Chesney Files Solo Bill to Eliminate DEI Programs Across Illinois

April 14, 2026 | Freeport, IL

Filed Alone—and Going Nowhere

On February 7, 2025, Andrew S. Chesney filed Senate Bill 2288. Since that day, the bill has seen no movement beyond its initial referral to the Senate Assignments Committee. No co-sponsors have joined the effort. No bipartisan support has emerged. Not a single Democrat has signed on, and notably, not a single Republican has stepped forward to support it either. For legislation of this scope, that absence is not just unusual—it is revealing. Major policy proposals are typically built long before they are filed, shaped through stakeholder input, aligned with political support, and introduced with a path forward. SB2288 was not. It arrived alone, and it has remained that way.

A Proposal Built on Elimination

The substance of the bill is as direct as its political positioning. SB2288 does not attempt to reform Illinois’ Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility framework; it seeks to remove it entirely. The legislation would prohibit any state agency from enforcing policies that favor or disadvantage individuals based on race, sex, or disability, a standard framed as government neutrality. It would require all departments to immediately abolish DEIA programs operating under the Office of Equity, eliminate the Office itself, and repeal the Commission on Equity and Inclusion Act, effectively dismantling the statutory and administrative foundation for diversity-focused hiring, contracting, and reporting across the state. There is no phase-out period, no transition structure, and no replacement model proposed. The system would simply end.

The Debate: Neutrality vs. Targeted Policy

The divide surrounding SB2288 is not about whether fairness matters, but how it is defined.

Supporters of the legislation argue that government should operate under strict neutrality, where decisions are made without regard to identity and where taxpayer-funded programs do not prioritize one group over another. From that perspective, DEI policies introduce imbalance into systems that should be based on qualifications, merit, and equal treatment under the law. Eliminating these programs, they argue, restores fairness by removing government from identity-based decision making.

Critics argue the opposite. They contend that DEI programs exist because disparities are real, measurable, and persistent, particularly in areas such as hiring, contracting, and economic opportunity. In their view, removing these programs does not create neutrality—it removes tools specifically designed to address inequality. Without those structures, they argue, existing gaps are more likely to widen than close.

Both sides claim fairness.

They simply define it differently.

The Cost Reality

While proposals to eliminate DEI programs are often framed as fiscal reform, the financial impact of SB2288 would be limited. Illinois’ DEI-related expenditures are distributed across agencies in the form of personnel, compliance requirements, and program administration rather than concentrated in a single budget line. Removing those components would likely result in savings in the low millions annually, a measurable but relatively small figure within a state budget that operates in the tens of billions. In practical terms, this is not a bill designed to address Illinois’ financial challenges. It is a policy decision, not a budget solution.

Local Impact: What It Means for Freeport

For communities like Freeport, the implications of SB2288 would extend beyond abstract policy debates and into tangible local effects. State-supported programs that currently encourage participation from minority-owned and disability-owned businesses in public contracting could be reduced or eliminated, potentially changing who has access to those opportunities. Workforce development initiatives tied to diversity goals could disappear, along with the reporting mechanisms that provide visibility into how resources are distributed. The result would likely be a system with fewer targeted structures and less data available to measure outcomes. Supporters would argue that such changes create a level playing field based strictly on qualifications, while critics would point to the loss of mechanisms designed to expand access in communities already facing economic strain. In a city like Freeport, where economic challenges are already present, that distinction carries real consequences.

Disability Programs: Access vs. Priority

The bill also raises important questions about how disability-related programs would be affected. Core protections and services tied to federal law, including those required under the Americans with Disabilities Act, would remain unchanged. Accessibility requirements such as handicap parking, wheelchair ramps, and mandated accommodations are not optional and could not be removed by state legislation. However, SB2288 introduces potential pressure on programs that extend beyond baseline access. State initiatives that prioritize individuals with disabilities in areas such as contracting, housing placement, or enhanced educational support could face scrutiny if they are interpreted as providing preferential treatment. While essential services would remain intact, programs built around targeted priority rather than universal access could be restructured, reduced, or eliminated, shifting the state’s approach from one of targeted support to one of generalized access.

Where It Stands

As of now, SB2288 remains in the Senate Assignments Committee, unchanged since the day it was filed. There have been no hearings, no amendments, and no indication of movement. In the legislative process, that is often where proposals without a clear path forward remain.

Analysis | Joshua T. Atkinson, Chairman – Fighting4Freeport

At some point, a pattern stops being coincidence and starts being strategy.

SB2288 is not just a bill—it is part of a broader trend. File the legislation. Make the statement. Send the message. And then let it sit. No coalition is built, no path forward is established, and no real effort is made to move the proposal through the legislative process. Because moving it was never the point.

This is what performative legislation looks like. It allows an elected official to point to a bill number and claim they are fighting for their constituents, without ever doing the work required to actually change policy. It creates headlines without outcomes, talking points without results, and activity without impact. And all of it is funded by taxpayers.

And the messaging is not accidental.

Bills like this are not about advancing Illinois forward—they are about feeding a narrative. A narrative that tells people their struggles are not the result of failed leadership, bad policy, or poor decision-making, but that they are the result of being treated unfairly by the system itself. It is a message designed to resonate emotionally, not to solve problems.

Because solving problems requires work. It requires building coalitions, negotiating legislation, and delivering results. None of that is happening here.

Instead, what we are seeing is a style of politics that thrives on grievance. Not solutions, not outcomes—grievance. A strategy that keeps people engaged by convincing them they are being wronged, rather than focusing on what can actually be done to improve their lives.

And that is how career politicians survive. Not by fixing problems—but by redefining them.

For communities like Freeport, that should matter. Because while messaging continues, the problems do not stop. Economic challenges remain. Opportunities are still limited. And the need for serious, effective leadership is not going away.

At some point, voters have to decide what they actually want.

Results—or rhetoric.