Such talk has been particularly vigorous among key advisers to Donald Trump as he begins what he hopes will be his transition back to the White House. Of course, talk of mandated national service is one step away from that dreaded term — the draft.

But before any of my younger readers dash away to pack up for Canada, relax, at least for now. It would take an act of Congress to bring back the draft and we’re a long way from that happening. Yet, as crazy as our national politics sometimes is these days, it pays to be prepared for anything.

As The Washington Post reported this week, Christopher Miller, who led the Pentagon during the last tumultuous days of Donald Trump’s presidency, thinks a national service requirement should be “strongly considered.”  He detailed his vision for military and civilian readiness as part of Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s latest book of federal policy recommendations that they have been publishing for presumptive Republican presidential nominees since Ronald Reagan.

Miller, a retired Green Beret, is among the most outspoken about mandating national service and taking other steps to improve military readiness. He sees a “crisis” facing our all-volunteer military. Although Trump has not formally endorsed this latest Heritage strategy document, he eagerly embraced the organization’s proposals in his first term.

At a time when just 1% of the nation’s population serves in the armed services, according to the Post, the big readiness challenge continues to be recruitment. The Pentagon fell short of its recruiting goal by about 41,000 last year, the Post reports. Only the Marines and the Space Force met their objectives.

In one startling explanation for the shortfall, the Army cited internal data indicating some 71% of Americans do not qualify for military service for reasons that include obesity, drug use and aptitude.

Yet, as one of the last draftees during the Vietnam War, I know that Washington and the Pentagon don’t want to go back to the days of draft cards except as a very last resort. Besides the problems of physical readiness, there are the morale issues tied to soldiers who don’t want to be there. Any commander, as I learned firsthand, would rather lead a platoon of willing recruits than resentful and begrudging draftees.

And the political impact back home can be a very real headache for local politicians, as I learned from some of Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley’s constituents in the Vietnam era. No politician wants to deal with the anguish of constituents’ sons and daughters coming home in body bags from a war hardly anyone understands.

Among Miller’s recommendations, he would like to see the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, or ASVAB, taken in every high school. It’s a multiple-aptitude exam that helps predict future academic and occupational success in the military. More than a million military applicants take it every year.

I can also speak from personal experience about the personal value of the military experience. Besides the physical fitness — that has faded for me over time — I remain impressed and inspired by the level of personal sacrifice my fellow troops were willing to make without giving it a second thought.

The draft ended for Americans in 1973, two years before the war ended, after Congress cut off its funding. No one seems to have been in a hurry to bring it back ever since.

Still, there are some gung-ho MAGA Republicans who suggest a draft could toughen up a seemingly pampered generation of video game-playing softies. Maybe so, but let’s not press our luck. We’re better off with an all-volunteer military.

The irony of having a possible return of President Trump took on an ironic twist with the recent 80th anniversary of the D-Day landing. It brought back memories of how Trump’s role of commander in chief was compromised at times by his multiple deferrals from military service during the Vietnam era thanks to questionable medical claims. The controversy led Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois — who lost both legs in combat — to rechristen Trump “Cadet Bone Spurs.”

Somehow I don’t think, despite the entreaties of those on the right who fret about the state of our military, that Trump would endorse something as politically unpopular as a return of the draft. But he’s not the most predictable of candidates.

That Gary “Gotti” Roberson, 40, and Joseph “Troubles” Matos, 41, will stand trial for the brutal, nonsensical slaying is a good thing. But this comes after nearly three years, even though evidence linking at least one of the suspects to the crime reportedly was in the hands of the Cook County state’s attorney’s office soon after the killing took place. The office of Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx determined at the time there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute despite the pleas of Carvajal’s family and Chicago police.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago now is prosecuting the case, now considerably more complex given that the violation of federal law must be invoked to put the evidence before a jury. That’s because the feds can’t just charge someone suspected of murder with the crime of, yes, murder. That’s the state’s job. If the feds are to put someone on trial for killing another human being, there must be special circumstances attached, such as the murder of a federal official or the act taking place on federal property. Lacking those specific circumstances, federal prosecutors must convict a suspect not just of murder but also of committing the act while also doing something else that violates federal law.

In the case of Roberson, who is in custody and has pleaded not guilty, and Matos, who is subject to a warrant and at large, they are charged with racketeering. The drive-by murder of Carvajal they’re alleged to have committed a little after 1 a.m. as he was walking to his car to get something while attending a Fourth of July weekend party with his girlfriend was in furtherance of their gang activities, according to the May 14 indictment. So prosecutors must prove not only that the two reputed gang leaders killed Carvajal; they also must show that the reason for the slaying was to “maintain and improve” their leading positions within the Milwaukee Kings.

Of course, it would be far simpler and more straightforward to prove the facts surrounding the slaying itself. If the Cook County state’s attorney’s office had brought the charges, that’s all they would have to prove.

For Carvajal’s family, the delay in justice for their loved one has been excruciating. Here was a 19-year-old son of Chicago, spending time with his friends and family after completing National Guard training and just before deployment, a young man whose future was bright. “He was working to become a … police officer as well,” Carvajal’s sister Jennifer Ramirez told WTTW a year after his killing. In a swipe at prosecutors, she said, “He was going to serve and protect your city. The least you could do is bring justice.”

Chicago police who worked on the case were upset the state’s attorney’s office wouldn’t proceed. Ald. Gilbert Villegas, 36th, in whose ward the killing took place, tweeted at the time that police provided local prosecutors with three eyewitnesses and video evidence, according to CWBChicago, a news site that tracks Chicago crime news. “This family deserves justice as well as the hundreds of families who have unsolved murders pending #pleasedoyourjob,” Villegas tweeted.

Additionally, Chicago police provided evidence that the car and phone of one of the suspects was at or near the crime scene at the time, according to CWB.

It wasn’t enough. In a statement to WTTW in 2022, Foxx’s office said it “conducted a thorough review” of the evidence Chicago police had amassed. “At that time, it was insufficient to meet our burden of proof to file murder charges,” the office said.

A family friend, Marcos Torres, who was working to prod Foxx’s office into action, told WTTW, “What is the message we are sending to our citizens here in Chicago if you are doing the right thing, if you are serving your county and you get killed right here in your own streets and the people who are in charge to prosecute, don’t prosecute.”

Indeed. From what we’re told by those with extensive courtroom and law enforcement experience fighting gangs in Chicago, this isn’t an isolated case. In Chicago — more often than people might like to admit — the feds have to intervene in what probably ought to be a locally handled prosecution if justice is to be served. These sorts of examples occurred regularly before Foxx’s time as state’s attorney as well, we’re told.

Prosecutions of gang members can be difficult, no doubt. Legitimate fears of retaliation often require police and prosecutors to provide assistance to witnesses, for example, in the form of finding new housing outside the neighborhood the gangs in question terrorize. The feds working in Chicago do that kind of work a lot.

But even when the feds step in, there’s a price to pay for local reluctance to prosecute in the absence of overwhelming evidence. The FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office surely have compiled more evidence in this case during the intervening period. But they also have had to build a separate racketeering case against the two murder suspects and have had to work to prove that the killing was done for the purpose of solidifying the position of the two within their “enterprise.” Additionally, in a case like this, the U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago must get approval from the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., to proceed. Such bureaucratic processes are time-consuming even when a case is straightforward.

Small wonder it’s taken nearly three years to bring this relatively bare-bones indictment.

Since 2021, a family has had to wait and fret about whether action ever would be taken, all the while knowing the identity of at least one of the suspects. Since 2021, two purported gang members have been free to continue to do what gang members so often do.

Are there victims of other crimes who would have been spared had prosecutorial action been taken sooner?

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

The APSP was founded in 1972 by Yeshitela. It is an activist group in the Black radical tradition. The group is nonviolent and seeks to spark change through political speech, activism and its community work. The APSP is based in St. Petersburg, Florida; St. Louis; and Oakland, California, where it operates farmers markets, recreation programs and small businesses that benefit local communities. 

During its 50 years of existence, the APSP has earned a significant following. It publishes its own newspaper called The Burning Spear.

APSP’s political activism has not changed over its 50-year history. It opposes Western colonialism and the exploitation of resources that belong to the peoples of other nations. It sees NATO as a western military alliance designed to dominate the colonized peoples of the world. It opposed the U.S.-led NATO war on Libya in 2011, and it has consistently opposed NATOs expansion eastward toward Russia’s border, an expansion that began in the 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany.  

The APSP has also long opposed U.S. interference in Ukraine. In 2014, the group publicly denounced U.S. involvement in the Maidan coup in which the CIA helped overthrow Ukraine’s Russia-friendly president, Viktor Yanukovych, and replace him with a “U.S./EU puppet regime.” 

The trouble began for the APSP in spring 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The APSP was one of the few prominent activist groups that publicly blamed the U.S. government for provoking the invasion, thus contradicting the official position of the U.S. that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked. In public rallies, APSP leaders blamed the U.S. and NATO for creating the crisis in Ukraine by expanding NATO “800 miles toward the border of Russia” by helping overthrow Ukraine’s elected president and by arming Ukraine “to the teeth.”

Then on July 29, 2022, in what appears to be a direct effort to suppress dissenting speech, FBI SWAT teams raided the homes of APSP leaders, including its 82-year-old founder Yeshitela, and the group’s offices in St. Petersburg and St. Louis. Then in April 2023, the government formally charged Yeshitela, Hess and Nevel under an obscure federal statute that makes it a federal crime to act as an agent of a foreign government without registering with the attorney general. If convicted, the three defendants face up to 15 years in federal prison. 

To justify this charge, the indictment notes that the APSP received a small amount of financial support — about $7,000 —  in 2016 from a person whom the government alleges has ties to the Russian government. 

Many activist groups receive financial support from foreign nationals or even directly from foreign governments. This is perfectly legal, according to the U.S. Department of State website. For example, prominent Washington think tanks regularly receive tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments while pushing policies that reflect the priorities of their donors. None of the leaders of these groups are ever prosecuted as foreign agents. 

Many Americans will disagree with the APSP defendants’ view that the U.S. provoked Russia into invading Ukraine. But agree or disagree, we must support their right to speak out and to dissent. The right to criticize our government is the most fundamental value protected by the First Amendment. If we lose that right, our democracy cannot survive. 

Leonard C. Goodman is a Chicago criminal defense lawyer who is representing Penny Hess. 

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

I also think about my daughter Braedyn. In particular, I think about a conversation we had when she was 7 years old. We were navigating life during the COVID-19 pandemic. I was trying to explain something to her and thought I was being clear when she suddenly said: “Daddy, you’re triggering me.”

At first, I was taken aback. I would have never thought to talk to my parents that way. But when I reflected on the interaction, I realized how important it was that she had the language to express how she was feeling in that moment. 

I believe my brother’s time on this earth would have been extended if he had the language to express what he needed, or the mental health care that he needed. Leon and Braedyn are why, for me, this work is personal.  

That is why a year ago, I made it a priority to assemble a working group of city officials, community organizers and mental health care advocates to put together a road map for how we can expand mental health care services in Chicago. I tasked them with putting forward a bold vision to transform Chicago’s mental health care infrastructure, while being mindful of the budgetary and operational constraints of our current system, which has been degraded after more than three decades of cuts, privatization and neglect. 

Like so many other problems that plague our city, these decades of neglect are felt the hardest in our most disenfranchised communities. More than 65% of Black and brown Chicagoans with serious psychological distress are currently not receiving any treatment in our city. We estimate the total number of Chicagoans experiencing serious psychological distress has jumped to upward of 239,000 in recent years. That is a crisis. 

June is Men’s Mental Health Awareness Month, and we recognize that this crisis hits men particularly hard. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that men make up almost 80% of all cases of death by suicide, and evidence suggests that men are more likely to engage in substance abuse and alcohol dependency. 

Every day, Chicagoans see our neighbors in need in our communities, on our public transportation and throughout our city without a clear, accessible pathway to get the care that they need.

The crisis is especially acute in our young people who are increasingly dealing with severe mental illness. A recent survey of 1,400 clinicians on the youth mental health crisis found that cost and insurance were the biggest obstacles to care. Providing free mental health care through city-run clinics would allow us to provide care for our young people in need. 

The need for this type of generational transformation in our mental health care infrastructure is long overdue. In 1987, under Mayor Harold Washington, Chicago had 19 city-run mental health centers and a Chicago alcohol treatment center. Today, we have five. We are a world-class city. Our people deserve a world-class mental health care system. 

It is with that vision in mind that I am proud to announce that my administration is taking the first step toward rebuilding our city’s public mental health care infrastructure by reopening the shuttered mental health care clinic in Roseland. By starting on the Far South Side, we are making clear to the people of Chicago that we are prioritizing those who have been left behind and discarded by previous administrations. 

Because of the urgency of this crisis, we are also taking immediate steps to expand access to mental health care to other parts of our city. We are adding mental health services at a city-run clinic in Pilsen, and adding services at the Legler Regional Library in West Garfield Park. The report issued by the Mental Health Service Expansion working group will act as our North Star as we work to expand services across our entire city. 

Our vision is clear: to provide care for those who need it. I will continue to keep the memory of my brother Leon in my heart this month and beyond as we work to rebuild our city’s mental health care infrastructure.

Brandon Johnson is the mayor of Chicago. 

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

The mayor needs to vocally support Ald. Brian Hopkins’ proposed ordinance and change his focus to the reality of what’s happening as a result of street takeovers by unsupervised and out-of-control young people. They do not own the streets, and the mayor has to make it crystal clear that he and the Chicago Police Department will act quickly to stop this kind of violence. Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx also needs to step up and send a message that these crimes will be charged as felonies.

The bottom line is that the mayor needs to refocus his so-called progressive agenda from that of enabling wrongdoers to enforcing the law and showing some sympathy for the victims of these attacks.

— Kevin Garvey, Chicago

Rethink DNC protests

The headline of the article reads, “’This will not be 1968’” (June 9). Well, by limiting Democratic National Convention protesters to Grant Park this time, 1968 will surely repeat itself; it’s too visually and dramatically interesting not to!

This will just spread the protests throughout downtown and toward the West Loop rather than confining them to the target audience — attendees of the DNC.

I suggest reducing the United Center parking lot by half, letting the protesters have their say and letting Chicago residents enjoy their downtown.

— Anne Neri Kostiner, Chicago

Gratitude for Chicago

Chicago receives its share of bad press (some deserved, some not), but I recently had an experience that I think reflects the true spirit of the city and its institutions.

A recent Sunday, I was on my way to the Goodman Theatre to meet friends and see the play “English.” I had almost reached the theater when I tripped and did a face plant on the sidewalk. I jumped up immediately but was bleeding profusely from a gash to my forehead as well as a broken nose.

I want to thank the theater personnel who kept bringing me stacks of paper napkins in an attempt to control the bleeding and who notified my friends that I had had an accident. I want to thank the passerby who called 911. I want to thank the paramedics who showed up very quickly and who were the epitome of professionalism, efficiency and courtesy in performing initial first aid and in getting me to the Northwestern Hospital emergency room. And I want to thank the emergency room staff members who saw me immediately and quickly addressed the immediate issues and checked for potential complications.

Chicago has its problems, but on that Sunday afternoon, the helpfulness of its citizens and the efficiency of its institutions could not have been better.

— Kevin Busath, Geneva

Trip to Cicada-land

I recently drove from Chicago to a medical appointment in Hinsdale. I had read about the 17-year cicada brood emergence this year, but in the West Ridge neighborhood, there were none to be found. So imagine  my surprise when I exited Interstate 294 onto Ogden Avenue and cicadas began hitting my windshield! When I arrived at my appointment and opened the car door, my ears were met with a buzz so loud and strange it seemed like the electrical hum of a space ship. Welcome to Cicada-land.

If there was ever a tale of two cities, this was it. In the leafy suburbs of Cicada-land, these black bugs with red eyes ruled the roost and the soundscape in overwhelming numbers. Yet when I drove back to Chicago, the cicadas vanished. When I mentioned to a co-worker about witnessing this winged horde, they just looked at me perplexed like I was crazy.

I have since heard from experts on the cicada emergence that because Chicago is constantly changing, with new buildings going up,  the soil is turned over, and older trees are felled. Such actions lead to cicada larvae not surviving.

So if you want to witness an event more fun than a sports game or movie, drive out or take a train to Cicada-land to enjoy Mother Nature’s show.

But don’t delay because Cicada-land will vanish, like Brigadoon, by the Fourth of July.

— Christopher Lynch, Chicago

GOP needs change

First off, I regard myself as a Ronald Reagan Republican. I am a former Army commissioned officer who served stateside as an information officer during the Vietnam era from 1968 to 1970.

But to the point at hand, I find that Will County leader Steve Balich’s action to fly our American flag upside down at a municipal building reprehensible, and his petulant actions border on bullying, regardless of his conservative beliefs.

More and more, I find the Illinois Republican Party dysfunctional and out of touch with reality. And the evidence is punctuated by Republicans like me who have long supported moderate Republicans and abstained from supporting the political philosophies of right-wing conservatives like Balich; former Illinois state Sen. Darren Bailey, who was shellacked in the last gubernatorial election; and, many years before that, radio talk show host Alan Keyes, who ran against Barack Obama for U.S. Senate in 2004. Bailey and Keyes lost by what can only be described politely as wide margins as their positions resonated poorly with moderate Republicans, independents and Democrats.

If there is any hope of the Illinois GOP being turned around, people like Balich, Illinois Republican Party Chairman Don Tracy and others in their inner circle should start listening to the opinions and heed the advice of such respected Republican moderates as former Gov. Jim Edgar, Burr Ridge Mayor Gary Grasso and former Illinois House Minority Leader Jim Durkin, who collectively see political realities as they are — not what Bailey, Tracy and other ultraconservatives who back Trump would like them to be.

Bullying doesn’t square with moderates, regardless of party affiliation, and even more so with independents.

When I go to vote this November, I’ll write in Ronald Reagan for president and vote for Republican Dennis Reboletti over Democrat Marti Deuter for state representative and Republican Niki Conforti over Democratic incumbent Sean Casten for Congress as I see these GOP candidates as being more in touch with reality and common sense.

And I’ll feel good at having my vote tallied accurately because I believe the system is not rigged.

— A.J. Parrino, Western Springs

Double standard clear

Can anyone explain to me why some people were outraged when NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick chose to kneel during the national anthem in protest over the unfair application of justice toward Black people in our country, yet Steve Balich flying the U.S. flag upside down at Homer Township offices seems to be a perfectly acceptable way to protest?

I can think of one clear reason, and personally, I’m outraged over it.

— Beth Carter, Naperville

GOP leader’s ‘distress’

Regarding Will County Board member Steve Balich, I find it “distressing” that he would use his political position to fly the U.S. flag upside down representing his “distress” after the verdict in Donald Trump’s recent trial. What happened to the GOP ideal of nonintrusive government? I am confident that if Democrats used that form of protest in response to Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016, the GOP would be loud and clear on the lack of patriotism and intrusion of the display on government grounds (and rightly so).

And regarding Balich saying the “Constitution is under attack,” how does the trial verdict compare with fake electors for a fully litigated election result and literal attack on the U.S. Capitol to stop the formalization of the election results? Trump’s case was reviewed and approved by a grand jury and decided by 12 vetted jurors in a unanimous verdict.

— Dave Beinor, Forest Park

Support for hemp products

I am a disabled senior citizen who has used intoxicating and non-intoxicating hemp products therapeutically for 27 years. With the help of these products, I have gotten my life back by getting off 12 daily medications. I am an educated consumer, and I prefer some of the milder hemp products to the cannabis I would get at a dispensary.

That’s why I was happy to read the editorial “Hemp can get you high. Illinois needs to better protect its minors.” (June 2). I am all for protecting children, including my children and grandchildren, as well as consumers. But I hope that this can be accomplished without banning products that I depend on and putting the local hemp people I know and trust out of business.

I urge state officials to work toward a reasonable compromise based on facts rather than fearmongering.

— Vicky Crouse, Industry, Illinois

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

But beware of being hung on your own petard.

That’s one lesson from the speedy conviction Tuesday of Hunter Biden, the 54-year-old son of President Joe Biden, on all three felony charges related to his purchase of a revolver in 2018 after he had said on a mandatory gun-purchase form that he was neither using nor addicted to illegal drugs. Despite the political furor surrounding the case, coming hard upon the felony conviction of Donald Trump, the former president of the United States and presumptive Republican nominee for a second term, this really was an open-and-shut case.

(So, for that matter, was Trump’s, which explains all the focus on whether the novel charges should have been brought as distinct from, say, whether or not Trump actually did that which he was accused of doing. The jury did not have a difficult job when it came to the actual evidence).

Biden admitted to an addiction to crack cocaine in his 2021 memoir, “Beautiful Things,” contemporaneous to the era when he filled out the form and bought the gun. Thus, the jury in this case had Biden’s own words to use in its process toward finding him guilty, especially since he had also helpfully recorded his own audiobook, adding to the vividness of those declarations. All the prosecution had to do was play the tape and hear the defendant’s voice.

This same issue may yet come back to bite Prince Harry, who also confessed to copious amounts of drug use in his own memoir, “Spare,” a lucrative bestseller. The problem there is that most U.S. immigration forms ask applicants about their drug use, which can make them ineligible for entry or residency in some circumstances. The Heritage Foundation sued to find out whether Harry lied on any form, and a federal judge got involved some weeks ago. In the unlikely event that any of this would go to trial, the British prince might well be put in the unenviable position of having to deny something he wrote himself. That’s a heavy lift in front of a jury, as Hunter Biden discovered.

Prosecutorial discretion is a fact of legal life, past mistakes should not always be determinative of a person’s future, and a case can be made that both Biden and Harry are being subject to the kind of politicized pursuit that would not befall a regular Joe or Jane. No question. On the other hand, an argument could be made that such scrutiny comes with privilege, even if that privilege is only of birth. And let’s not forget, both of these men have sought an ongoing place in the public discourse. Nobody forced them to open up their past lives for scrutiny.

The moral of these cautionary tales for the rest of us? Either use personal discretion or tell the truth across all platforms and be prepared to face the consequences.

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

Large crowds of anti-abortion activists gather outside the health care clinic and use megaphones and microphones, harassing patients and employees and threatening their sense of safety.

FPA is one of the largest independent reproductive health clinics in the Midwest. FPA offers a range of services, including abortion. The patients coming to FPA are there to receive health care that can be at times lifesaving, often life-affirming or simply routine. 

Many who come to FPA for abortion care are local to Chicago, while others travel long distances from states in the South and Midwest where abortion care is banned or severely restricted. The staff members who work at FPA are there to perform their day-to-day work as health care professionals and provide compassionate care for everyone who walks through the door.

Patients and providers should be able to go about their days without extreme noise and harassment. 

Health care decisions are a private matter between a patient and their provider. The amplified noise right outside FPA is so loud that patients and providers cannot hear one another speak inside the building, and this excessive noise is putting everyone’s safety at risk.

The Chicago City Council will vote on Wednesday to extend the existing noise and vibration control ordinance to FPA. This ordinance designates certain noise-sensitive zones, such as schools, libraries, churches, hospitals and nursing homes. This ordinance recognizes that health care facilities need quiet to deliver essential care. Noise-sensitive zones are already established by this ordinance at Northwestern Memorial and Lurie Children’s hospitals.

This ordinance preserves the right to speech and assembly of demonstrators. What it limits is amplified noise that interferes with the practice of medicine.

Anti-abortion rights forces have already delayed the vote on this ordinance. We at Personal PAC and FPA, along with many of the volunteer clinic escorts with the Illinois Choice Action Team who deal firsthand with this noise and harassment, showed up to City Hall in May expecting a clear and decisive vote.

Ald. Bill Conway, 34th, the ordinance’s sponsor, and Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration had put in months of work preparing the necessary findings. Extensive reports from the Chicago Department of Public Health and the Chicago Police Department were entered into record, establishing the public safety risk posed by excessive noise outside of FPA.

And yet one single alderman saw an opportunity to voice his anti-abortion rights views under the guise of free speech concerns, and another joined him in a parliamentary maneuver to delay the vote.

But we are not deterred. 

It has been nearly two years since Donald Trump’s handpicked justices on the United States Supreme Court ended the federal right to abortion with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. That decision emboldened anti-abortion rights extremists to unleash attacks on our health care across our country. There are many stories of people being forced to flee their home states for other states such as Illinois, a critical access point for abortion care, and cities such as Chicago, which defends and protects abortion.

We call on the City Council to swiftly pass the ordinance.  

Sarah Garza Resnick is CEO of Personal PAC, and Dr. Allison Cowett is the medical director at Family Planning Associates. 

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

On Friday, Pranay Vaddi, a senior director of the National Security Council, outlined the Biden administration’s nuclear strategy during a speech at the Arms Control Association in Washington. The speech wasn’t surprising to anyone who has even a cursory understanding of U.S. nuclear weapons policy. Most of it was dedicated toward reiterating U.S. policy goals: getting more countries to decrease their nuclear arsenals, even as the U.S. ensures its own nuclear deterrent is updated. But the warning was as clear as day. “Absent a change in the trajectory of adversary arsenals,” Vaddi said, “we may reach a point in the coming years where an increase from current deployed numbers is required.”

Since the mid-1980s, successive U.S. administrations, Republican and Democratic, have largely based the country’s nuclear weapons policy on two pillars: capping and if possible reducing nuclear arsenals across the board and making sure America’s own is functional. U.S. officials have sought to discourage adversaries from attacking the U.S. and its treaty allies in Europe and Asia even as it gradually aspires toward a world in which nuclear weapons no longer exist. The proof is in the numbers: Since 1967, the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile has decreased by 88%, from 31,255 warheads to 3,750.

Yet in the eyes of U.S. officials in Washington, the state of affairs in the world is getting increasingly hairy. The kinds of arms control negotiations that were so prevalent since the latter years of the Cold War are all but dead. New START, the last major arms control accord signed between the U.S. and Russia, is essentially on life support after Russian President Vladimir Putin suspended it in 2023.

If anything, the war in Ukraine has only elevated the importance and value of nuclear weapons for Putin. With Russia’s conventional military battered and bruised, Russia’s strategic weapons systems are becoming much more important in Russian defense strategy. Moscow has not only moved tactical nuclear warheads to Belarus, next door to Ukraine, but also is pouring resources into diversifying its nuclear arms by adding more delivery systems. The Poseidon, a nuclear-armed intercontinental torpedo, is now one of Putin’s most cherished weapons systems. (Whether it actually works is another story.) According to the U.S. intelligence community, Russia is also testing components for a space-based nuclear anti-satellite weapon, which if used could wipe out hundreds of low-orbited satellites.

Russia is hardly the only country the U.S. is concerned about on this front. China is doubling down on its nuclear arsenal to strengthen its own deterrent power. The Pentagon’s most recent report analyzing Chinese military capabilities finds that “over the next decade, the PRC (China) will continue to rapidly modernize, diversify, and expand its nuclear forces.” China will have more than 1,000 operational nuclear warheads by 2030 — double its current arsenal.

And although Beijing continues to claim a “no first use” policy — i.e., China won’t be the first power to use a nuclear weapon under any circumstances — policies can change depending on the environment. Indeed, Chinese military documents leave open the prospect of junking this declaration in the event the Chinese People’s Liberation Army is at risk of losing a conventional war.

This is all quite concerning to U.S. officials, amplified by the fact that the United States has so many allies it has sworn to defend. Our extended deterrence commitments, in which Washington would theoretically escalate to the nuclear level to fight off an adversary who has attacked a U.S. ally, include most of Europe, Japan, South Korea and Australia. Extended deterrence, however, is a difficult promise to make credible: Would any U.S. president use nuclear weapons, for example, against Russia, China or even North Korea to defend an ally knowing that doing so would likely put American cities at risk of nuclear annihilation? Would the U.S. even fight a nuclear-armed country in these circumstances, knowing full well that a strictly conventional conflict could escalate to nuclear war? 

President Joe Biden’s administration has apparently calculated that a larger U.S. nuclear arsenal is the cure-all to these problems. The underlying logic is straightforward: By increasing warhead numbers, nuclear adversaries such as China and Russia will eventually come to the conclusion that they simply can’t outcompete the U.S. in this area and that throwing more money into a costly arms race is futile. If this sounds familiar, that’s because it is; part of the rationale behind the military buildup in the 1980s by Ronald Reagan’s administration was to bleed the Soviet Union financially.

There’s a cheaper and less risky way of accomplishing what the Biden administration wants to accomplish. But this would require U.S. officials to be self-reflective and recognize that adversary perceptions of U.S. motivations are driving much of Russia and China’s nuclear modernization. Russia, for instance, is compensating for its conventional struggles in Ukraine and views nuclear weapons as absolutely essential to combating what it sees (rightly or wrongly) as U.S. attempts to weaken it over the long term. China, in part, is embracing nuclear expansion to scare the U.S. away from defending Taiwan if Beijing decides to subjugate the island militarily. 

A larger U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal is likely to heighten those threat perceptions, not eliminate them.

Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune.

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

Our involvement with IL-EATS enabled us to expand our operations significantly; we added 2,000 chickens to our flock in anticipation of the program’s start. However, the unexpected delay from December to April presented substantial financial challenges. Due to the increased flock, cost of feed alone surged to an additional $8,000 per month, compounded by other expenses.  We had nowhere to move this extra inventory of eggs, so they had to be donated. The total financial strain during these months was daunting, as every day without the program’s kickoff meant deeper financial losses for our burgeoning farm.

Despite these hurdles, the program eventually allowed us to distribute our pasture-raised eggs, a high-quality, nutritious food that food bank patrons would likely not have access to otherwise. Although we are currently navigating the complexities of typical business practices, we remain optimistic.

The IL-EATS program holds promise not just for us but also for all socially disadvantaged farmers looking to scale their operations and reach more people in need. By connecting families facing food insecurity with fresh, local food, the program not only supports local agriculture but also promotes health and community resilience.

I urge state leaders and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to continue to invest in and refine programs like IL-EATS. Despite the initial financial and operational challenges, these programs are vital bridges connecting the produce of local farms like ours with people in our communities who need it most.

With better planning and timely execution, such initiatives can strengthen local food systems and provide essential support to both producers and consumers.

— Marty Thomas, Kakadoodle Farm, Matteson

Slower rollout was necessary

Regarding the June 7 editorial and its inaccurate depiction of the IL-EATS program, Illinois’ implementation of U.S. Department of Agriculture Local Food Purchase Agreement (LFPA) funding: The editorial demeans and seeks to derail two years of hard work to develop this groundbreaking Illinois program that, despite stumbles in its initial rollout, is already delivering on its vision.

IL-EATS is an innovative collaboration among Illinois’ Department of Agriculture, Department of Human Services and University of Illinois Extension with a diverse coalition of partners across the food supply chain: farmers, food banks, wholesalers, community pantries, farmers markets and nutrition programs. More than 300 participants from rural, suburban and urban communities gave input at 30 listening sessions across Illinois, including socially disadvantaged producers, food aggregators, front-line pantries and mutual aid groups.

Yes, this thoughtful approach meant a slower program rollout, but it ensured the $30 million program was far more accessible to a broad range of partners who otherwise would have been shut out.

While initial administrative issues have been challenging for producers, IL-EATS is unquestionably delivering better quality food from a diverse network of smaller, newer growers benefiting from previously unavailable opportunities. Food recipients report improvements in the freshness, quality and cultural diversity of the food provided by 120 farms and distributed by 217 community partners working with 15 lead agencies. Sixty percent of IL-EATS farmers have operated for under 10 years, with 20% under 3 years — huge gains in Illinois where the average farmer is older than 58 years old. Eighty-five growers have already taken IL-EATS’ free food safety training, reducing a significant cost burden for small farmers.

IL-EATS has the potential to be a long-term success, and leadership from multiple Illinois departments and their community partners will be vital to expand IL-EATS’ much-needed opportunities to more socially disadvantaged producers in the food supply chain. Illinois’ five members on the U.S. House Agriculture Committee and U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, are key partners to passing a Farm Bill that makes the LFPA a permanent USDA program. They are encouraged to include and fund the EAT Local Foods Act (S.3982) as part of the Farm Bill.

— Rodger Cooley, executive director, Chicago Food Policy Action Council

Game-changing opportunity

The June 7 Tribune editorial does not reflect my experience as a farmer participating in the IL-EATS program.

The IL-EATS program has been the single largest catalyst of growth for DuChick Ranch LLC, a small farm that my wife and I launched in 2019.

Last fall, Eastern Illinois Foodbank reached out to us about purchasing our chicken through IL-EATS for families in need that it serves in 18 counties.

We jumped at the opportunity, knowing that the healthy, local food we produce would end up in the hands of our neighbors facing hunger. We invested in critical infrastructure to more than double our production, storage and distribution capacity.

There was initially a delay in the program rollout. In fact, I was quoted in a March 25 Tribune article, “Food program delays have farmers anxious,” because I was anxious as our cold storage filled up and costs were rising.

That all changed when we made our first delivery to the food bank. Later this month, we will make our fourth. We expect to deliver more than 19,000 pounds to the food bank through the life of the program.

In March, Central Illinois Foodbank in Springfield also reached out to us.

As a beginning farm, we weren’t prepared for the demand, but like every farmer I know, we did whatever we had to do to meet the needs of our neighbors. We rapidly secured additional means of production. We expect to deliver more than 8,000 pounds to of chicken to the Central Illinois Foodbank that will reach the 21 counties it serves.

The program is a game-changing opportunity for our small 2-acre farm. The fair prices for our product through IL-EATS provided the capital for us to scale up production. In the long run, we’re in a better position to compete in wholesale markets, in addition to continuing to serve our loyal local and farmers market customers.

I thank Gov. J.B. Pritzker, the Illinois Department of Agriculture, the Illinois Department of Human Services, and University of Illinois Extension for the work they’ve done to get this new program running that has allowed farmers like us to be part of serving our community.

I’m thankful to the food banks that have trusted our family to feed so many others.

— Ed Dubrick, DuChick Ranch, Cissna Park

IL-EATS an empowering program

The IL-EATS program could not have come at a better time. The initiative has provided healthy, fresh, local vegetables, fruits, proteins and dairy products to neighbors who are food-insecure and may not have been able to afford these nutritious items otherwise. In just over two months, DeKalb County Community Gardens has collaborated with 12 local farmers who have provided items such as ground beef, pork, yogurt, sour cream, collards, kale, chard, lettuce, asparagus, radishes, kohlrabi, flour and eggs. For vegetables harvested by a local farmer one day to be at a food pantry the next day is a welcome change. DeKalb County Community Gardens has partnered with more than 20 local service organizations that have distributed those items to neighbors facing food insecurity.

The positive impact of these funds on farmers, food pantries and individuals facing food insecurity has been both humbling and inspiring. We heard “that flour made the best cookies I’ve ever tasted” and “thank you for supporting a small grower like me.” This program offers an outlet for excess product, the chance for expansion and the chance at going full time for those just starting out. All of our partners have benefited.

As a small nonprofit, we are grateful that the state allowed smaller organizations the opportunity to be a lead agency in this effort. This program has empowered us to be a change-maker in our community, leveraging years of experience in food advocacy. I am proud to be part of this program and witness the difference it has made in our community, and I urge our local leaders to recognize the importance of this program.

With support, we can ensure IL-EATS will grow in its effectiveness and impact in the years to come. Thank you to everyone involved in this program. Your dedication and compassion are truly making a difference.

— Heather Edwards, executive director, DeKalb County Community Gardens

Growing the local food system

Farmers Rising is a nonprofit dedicated to building local food systems through farmer training and consumer education. We are also an IL-EATS lead agency chosen to administer the program in Boone and Winnebago counties.

As mentioned in the June 7 editorial, our farmers, community partners and organization have been adversely affected by IL-EATS’ slow rollout and funding delays. Since the first week in May, however, we’ve purchased and paid for $65,000 of fresh food, including 4,700 dozen eggs and 4,200 pounds of chicken, yogurt, sour cream, cornmeal and fresh vegetables, all grown by small, independent farmers in northern Illinois. Our farmers’ cash flow has improved dramatically, and our pantry partners are thrilled.

One pantry volunteer shared that our food deliveries are saving the pantry thousands of dollars in food purchases, which it can now spend on other important household items such as laundry detergent and toiletries. Another stated their clients regularly ask for dairy products and how wonderful it feels to finally be able to fulfill those requests.

Week by week, more products are becoming available, farmer experiences are improving, and more and more Illinois-grown food is flowing from local farms to food-insecure families.

IL-EATS is growing the local food system in tangible ways, in real time. I look forward to the Tribune Editorial Board’s follow-up editorial that focuses less on Illinois politics and instead celebrates the transformative, long-term impacts that come about by investing in our socially disadvantaged farmers and local food economies.

— Jackie de Batista, executive director, Farmers Rising

Bill would harm hemp industry

We are writing on behalf of hundreds of Illinois hemp businesses that have invested tens of millions of dollars to provide safe, quality products to millions of people and pets throughout the state. We support the Tribune Editorial Board’s call for regulation of hemp products and businesses to protect the health and safety of children and consumers (“Hemp can get you high. Illinois needs to better protect its minors.” June 2). We appreciate the editorial’s recognition that adult consumers want access to our products and that there is room for compromise, ensuring safety without killing Illinois businesses and thousands of jobs in a vibrant and diverse industry that includes many people of color and immigrants.

As operators of reputable hemp businesses, our main focus is on hemp products, and we take the legitimacy of the hemp industry seriously. We take safety precautions such as careful testing and labeling and limiting sales to consumers older than 21. And, for the last several years, many of us have been advocating for strict regulation and taxation of intoxicating hemp products, as well as prudent health and safety measures for non-intoxicating CBD products. We worked with legislators and put forward comprehensive legislation to ensure the safe manufacture and sale of our products while leveling the competitive playing field between hemp and licensed cannabis.

Unfortunately, for two spring legislative sessions now, rather than being included in fair negotiations, we have been brought to the table only to be told that all our businesses — and many others — would be banned. Most recently, as House Bill 4293 was pushed through the Illinois Senate at the last minute, our concerns were ignored, even when we correctly pointed out that this bill is so broad and punitive that it would effectively ban the sale of all manufactured hemp products, including non-intoxicating CBD lotions, cosmetics and pet products.

H.B. 4293 would destroy the hemp industry and ignore the needs of millions of hemp consumers in Illinois. It would shutter storefronts, as well as manufacturing and distribution facilities across the state. At the same time, it does nothing to address unsafe hemp products being shipped across our border, favoring our out-of-state competitors. But more than any other interest group, H.B. 4293 favors multibillion-dollar cannabis companies. This approach is neither fair nor effective.

We stand ready to negotiate a solution based on facts rather than fearmongering. We urge state officials to act as honest brokers in this process.

— Jennifer Weiss, Cubbington’s Cabinet, Chicago; DJ Loeffelholz, River Bluff Cannabis, East Dubuque, Illinois; and Anna Ward, Stoney Branch Farms, Rushville, Illinois

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

But in too many parts of the city, the picture-perfect conditions belied harrowing periods of violence and fear.

Ten people were shot and killed over the weekend in Chicago and more than 30 were wounded by gunfire, according to a Chicago Sun-Times report.

The mayhem wasn’t concentrated in a few particular neighborhoods; it was widely dispersed, from the Far North Side to the Far South Side and places in between. It was the third weekend in a row, beginning with Memorial Day weekend, that more than 30 people suffered gunshot wounds.

We’ve heard much so far in 2024 about how murders are down. Through June 2, the decline compared with the same period last year was 15%.

But this past weekend reminded any of those who needed reminding that violent crime in Chicago continues to be a scourge and that victory over this plague is very far off indeed. It is said that no one celebrates summer more joyfully than Chicagoans. How distressingly ironic then that over the past several years virtually every summer weekend in Chicago has become effectively a set of tragedies in waiting.

People are being shot attending backyard barbecues. People are being shot getting a nighttime bite to eat at fast-food restaurants, including two men eating inside a Loop restaurant a little after midnight on Saturday who were hit by someone shooting from outside the eatery. People are being shot driving on the expressway.

Mayor Brandon Johnson says Chicago can’t “arrest its way” out of the crime epidemic and espouses attacking the “root causes” of violent crime, saying that investing more in low-income neighborhoods will give potential criminals more enticing alternatives to a life of crime. But even a mayor who in his previous career espoused “defunding” the police knows now that law enforcement has its role to play. Most reasonable people can agree that both stronger enforcement and more resources for deprived parts of the city must both play a role in improving this deplorable situation.

In the meantime, though, all Chicagoans should be able to agree not to rationalize or make excuses for those who make our summer weekends something to be dreaded rather than celebrated and savored.

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