Illinois residents could get reparations if a new bill is passed
Ill. (WTVO) — Companies in Illinois with historical ties to slavery could have to pay reparations to residents.
Illinois's Chicago Representative Sonya Harper has named the legislation the .
The plan would require corporations to provide a statement regarding contributions to a redress fund that would go to the black community.
The city of is the first in the nation to take part in a reparations program. The city provides reparations to black residents in cash for past unfair treatment and practices.
The program is being challenged in court.
Harper gave a straightforward description of what the bill would accomplish.
'This is an effort to pay those who were enslaved family members their share of reparations for the harm their family members endured during slavery,' Harper said during a news conference Tuesday.
The Illinois Office of Equity would be in charge of overseeing the redress ordinance.
'If we are going to be honest today, our honesty requires us to look truthfully at the American story and reshape it to its actual facts so that people will know that you are not giving us a handout,' said Illinois's Urbana Representative Carol Ammons. 'You're giving us what is deserved to those who are descendants of the enslaved.'
The bill would also provide notices for public hearings about the disclosures.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
The number of Americans filing for jobless claims last week remains at the highest level in 8 months
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. filings for jobless benefits were unchanged last week, remaining at the higher end of recent ranges as uncertainty over the impact of trade wars lingers. New applications for jobless benefits numbered 248,000 for the week ending June 7, the Labor Department said Thursday. Analysts had forecast 244,000 new applications. A week ago, there were 248,000 jobless claim applications, which was the most since early October and a sign that layoffs could be trending higher. Weekly applications for jobless benefits are considered representative of U.S. layoffs and have mostly bounced around a historically healthy range between 200,000 and 250,000 since COVID-19 throttled the economy five years ago, wiping out millions of jobs. In reporting their latest earnings, many companies have either trimmed their sales and profit expectations for 2025 or not issued guidance at all, often citing President Donald Trump's dizzying rollout of tariff announcements. Though Trump has paused or dialed down many of his tariff threats, concerns remain that a tariff-induced global economic slowdown could sabotage what's been a robust U.S. labor market. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has said the potential for both higher unemployment and inflation are elevated, an unusual combination that complicates the central bank's dual mandate of controlling prices and keeping unemployment low. Powell said that tariffs have dampened consumer and business sentiment. In early May, the Federal Reserve held its benchmark lending rate at 4.3% for the third straight meeting after cutting it three times at the end of last year. Last week, the Labor Department reported that U.S. employers slowed their hiring in May, but still added a solid 139,000 jobs despite uncertainty over Trump's trade wars. In a separate report last week, Labor reported that U.S. job openings rose unexpectedly in April, but other data suggested that Americans are less optimistic about the labor market. The report showed that the number of Americans quitting their jobs — a sign of confidence in their prospects — fell, while layoffs ticked higher. In another sign the job market has cooled from the hiring boom of 2021-2023, the government reported one job for every unemployed person. As recently as December 2022, there were two vacancies for every jobless American. The government has estimated that the U.S. economy shrank at a 0.2% annual pace in the first quarter of 2025, a slight upgrade from its first estimate. Growth was slowed by a surge in imports as companies in the U.S. tried to bring in foreign goods before Trump's massive tariffs went into effect. Trump is attempting to reshape the global economy by dramatically increasing import taxes to rejuvenate the U.S. manufacturing sector. The president has also tried to drastically downsize the federal government workforce, but many of those cuts are being challenged in the courts and Congress. On Wednesday, Google confirmed that it had offered buyouts to another swath of its workforce in a fresh round of cost-cutting ahead of a court decision that could order a breakup of its internet empire. Other companies that have announced job cuts this year include Procter & Gamble, Workday, Dow, CNN, Starbucks, Southwest Airlines, Microsoft and Facebook parent company Meta. The government's report on Thursday also showed that the four-week average of jobless claims, which evens out some of the weekly ups and downs during more volatile stretches, rose by 5,000 to 240,250. The total number of Americans receiving unemployment benefits for the week of May 31 jumped by 54,000 to 1.96 million, the most since November of 2021.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Greeted With Boos, Cheers, Drag Queen Parade During First Visit to Kennedy Center For ‘Les Misérables' Performance
After appointing himself chair of the Kennedy Center and replacing its board members with loyalists, President Donald Trump's first-ever visit to the revered Washington, D.C. cultural center on Wednesday night (June 11) was likely not the warm welcome he expected. Taking his seat for the opening night of Les Misérables, the Associated Press reported that Trump was met with a mix of cheers and boos, as well as an unexpected parade of drag queens who sashayed past the first couple, seemingly in protest of Trump's previous vow of 'NO MORE DRAG SHOWS, OR OTHER ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA.' In addition, a dozen performers — from major cast members to ensemble performers — planned to sit out the show after being given the option not to perform on the night Trump was in the house to enjoy what he has said is one of his favorite musicals. The show about 19th century France features a song Trump has played at his rallies in the past, 'Do You Hear the People Sing?,' a revolutionary anthem inspired by the 1832 rebellion against King Louis-Phillipe of France. More from Billboard DJ Akademiks Denies Taking Payola From Drake During Kendrick Battle Raekwon and Ghostface Killah Release Trailer for 'Only Built 4 Cuban Linx' Documentary SEVENTEEN Have a Good Time Being a 'Bad Influence' in Futuristic Video For Pharrell-Produced Single The song's stirring lyrics about rising up against oppressive regimes has often been employed at pro-democracy protests around the globe, and on Wednesday one patron reportedly shouted 'Viva Los Angeles' as Trump left the presidential box for intermission, a seeming reference to the now nearly week-long protests in that city over the administration's immigration raids. In his second term, Trump — who admittedly had never attended a performance at the Kennedy Center in his first term, or ever — has swiftly moved to remake the organization in his own image. After installing himself as chairman of the Center, Trump also placed a number of loyalists on the typically non-partisan board and vowed to remove 'woke' shows from the roster. Subsequently, nearly two dozen events have been canceled or postponed, a number out of protest at Trump's takeover, including Hamilton, the National Youth Poet Laureate Commemoration, Saigon Nights, as well as shows by Peter Wolf, Low Cut Connie, Rhiannon Giddens, Issa Rae and many more. The AP reported that the show that tackles themes of protest, power, injustice and poverty featured the sounds of explosions and gunfire, with civilians clashing with soldiers on stage at the very same time that Los Angeles was put under curfew after protesters battled with police over immigration raids by ICE for a sixth day following Trump's call-up of Marines and National Guard troops to quell the protests. 'Someone explain the plot to him,' California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X. In March, Vice President J.D. Vance and wife Usha were booed when they attended a performance by the National Symphony Orchestra and the AP also noted that sales of subscription packages have reportedly declined since the Trump makeover. CNN also reported that while some cheered and clapped for Trump and First Lady Melania Trump as they stood up at the end of the first act, one woman in the orchestra section below shouted, 'Felon, you're a convicted felon!' to the first U.S. president to take the office after being convicted of a felony. The women then added, 'Convicted felon, rapist!' before a security guard seemed to escort her out; Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation in 2023 in a suit filed by writer E. Jean Carroll and in 2024 was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in an attempt to conceal hush money payments to porn actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. In addition, as the crowd awaited Trump's return to his seat, another person reportedly yelled, 'F–k Trump! to cheers, while a supportive patron responded with 'We love you.' The president seemingly reacted to the comments by pumping his first three times — reminiscent of his response after an assassination attempt last year in Pennsylvania in which a gunman fired at the then-candidate and nicked his ear. Check out the mixed reaction to Trump's Kennedy Center attendance below. Best of Billboard Chart Rewind: In 1989, New Kids on the Block Were 'Hangin' Tough' at No. 1 Janet Jackson's Biggest Billboard Hot 100 Hits H.E.R. & Chris Brown 'Come Through' to No. 1 on Adult R&B Airplay Chart
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israel's Least Bad Option Is a Trump Deal With Iran
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Updated June 12, 2025, 8:20a.m. Having once described Donald Trump as Israel's 'greatest friend ever,' Benjamin Netanyahu must be watching with some consternation as the American president enthusiastically pursues a nuclear deal with Iran. After all, the Israeli prime minister made every effort to stop the Obama administration's Iran deal in 2015. Trump exited that deal in 2018, perhaps partially at Netanyahu's urging. And now Trump is pursuing a deal of his own—his administration has even dropped a number of Iran hawks from its ranks, in what one pro-Israel D.C. outlet described as a 'purge.' But Israel's leaders shouldn't fear a new Iran nuclear deal. They may even find reasons to welcome it: Among a host of bad options for curbing Iran's nuclear program and pacifying a volatile region, a nuclear agreement between Trump and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be the least bad option for Israel, too. The need for a solution became more pressing just today, as the United Nations nuclear watchdog's board of governors has found Iran in violation of its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years—a possible prelude to the resumption of significant U.N. sanctions against Iran. American and European officials say that Israel is preparing a military strike against Iran, and the U.S. has moved some of its personnel out of the region in preparation. The Iranian foreign ministry described the U.N. watchdog report as political and said that it will establish a new enrichment center 'in a secure location.' No strike is likely to happen before the next round of talks on Sunday. And both the U.S. and Iran have compelling reasons to want a deal to stick. The Trump administration, stymied in Ukraine and Gaza, could use a foreign-policy win, and the Iranian regime, having lost its regional proxy power, would prefer to avoid military strikes on its nuclear facilities and to see some sanctions lifted. On Thursday, Trump called Iranian 'good negotiators' who were 'tough' and said the US was 'trying to make a deal so that there's no destruction and death.' Any agreement will require the two sides to reach an accord about whether Iran should maintain a capacity to enrich uranium on its own soil. The U.S., together with Israel, has strongly objected to any such prospect. 'WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!' Trump wrote on Truth Social on June 2. The Iranians insist on it—and, for their part, are playing a game of reverse psychology: 'This Guy Has No Will for a Deal,' read a headline in the semiofficial Tehran Times on June 7, referencing Trump. But both sides have compelling reasons to want these talks to come to something. The Trump administration, stymied in Ukraine and Gaza, could use a foreign-policy win, and the Iranian regime, having lost its regional proxy power, would prefer to avoid military strikes on its nuclear facilities and to see some sanctions lifted. Steven Witkoff, the Trump administration's top negotiator, has proffered a plan that reportedly suggests outsourcing Iran's uranium enrichment to a regional consortium. The enrichment would be for civilian purposes, and the consortium would include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and possibly Qatar and Turkey. The idea is to remove the technical capacity from Iranian hands and internationalize the process. Whether this consortium would do its work on Iranian soil or elsewhere, however, is not clear. And as Richard Nephew, an American diplomat who helped negotiate the 2015 nuclear deal, told me, this is the nub of the issue—'centrifuges in Iran'—in relation to which 'a consortium is window-dressing.' [Read: Trump's real secretary of state] Mostafa Najafi, a Tehran-based expert close to Iran's security establishment, told me that Iran has 'seriously studied' Washington's consortium proposal and could accept it only if at least some enrichment were to be done on Iranian soil. One option might be to use Iran's islands in the Persian Gulf for this purpose, he added. These are part of Iran but geographically close to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and therefore easier to monitor than the mainland. For Israel, the matter of where the enrichment happens is nonnegotiable. 'Israel would be willing to accept the consortium solution only if it is located outside of Iran, a condition that Iran, of course, will not accept,' Raz Zimmt, the head of the Iran program at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, told me. 'This is Israel's official stance, and it enjoys near-unanimous support across the Israeli political spectrum.' The reasons for this are understandable: Iran's leaders, unlike many of their counterparts in the region, have never embraced a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and instead continue to clamor for the destruction of Israel. Just last month, Khamenei called Israel 'a cancerous, dangerous, and deadly tumor that must be removed from the region and it will be.' Israeli leaders are worried that a deal with Iran will not go far enough in disabling it from acting on its animus against Israel. In fact, hard-line Israelis cannot envision a solution to the Iranian nuclear problem that doesn't involve the total dismantlement of its centrifuges and expatriation of its uranium. That's because the means to weaponize are already there. Even those, including Nephew, who advocate for a new deal caution that Iran's enrichment capacity has increased in the seven years since Trump left the 2015 agreement. Iran now has enough enriched uranium that if it sought to weaponize, it could build as many as 10 atomic weapons. Even if it shipped that stockpile elsewhere, the country would still have its advanced centrifuges. With these, experts say, Iran could hold on to just 5 percent of its current stockpile and still be able to enrich enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb inside of a month, and four bombs' worth in two months. Given this reality, according to Zimmt, the Israeli government believes that it is running out of time to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And to this end, he told me, 'Israel clearly prefers no deal over a bad deal,' because without a deal, military strikes become thinkable. Many in Israel see such a confrontation as the best option—even though Iran's nuclear facilities are spread across its territory, and some are buried deep underground, making any military campaign likely to be drawn-out, complicated, and hazardous. The analysts I spoke with did not see much lasting good coming of such an assault. Nephew noted that the setback to Iran's nuclear program would likely be temporary and said that Israel would be 'infinitely better off with a good deal.' Gregory Brew, an analyst with the Eurasia Group, pointed out that Iran's regional proxies have been so weakened that Israel is in a particularly strong position at the moment. A negotiated settlement to the nuclear question could allow Israel to build on its advantage by pursuing closer ties to Arab states. This 'would be a win for Israeli security and the region as a whole,' Brew said. Back in 2015, the Arab states of the Gulf region were leery of a U.S.-Iran nuclear deal. They had poor relations with Iran and worried that an agreement might exclude their interests. Now those relations have softened, and most of the Gulf states are eager for an arrangement that could cool the region's tempers. Their support for diplomacy should be good news for Israel, which already has diplomatic, trade, and military ties with two Gulf countries (the UAE and Bahrain). The Saudis have conditioned normalization on Israel's allowing for a Palestinian state, but their language is pragmatic—Riyadh's overwhelming interest appears to be in economic development, which regional conflict only undermines. A nuclear deal that draws in the Gulf states would undoubtedly serve to better integrate Iran into the region's economy. Some in Israel may balk at this idea, preferring to see Iran isolated. But there is a case to be made that giving Iran a stake in regional peace and stability would do more to de-radicalize its foreign policy than caging it has done. Some in Israel remain skeptical. 'I don't believe that Saudi or Emirati participation in the deal carries any real significance,' Zimmt said. 'It's not something that would reassure Israel, certainly not before normalization with Saudi Arabia, and not even necessarily afterward.' Other Israeli critics of Trump and Witkoff chastise them for mistaking the ideologically driven actors of the Middle East for transactional pragmatists like themselves. [Daniel Byman: Trump is making Netanyahu nervous] But leaders and peoples—in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Damascus, Beirut—have grown tired of wars around religion and ideology, and many are ready to pursue development instead. This explains why Syria's new leaders have embraced Trump and promised not to fight Israel. Iran is not immune to this new regional mood. Iranian elites have reason to fear that the failure of talks will bring about devastating military strikes. But they also have reason to hope that the lifting of sanctions, and even a partial opening for the country's beleaguered economy, will be a boon to some of the moneyed interests close to the regime. Najafi told me that Iran already has a shared interest with Arabs in trying to avoid a confrontation between Israel and Iran: 'Arabs know that any military action by Israel against Iran could destroy their grand developmental projects in the region,' he said. I've talked with Iranian elites for years. Most of them have no interest in Islamism or any other ideology. They send their sons and daughters to study in American and Swiss universities, not to Shiite seminaries in Iraq or Lebanon. Khamenei's zealotry is very unlikely to outlive him in Iran's highest echelons of power. A diplomatic deal, however flawed, will not only curtail Iran's nuclear program but also put the country on a path defined by its economic and pragmatic interests. A more regionally integrated Iran is likely to be much less belligerent, as it will have relations with the Saudis and Emiratis to maintain. The regime will likely be forced to drop many of its revolutionary pretensions, as it already has toward Saudi Arabia: Iran once considered the kingdom illegitimate, but it now goes out of its way to maintain good ties with Riyadh. Although this might sound unthinkable today, ultimately the regime will have to drop its obsession with Israel as well, for the same pragmatic reason that Arab countries have done in the past. The alternative to a deal is an extensive military campaign—most likely, a direct war between Iran and Israel—with unpredictable consequences. The notion that such a confrontation would lead to positive political change in Iran is a fantasy. Just as likely, the regime will hunker down under duress, prolonging its hold on power. This is why even the most pro-Israel figures in the Iranian opposition, such as former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, oppose military strikes on Iran. Iran's population harbors very little hostility to Israel. A group of student activists recently tried to organize an anti-Israel rally at the University of Tehran, but only a couple of dozen people joined them, a small fraction of those who have turned out for rallies in Cairo, Amman, or New York City. But a direct war that costs Iranian civilian lives would easily change this. The future of Iran and Israel does not need to lie in hostility. That's why a deal that keeps Iran from going nuclear and avoids military strikes is the least bad option for everyone. Article originally published at The Atlantic
