Maryland Gov. Wes Moore vetoes slavery reparations study, citing need for 'the work itself'
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — Maryland Gov. Wes Moore announced Friday he will veto a measure to create a commission to study potential slavery reparations in the state, saying that while it was a difficult decision, the issue already has been studied and now is the time 'to focus on the work itself.'
Moore, a Democrat who is the state's first Black governor and the only Black governor currently serving, wrote in his veto letter that he applauded the legislature's work on the bill.
'But in light of the many important studies that have taken place on this issue over nearly three decades, now is the time to focus on the work itself: Narrowing the racial wealth gap, expanding homeownership, uplifting entrepreneurs of color, and closing the foundational disparities that lead to inequality — from food insecurity to education,' Moore wrote.
The governor also noted in his veto letter that Black politicians have risen to the highest levels of government in the state in recent years. For example, U.S. Senator Angela Alsobrooks is the state's first Black U.S. senator. Maryland also has a Black attorney general, a Black state House speaker and a Black treasurer.
'We have moved in partnership with leaders across the state to uplift Black families and address racial disparities in our communities,' Moore wrote. 'That is the context in which I've made this difficult decision. Because while I appreciate the work that went into this legislation, I strongly believe now is not the time for another study. Now is the time for continued action that delivers results for the people we serve.'
Reparations were a legislative priority
The bill was introduced in this year's legislative session as a top priority of the Legislative Black Caucus, which, with 66 members, is the largest Black caucus in the nation's state legislatures.
The caucus released a statement Friday night expressing deep disappointment in the governor's veto.
'At a time when the White House and Congress are actively targeting Black communities, dismantling diversity initiatives, and using harmful coded language, Governor Moore had a chance to show the country and the world that here in Maryland we boldly and courageously recognize our painful history and the urgent need to address it,' the caucus said in the statement. 'Instead, the State's first Black governor chose to block this historic legislation that would have moved the state toward directly repairing the harm of enslavement.'
The measure passed with strong support in the General Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats. The House voted 101-36 for the bill, and the Senate approved it 32-13. Both chambers approved the measure with margins large enough to override a veto, if all members who voted for the bill decided to vote to override the governor's veto.
The legislature ended its regular 90-day session last month, and it would not take up veto overrides until lawmakers gather again, whether next year's regularly scheduled 90-day session in January, or a special session this year, if one were to be called.
The governor's veto was one among 23 announced by the governor late Friday afternoon.
'The Senate will closely evaluate each veto from the Governor's Office and have more details on possible action in the near future,' said David Schuhlein, a spokesman for Senate President Bill Ferguson.
House Speaker Adrienne Jones issued a statement specifically on the governor's veto of creating the commission, saying 'I am proud of all our work during the 2025 session and grateful to lead a state that has always put these issues at the forefront of our policy discussions.'
'The work is not done, and I remain committed to working alongside all our partners to continue righting historical inequities,' the speaker, a Democrat, added.
Reparations remain an ongoing issue
Potential reparations outlined in the bill included official statements of apology, monetary compensation, property tax rebates, social service assistance, as well as licensing and permit fee waivers and reimbursement. Reparations also could include assistance with making a down payment on a home, business incentives, childcare, debt forgiveness and tuition payment waivers for higher education.
The governor wrote in his veto letter that over the last 25 years, Maryland has launched several commissions and study groups to examine the legacy of slavery in the state, from the Maryland Lynching Truth and Reconciliation Commission to the State Commission to Coordinate the Study, Commemoration, and Impact of the History and Legacy of Slavery in Maryland.
'The scholarship on this topic is both vast in scope and robust in scale,' Moore wrote. 'And we are grateful for the Marylanders who have contributed their expertise to the vital project of understanding how the legacy of slavery continues to impact Black communities in our state today.'
Last year, California lawmakers passed some of the nation's most ambitious legislation aimed at atoning for a legacy of racist policies that drove racial disparities for Black people. None of the bills provided widespread direct payments to Black Americans. Instead, California lawmakers approved the return of land or compensation to families whose property was unjustly seized by the government, and issuing a formal apology.
New York City lawmakers approved legislation last year to study the city's significant role in slavery and consider reparations to descendants of enslaved people.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Factbox-Breakdown of U.S. tariffs on China since Trump's first term
BEIJING (Reuters) -Billions of dollars of Chinese goods have been impacted by additional U.S. tariffs since 2018, initially under the first Donald Trump presidency and later under the Biden administration. Returning to the White House this year, Trump has imposed even more duties on China. The U.S. tariffs range from those imposed under Section 301 of its trade act due to what Washington claims are unfair Chinese trade practices, to duties under Section 232 levied for national security reasons. This year, Trump has imposed another 20% levies on all Chinese goods, saying Beijing has not done enough to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States. So-called reciprocal tariffs, under which the U.S. will match duties imposed by other countries, have also been levied in a bid to rebalance trade flows. Below are the U.S. tariffs on China effective as of June 12, 2025: Tariff Rate Products Effective date Reciprocal 10% All Paused for 90 days until Aug 10, 2025 Fentanyl 20% All Mar 4, 2025 Section Up to List 1: Pharmaceuticals, July 6, 2018 301 25% iron and steel, aluminium, vehicles and aircraft, medical or surgical instruments and apparatus and more. List 2: Vehicles, Aug 23, 2018 railway or tramway locomotives, aircraft and their parts, medical or surgical instruments and apparatus and more. List 3: Prepared May 10, 2019 foodstuffs, beverages, mineral products, fertilizers, wood products, textiles, precious and base metals, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, machinery and mechanical appliances and more. List 4A: Prepared Feb 14, 2020 foodstuffs, beverages, mineral products, fertilizers, footwear, wood products, ceramic products, glass, textiles, precious and base metals, machinery and mechanical appliances, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, art, antiques and more. In September 2019, the U.S. imposed 15% tariffs on more than $120 billion of Chinese goods under Section 301, which it then halved to 7.5% less than six months later. The 25% U.S. tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese goods under the earlier List 1-3 remain unchanged. In September 2024, the U.S. Trade Representative under the Biden administration announced additional tariffs of 25-100% on 14 product groups following a four-year review of the Section 301 tariff actions. The levies were imposed on strategic Chinese sectors or sectors where the United States has made significant domestic investments. Additional tariffs on goods under Section 301: Effective date EVs 100% Sep 27, 2024 Solar cells, syringes and 50% needles Non-lithium-ion battery parts, 25% lithium-ion electrical vehicle batteries, other critical minerals, ship-to-shore cranes, steel and aluminium products, facemasks Semiconductors 50% Jan 1, 2025 Lithium-ion non-electrical 25% Jan 1, 2026 vehicle batteries, medical gloves, natural graphite, permanent magnets In addition to the above duties, the first Trump administration in 2018 imposed a range of tariffs under Section 232 aimed at restricting goods deemed a threat to national security, including all aluminium and steel imports, shutting most Chinese suppliers out of the U.S. market. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Why Trump's move toward using the military on US soil is so fraught
The country hangs on a hugely significant precipice, as President Donald Trump moves toward making good on his long-running suggestions of an extraordinary step: deploying the military on US soil. About 700 Marines have now been mobilized to join the National Guard in Los Angeles to deal with demonstrations over federal immigration raids, CNN reports. The Marines were previously on 'ready to deploy' status. (It is still unclear what their specific task will be once in Los Angeles, sources told CNN. And like the National Guard troops, they are prohibited from conducting law enforcement activity such as making arrests unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act.) But to hear the White House tell it, this show of force is not just the right thing to do but also a political winner. Responding to a poll showing 54% of Americans approved of Trump's deportation program, White House spokesman Steven Cheung wrote on X Sunday, 'And the approval number will be even higher after the national guard was sent to LA to beat back the violence this weekend.' But whether the American people actually want this military activation isn't nearly so clear. In fact, they've rejected such things in the past. The administration may be making a huge gamble on the American people's tolerance for a heavy-handed federal response. And while Americans might not have much sympathy for the demonstrators in Los Angeles who engage in violence or for undocumented immigrants, recent surveys have shown they often say Trump goes too far in his attempts to address such problems. There is something of an analog for the current situation. It came in 2020 when federal law enforcement suddenly moved to clear Lafayette Square, near the White House, of racial justice demonstrators, resulting in violent scenes. This wasn't the military, but it was controversial – in part because Trump then walked across the square with military leaders for a photo-op. (Then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper also resisted Trump's suggestions of using active-duty military at the time.) The American people did not like what they saw. A USA Today/Ipsos poll conducted a week later showed 63% of Americans opposed the use of rubber bullets and tear gas that day. It also showed Americans opposed deploying military forces in other states by 10 points, 51-41%. Similarly a CNN poll conducted by SSRS at the time asked a broader question – whether it would be appropriate for a president to 'deploy the U.S. military in response to protests in the United States.' Americans said this would be 'inappropriate' by a wide margin, 60-36%. All of which suggest Americans are predisposed to viewing such actions skeptically. These numbers come with caveats, though. The CNN poll question is a great window into how this could be received. But it's possible people's views have shifted or could shift with circumstances, including the role the Marines end up playing in Los Angeles. Back in 2020, the racial justice protests were relatively popular, and people didn't view them as particularly violent. Americans sympathized with the cause, believing George Floyd had been murdered by police. It's too early to tell how people view the demonstrators in Los Angeles. And the plight of the undocumented immigrants whom the administration is trying to deport is probably less sympathetic than the racial justice protesters' cause. (Clear majorities generally support deporting undocumented immigrants, who are in this country without authorization.) But when it comes to the administration's immigration crackdown, Americans have also expressed nuanced feelings. And the poll the White House cited this weekend is a case in point. In the CBS News/YouGov survey, which was conducted before Saturday's protests broke out in Los Angeles, Americans said they approved of Trump's deportation program, 54-46%. They also liked its 'goals,' 55-45%. But that's not quite the same as saying they approved of the administration's actions, full stop. The same poll asked whether people liked 'the way you think [Trump] is going about' the deportations. And there, Americans actually disliked his approach by double-digits, 56-44%. While independents were about evenly split on Trump's deportation program, they disliked how he's gone about it by 30 points , 65-35%. This is a dichotomy we see in lots of polling of Trump's deportation actions. Americans like the idea of mass deportation, but not so much the implementation. They like the president a lot on securing the border. But they like him significantly less on 'immigration,' and they like him even less when 'deportation,' specifically, is invoked in the question. One possible reason: Americans see the administration moving haphazardly. That could most notably be the case with things like deporting the wrong people and actions that have been halted by the courts, including ones in which judges have said people haven't been given enough due process. It's possible that people could come to sympathize with the cause of the Los Angeles protesters – if not the violent ones – at least to some degree. While Americans generally favor mass deportation, those numbers decline significantly when you mention the prospect of deporting otherwise-law-abiding people with jobs and those who have been in this country for a long time. (For example, a recent Pew Research Center poll showed Americans opposed deporting undocumented immigrants who have jobs, 56-41%, and they opposed deporting the parents of US citizen children 60-37%.) But the raids that set off the protests have been directed at workplaces generally – not necessarily at criminals or gang members. The Department of Homeland Security has claimed at least five of the people arrested during Sunday immigration sweeps in Los Angeles had criminal convictions or were accused of crimes. Through it all, the administration has made a rather Machiavellian political calculation: that however much people dislike the means, their support for the ends will carry the day. Maybe people say they don't like the lack of due process the administration has provided – or the wrong people getting sent to a brutal Salvadoran prison – but how much do they really care if the end result is lots of deportations? Similarly, the administration could be making the calculation that scenes of violence in Los Angeles could marshal support for a previously unthinkable step of deploying the military domestically against protesters – something Americans opposed by 24 points just five years ago. So much depends on what the Marines end up doing in Los Angeles and whether Trump invokes the Insurrection Act to allow them to engage in policing activities. But the Trump administration has clearly gone too far for people before as part of their deportation efforts. And the one big crackdown on protesters we have seen in the Trump era didn't go well. This would appear pretty fraught – not just practically, but politically.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Albuquerque City Council votes down ‘RENT' ordinance
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) – Albuquerque city councilors voted against a proposed set of regulations aimed at addressing poor housing conditions and unfair rental practices. The Renter's Empowerment and Neighborhood Transparent ordinance would protect tenants from hidden fees, housing instability, and unresponsive landlords. Rio Rancho City Council to decide fate of nuisance home Landlords showed up in numbers to Wednesday night's zoning meetings saying the ordinance unfairly punishes landlords. 'The real person who's being hurt by this is only the homeowner and the housing provider that is actually trying to do something good for our community and give somebody somewhere to live. The false narrative that all housing owners are villains is so hurtful to our community,' said Josh Price. Renters in support said the ordinance is a game changer. 'As somebody who speaks to renters every day, I know that there are horrors in the living conditions in the way that we live and we are extremely far behind in housing law. In a lot the things that are in this bill are already things that are law in a lot of other places,' said Adrianna Wake. The bill died on a 3-2 vote. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
