. Whether they speak like sailors or a Boy Scout is wholly irrelevant.

If the best line of attack defenders of the old, corrupt establishment can muster is on puritanical semantic grounds, then it seems it’s only a matter of time before those of us who are ready for change have our way.

— John Scuderi, Chicago

Call fair balls, strikes

C’mon, Tribune Editorial Board! If the board wants to seriously advocate our politicians “model respect, restraint and reasoned debate,” then it has to do better itself. With an overtly provocative headline of “Dems are doubling down on vulgar language,” it is hardly holding itself to the same standard.

Reasonable people, on all sides of the political aisle, can and should aspire to speech that avoids vulgarities. But to call out one party, particularly in the current political climate where needless vulgarities are being flung from all sides, is not helpful in the least.

We’re depending on the editorial board as part of the Fourth Estate to call fair balls and strikes. That headline and that editorial needlessly failed that basic requirement of your profession.

— Mary Friedlieb, Chicago

Duckworth gets a pass

I’ll give U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, on her choice of language in her comment about the secretary of defense, a pass. She’s an awarded, battle-injured veteran. Given Pete Hegseth’s actions, I have a difficult time disagreeing with her.

— Michael Schaik, Fontana, Wisconsin

Trump’s word choice

Let’s not forget that while Democrats may be using the F-word for emphasis, our current president is on tape saying he can grab women by the P-word. Far more egregious — and illegal to do so as well. Despicable.

— Patty Wolfe, Mount Prospect

I survived Joe Biden

I can truly relate to and have great empathy with the numerous letters published in the Tribune from people who fear the fall of democracy under President Donald Trump.  My advice is to just have faith that the United States will survive a second Trump presidency.

How do I know? I feared the same thing while surviving eight years of Barack Obama and four years of Joe Biden.

I trust that all the anguish and pearl-clutching are nothing more than typical political rhetoric. Our republic survived Obama and Biden and will survive Trump.

— Charles VanDercamp, Chicago

Pritzker’s use of ‘fight’

It definitely looks and sounds like Gov. JB Pritzker is going to run for president in 2028, as he made his big speech in New Hampshire about Democrats needing to protest and march.

He is correct that the Democratic Party has sat on the sidelines too long. I’m sorry that he used the word “fight” in his speech, as the Republican Party can and will use that against him if violence occurs at demonstrations. The word “fight” brings thoughts of pugilism, violence and mayhem. They will turn that word against him.

Pritzker could have made his speech and convey the same peaceful thoughts without using the word “fight.”

— Cary Riske, Grayslake

The governor of all?

Gov. JB Pritzker is the governor for all people in Illinois. Why say “no peace” for Republicans? Why not govern us all?

I am not a Republican. I am sincerely asking, “Pretty please, Governor, stop the violent rhetoric and be a force of peace and govern everyone.”

Let all people have a place at the table.

— Cheyenne Mendel, Cherry Valley

Put focus on Illinois

I read the April 29 article about Gov. JB Pritzker dismissing the idea he urged violence during a fiery speech  in New Hampshire (“Gov. Pritzker dismisses as ‘ridiculous’ GOP accusations he urged violence”).

Is he a Democratic candidate for president or the governor of Illinois? The article states the woes facing the state of Illinois, and Pritzker is auditioning for president. His lieutenant governor, Juliana Stratton, is now running for the U.S. Senate to replace do-nothing Sen. Dick Durbin.

Meanwhile, who’s looking out for Illinois? Sort of reminds me of Emperor Nero. Pritzker is fiddling while Illinois is burning.

— Larry Geraghty, Tinley Park

Silent lawmakers

Thanks for your article (“Pritzker wants voices heard,” May 1). Good for Gov. JB Pritzker, but it would have been very good if he had been joined by our silent legislators in Washington.

— Richard Prince, Chicago

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

That question, an update of Richard Nixon’s memorable farewell to news reporters as he dropped out of the California governor’s race in 1962, came to mind on the heels of some unusually welcome news about violent crime in Chicago.

The city finished April with 20 reported homicides, the lowest count of any April since 1962, according to a WBEZ analysis. 

Also, the public radio station found that the city’s “116 murders through this year’s first four months mark the lowest January-through-April tally since 2014.”

Even as the city braces for its usual summertime surge in violent crimes, Chicago still appears to be on pace to hit Mayor Brandon Johnson’s 2025 goal of having fewer than 500 homicides for the first time in a decade.

Meanwhile, is Washington tuned in to the good news — and how we can have more of it?

Trump’s historic blizzard of executive orders in the first 100 days of his second term in office poked his presidential nose back into Chicago’s affairs at the very moment when good news is happening without him.

Three of his executive orders in particular seemed to be aimed at Chicago.

One seeks to end all federal consent decrees governing police reform efforts.

That would include Chicago’s agreement, which dates back to the fatal shooting of Laquan McDonald, 17, by then-Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke in October 2014.

McDonald died after Van Dyke pumped 16 9 mm bullets into him. In 400 pages of reports, police had claimed that McDonald was acting “crazed” while walking down the street and had lunged at officers after refusing to drop a knife, leading department supervisors to rule the homicide justifiable.

Video of the incident released later showed that McDonald was walking away. Van Dyke was convicted of second-degree murder, and Chicago and the U.S. Department of Justice signed a consent decree to address the underlying civil rights issues of the case.

A second executive order by Trump calls on state and federal officials, as WBEZ reported, to “publish lists of jurisdictions often called sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with federal officials’ attempts to arrest immigrants who are in the country illegally.”

That sounds like Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance. First declared by Mayor Harold Washington in 1985 via executive order, it aims to ensure undocumented residents are not prosecuted “on the basis of immigration status.”

Yet another order signed by Trump would increase access to excess military equipment by state and local officials. It would also increase legal support for officers accused of wrongdoing while on official duty.

Although I believe in supporting law enforcement, the use of military equipment by local departments opens up another long-running debate about the wisdom and effectiveness of militarizing local police, as it could lead to unnecessary use of excessive force on, for example, political protesters.

Finally, Trump signed an order reinforcing an existing federal law that requires English-language proficiency for commercial motor drivers. That doesn’t sound too drastic, but I’m curious about how a Republican president whose party usually emphasizes local solutions for local problems is so eager to stick Washington’s nose into this one.

Amid these executive orders, will Trump and his MAGA movement notice the good news happening on Chicago streets and other big cities?

Is it possible that Trump and MAGA have drawn so much political mileage out of the crime-ridden-hellhole narrative about Chicago to be deterred by mere facts?

“Chicago is a shooting disaster,” Trump tweeted way back in August 2013. “They should immediately go to STOP AND FRISK. They have no choice, hundreds of lives would be saved!”

Stop-and-frisk policies also are very controversial, yet popular among those who first hear about it. Which reminds me of a wise saying of H.L. Mencken that Ronald Reagan loved to quote: “For every problem, there’s a solution that’s neat, plausible and wrong.”

Trump’s tireless tweeting often brings that to mind.

To find real solutions requires more careful examination than you are likely to hear from the next bar stool.

My years of covering crime and other problems in Chicago’s communities have shown me how a lot of street-savvy and dedicated professionals and volunteers at the grassroots neighborhood level have been the unsung heroes that lead to safe and peaceful communities, if we give them a chance.

We can learn a lot from such apparent successes as community violence intervention, or CVI, programs. They hire ex-offenders to mediate gang conflicts and steer high-risk individuals to social services and jobs.

Such programs won’t end all of our urban crime problems, but I’ve seen a promising number of examples that have produced positive results.

Can the answers to our urban crime problems be found on the same streets that produced them? It’s worth a try.

Either way, it’s better than turning our neighborhoods, whose residents want to live in peace and safety, into an escalating combat zone.

Email Clarence Page at cpage47@gmail.com.

Sign up to receive Clarence Page’s column in your inbox each week.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

To me — and to many — public investment in these areas has always been a backbone of our nation’s health, prosperity and rich cultural life. These investments give muscle to the promise of “liberty and justice for all.” Yet clearly, there are those who see these same programs as bloated, ineffective or ideologically expendable.

Since the founding of our republic, nonprofit organizations have supplemented the work of government. This hybrid model of public and private investment is, in many ways, part of what makes America unique — and even admirable. Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this spirit in 1831 when he observed:

“Americans of all ages, conditions, and dispositions constantly unite together. … Americans group together to … build inns, construct churches, distribute books. I have frequently admired the endless skill with which the inhabitants of the United States manage to set a common aim to the efforts of a great number of men and to persuade them to pursue it voluntarily.”

Even in times of federal austerity, nonprofits have rallied. We sharpen our pencils. We fundraise harder. We merge, streamline, evolve. We try — desperately — to fill the gaps.

In theory, I support this hustle. There is no shortage of wealth in America, and nonprofits are capable of supporting the most vulnerable and creating immense positive social change.

But here is our sector’s catch-22: What if nonprofits actually were able to close the funding gaps caused by federal abandonment? What if private philanthropy — individuals, foundations, corporations, donor-advised funds — steps up enough to replace the billions once invested by the government? What if nonprofits were able to absorb the shuttered missions, personnel and responsibilities of gutted agencies?

Is that a win? It might look like one. But it would be a hollow victory. One that weakens — not strengthens — the American social contract.

In such a scenario, public goods are preserved but no longer publicly governed. Scientists, teachers, librarians, rangers, curators and nurses would serve at the pleasure of private funders. The people who benefit from their work would have lost their democratic stake. No longer accountable to voters or taxpayers, these public servants become beholden to the values and priorities of private wealth.

Yes, funding might still flow, at least for a time. But what gets funded — and who gets left out — shifts in troubling ways. Which causes align with a donor’s ideology? Which communities are deemed “marketable”? Who sets the terms of success? What if the tides turn again?

These are not just practical questions. They are philosophical ones. If we believe the services provided by public agencies — and the nonprofits that partner with them — are essential, then those services must remain accountable to the people. To all people.

Yes, nonprofits can — and certainly should — pursue efficiencies. Yes, more strategic mergers, stronger governance and better planning would help the sector thrive. That is not what’s in question. What is on the table is that we are witnessing the dismantling of public institutions without warning or reckoning. And then we’re told to fix it.

And who even knows. Maybe the nonprofit sector, and with it the Internal Revenue Service 501(c) code, could be gone before we know it. This isn’t American ingenuity or government efficiency. It’s a slow-moving abdication.

When the government fails to honor its commitments — and asks others to pick up the pieces — we risk not only inequality and inconsistency but also something deeper: the erosion of civic trust.

It’s time to ask ourselves: By cutting federal funding and turning to nonprofit philanthropy, are we preserving the safety net, or replacing it with a patchwork quilt sewn by donors? Either way, the threads are fraying, and we all have to stand up to the evisceration of our federal agencies and federal granting systems. Their existence is part of what makes America great — now and throughout its history.

What can we do?

Let’s come together across sectors and across parties and look out for one another. Corporations, individuals, nonprofits, Republicans, independents and Democrats, we are all Americans. Our North Star blazes in the words of our bold and beautiful Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Let’s get online, to the voting booth and to peaceful in-person uprisings — together — before it’s too late.

Sophia Shaw is the co-founder of PlanPerfect, which provides artificial intelligence-assisted strategic planning for nonprofits. Shaw is a former president and CEO of the Chicago Botanic Garden and an adjunct professor of social impact at the Kellogg School of Management. 

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

Here’s the legitimate concern. The United States’ total fertility rate — which estimates the average number of children a woman would have over her lifetime — fell to 1.62 in 2023, significantly below the replacement level of 2.1 needed to maintain a stable population.

When a population begins to shrink, it defies the fundamental models of how societies grow and prosper. Growth signals strength and vitality; decline signals weakness and decay. Once growth stops, it can set off a downward spiral that’s hard — or even impossible — to reverse.

The U.S. fertility rate has steadily dropped over the past 15 years, hitting record lows in recent years. There’s a lot that factors into this phenomenon. Baby Boomers, a historically large generation, are dying off. COVID-19 brought a notable dip in lawful immigration rates, which have typically bolstered our population. Without new Americans, the Congressional Budget Office projects the U.S. population would begin to shrink by 2033, due to persistently low fertility rates.

So declining fertility rates certainly have broader implications for the U.S. Which brings up the question: Why are people having fewer babies? 

In our opinion, one of the biggest — and most misunderstood — factors in this debate, is that it’s become prohibitively expensive to start a family.  So as U.S. policymakers try to gin up another baby boom, they should ask themselves: Are the conditions right for women to want to have more kids?

The decision to have them is as much an act of love and good fortune as it is a calculation.

Consider: Raising a child to age 17 costs an estimated $310,605 for a middle-class family, according to the Brookings Institution. Housing is the largest expense, followed by child care, transportation and food. That total doesn’t even include college tuition, which, as we’ve written repeatedly, has grown prohibitively expensive. No wonder one recent survey showed that about a third of Americans aren’t planning to start a family because it’s too expensive.

That’s why we’re skeptical of increasingly aggressive campaigns from high-profile political figures urging Americans to have more kids — and to do so quickly.

Musk, the brilliant, controversial billionaire with 14 children by four women (assuming that’s all), is among the most vocal pronatalists. At a rally last October, he urged Americans to “just have kids,” insisting “it’ll work out.” But while Musk warns of a declining America, he ignores the reality that it’s not that simple for regular people. 

Some of the policy ideas floating around to spur another baby boom oversimplify the problem and ignore the realities facing modern families. It’s not just the upfront cost of pregnancy and childbirth that deters people from starting a family — it’s more often the belief that choosing this option is not financially viable in the long run.

The Trump administration has proposed a $5,000 “baby bonus” for first-time mothers. (Remember, the estimated cost of raising a child to age 17 is over $300,000.) A $5,000 check for each new mom would cost the government plenty, but wouldn’t go incredibly far, potentially covering just several months worth of day care. Paid family leave is another idea floating around, and state lawmakers have introduced their own proposal to create a paid family leave program funded by a jobs tax. President Donald Trump also issued an executive order in February to explore ways to reduce the out-of-pocket costs of IVF.

The good news is that politicians are thinking about ways to make pregnancy and the postpartum period more doable. But these proposals often feel like well-meaning but shallow gestures — such as buying a child a shiny new toy while ignoring their need for food and shelter.

The real deterrents to starting a family are deeply embedded in how young Americans live, work and plan for the future.

Many men and women want children. The reality is that millennials and Gen Z are delaying marriage and childbearing due to economic uncertainty, student debt, housing costs and shifting social norms.

Americans are marrying later than ever. In 1950, the median age at marriage was 20 for women and 23 for men. Today, it’s nearly 29 and 30, respectively. That shift reflects rising education and career investment, especially among women, as well as cultural changes in dating and expectations for financial security.

That’s triggered a much trickier — and tougher — path to parenthood for many couples. Women are having babies later in life than ever before. In 1970, the average American woman was almost 21 years old when she had her first baby. Today, the average age of first-time moms is over 27. This isn’t surprising, given that women now earn the majority of college degrees in the U.S. and are increasingly prioritizing career stability before starting a family. But pregnancies later in life come with costs and challenges of their own. 

Couples trying for kids in their late 30s and 40s are increasingly turning to hormonal treatments and IVF, both costly prospects often not covered by insurance. Over 40% of adults say they have used fertility treatments or know someone who has, a 33% increase from just five years earlier, according to Pew Research Center.

Pregnancy is hard on the body, and that stress increases with age. Blood volume spikes, weight gain strains joints and everyday activities become taxing. Still, many women work until delivery, then return to work just weeks later — often because paid leave is limited. Full recovery can take a year, yet most new mothers take approximately 10 weeks of leave.

All of these things considered, the current situation isn’t surprising. 

If we’re facing an existential crisis as our fertility rate declines, we’re hardly alone. Many countries are in the same boat. Italy, for example, has an even lower fertility rate than the U.S. A few parts of the world — especially sub-Saharan Africa, as well as countries such as Afghanistan and Yemen — still have high fertility rates.

Longtime readers know we also believe in the liberty of the individual. That includes following your own path.

For many, that includes parenthood. Others lead equally meaningful lives without becoming parents. And while we are, like Musk, closely watching population trends, we believe the conversation requires deep introspection on what’s driving down the fertility rate. It’s not as simple as dangling cash at people and hoping they get pregnant. 

This board is made up of parents who love their children. Having them was the greatest blessing of our lives. But parenthood isn’t the only path to meaning. As rhetoric about fertility rates escalates, it’s worth remembering that every person’s choices are valid, whether or not they have kids.

But let’s be clear: We should be doing everything we can to remove artificial barriers that prevent people who want a family from having children.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

Well, it’s May and you know what that means … May Day!

Thousands rallied downtown on Thursday to commemorate the annual celebration with Chicago roots. Organized labor and activist groups marched from Union Park to Grant Park, calling for workers’ rights and fair wages and protesting President Donald Trump’s policies targeting immigrants, federal employees and workplace diversity programs.

The president, meanwhile, marked his first 100 days in office this week and released his 2026 budget plan, which would slash most domestic spending while increasing expenditures on national security.

Bringing to an end an almost five-year ordeal, the Chicago Park District announced Thursday they reached a deal to end a lawsuit brought over the removal of Christopher Columbus statues from city parks during the 2020 protests. In the burgeoning race for Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin’s seat, Sen. Tammy Duckworth endorsed Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, giving her backing from two of the state’s highest-ranking Democrats. Plus, in an appearance on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Thursday night, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said he has not made up his mind about a third term and demurred on a 2028 presidential run.

Downstate, three children and a teenager were killed and several others injured Monday afternoon when a vehicle plowed through an after-school facility just outside Springfield. A Plainfield landlord was sentenced to 53 years in prison Friday for the murder of 6-year-old Wadee Alfayoumi and the attempted murder of the boy’s mother in October 2023, an attack a jury found to be a hate crime spurred by the war in Gaza. And former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, the one-term leader who halted the state’s death penalty before being imprisoned on federal corruption charges, died Friday in hospice in his hometown of Kankakee. He was 91.

During Wednesday night’s game between the Chicago Cubs and Pittsburgh Pirates at PNC Park, a fan fell from the 21-foot-high Clemente Wall in right field. The man remains in critical condition.

In other news, the 2025 Tony Award nominations were announced Thursday, including several nods for Chicago’s Steppenwolf Theatre Company, Portillo’s is giving away free sandwiches in May and a local science teacher was named Illinois Teacher of the Year.

Without further ado: the Tribune’s Quotes of the Week quiz for the week of April 27 to May 3. Good luck!

Looking for more quotes? Check out our past editions of Quotes of the Week.