Reparations Activists Criticize Democrat States for Broadening Scope Beyond Slavery Descendants

Activists with the grassroots organization the US Freedmen Project are voicing strong opposition to reparations initiatives in states like New York and New Jersey, asserting that these programs are expanding eligibility beyond direct descendants of enslaved people. The group argues that such broad inclusion risks co-opting and diluting the core purpose of reparations.

"I also think it’s not morally correct, you know? You don’t give out remedies to people who haven’t experienced the harm," Annette Wilcox, a spokesperson for the US Freedmen Project, told Fox News Digital. She criticized what she described as a pattern where government commissions and offices reference the history of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and redlining, but then allocate resources to broader groups such as "underserved communities, POC [people of color], immigrants, marginalized groups."

"You’re using one group of people’s history to then give remedies to a wider group," Wilcox added. The US Freedmen Project, which identifies its members as "Foundational Black Americans," aims to differentiate between African Americans who are direct descendants of enslaved individuals in the U.S. and those who have immigrated more recently.

This stance directly challenges legislative efforts in states like New Jersey, where Assemblywoman Verlina Reynolds-Jackson and Sen. Angela McKnight have proposed the Truth, Reconciliation, and Repair Act. This bill, informed by the New Jersey Reparations Council, seeks to establish a framework for state-level reparative policies to address wealth disparities stemming from historical discrimination.

Devine Prince, president of the US Freedmen Project, told Fox News Digital that lawmakers and some advocates are "conflating reparations with racial justice and social justice." He argued that while these issues are related, they are distinct and require separate solutions.

Similar concerns were raised by New York residents during a public hearing for the New York State Community Commission on Reparations Remedies. During the hearing at Hempstead High School on Long Island, some residents warned that expanding reparations to include recent immigrants and other marginalized groups could undermine the movement's original intent. Aubrey Muhammad, a supporter, expressed frustration that resources might be diverted from historic Black communities amidst demographic shifts, noting the significant increase in immigrant populations in areas like Hempstead.

Census data indicates that Hempstead, a village of approximately 59,000, has seen a substantial demographic change, with the Hispanic or Latino population rising from around 14% in 1990 to 45.3% currently, while Black residents make up 43.2%. Wilcox stated this shift contributes to descendants of slavery being at the bottom of socioeconomic indicators.

Prince further elaborated that distinct social challenges should have their own dedicated solutions. "What we’re finding out coming from the left wing of the political spectrum is that they are conflating reparations with racial justice and social justice," he said. "So what happens is when people believe a rising tide lifts all boats … you’re conflating repair for the badges and incidents of slavery with discrimination like not being able to catch a cab, or with the social justice of fair immigration policies."

The US Freedmen Project maintains that reparations must be lineage-based, exclusively for direct descendants of enslaved individuals in the United States. Prince believes this specificity is crucial for any reparations policy to withstand legal challenges, suggesting that race-based eligibility, as seen in programs like Evanston, Illinois', could be vulnerable to lawsuits, citing the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Evanston's program, which aimed to remedy historic housing discrimination, faces a class-action lawsuit. Prince warned that programs either become unconstitutional and face legal challenges or transform into universal programs, which he contends is "not reparations."

Prince emphasized that while broader social and racial justice initiatives are admirable, they should not be conflated with reparations. He defined reparations as being specifically for those "that were enslaved, emancipated, and then subject to the badges and incidents thereof," referring to them as "American freedmen." He argued that framing it this way circumvents racial discrimination claims.

New York and New Jersey are among several states and municipalities exploring reparative frameworks. Prince noted that such policies are often pushed in "blue states" where these demographic and social issues are prominent, and that political entities have a responsibility to address constituents directly and specifically to build genuine coalitions rather than cobbled-together groups with assumed shared priorities.