I’m neither a campaign strategist nor a likely primary voter, but nonetheless see an opportunity in Thursday’s Capitol News Illinois headline announcing the state will “withhold nearly $500M in spending, citing federal uncertainty.”

As Ben Szalinksi detailed, the peg is a memo from Alexis Sturm, director of the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget, essentially following up on a September executive order from Gov. JB Pritzker directing agencies to reserve 4% of their appropriated funds. The letter provided specific targets in General Fund line items for the current fiscal year to help address the way shifting federal policy affects Illinois and gives a slight preview of the Feb. 18 budget address.

“GOMB strongly encourages continued responsible fiscal management by each state agency as we navigate continued economic uncertainty and additional spending pressures,” she wrote. “The outlook for [fiscal] 2027 has not changed significantly since last fall. We expect that most agencies will not see their funding requests fulfilled – and continued fiscal management in [fiscal] 2026 will help ensure the ability of the state agencies to face the challenges expected over the next few years. Prioritizing and limiting hiring and other operational expenditures will be key.”

And here’s the strategic opening.

Anyone running for governor now has about four weeks to craft their own budget proposal for the next fiscal year and can do so in the context of Thursday’s memo. That means going deep into details.

The Department of Healthcare and Family Services is not going to move $200 million to the Healthcare Provider Relief Fund – since it should have enough to last through June 30 – which allows a candidate to clarify whether they endorse renewing that appropriation or if the program should shrink.

Higher education officials have repeatedly asked Pritzker to release $29.5 million in reserve funds lawmakers allocated in the current budget, but that money isn’t moving either. Should colleges and universities get that money, or is it better spent elsewhere?

Other plans to limit spending include tightening oversight of overtime and travel and keeping certain jobs unfilled. With those elements removed from the budget comes a chance to argue they should never be restored, especially if such claims carry supporting evidence in terms of dollars and sense.

The spending freezes Sturm detailed aren’t quite 1% of the $55.1 billion budget, and there is always uncertainty about exactly how much money will be available because the budget relies on projections rather than spending what the state actually collected in the prior year.

But those generalities are all the more reason for candidates to deliver specifics: tell voters exactly what needs to go and let them decide if they agree that any potential consequences are worth the savings.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.