Since the late 1980s the US Congress and state legislatures have introduced nearly 100 bills related to reparations for the descendants of those who were enslaved. Elizabeth Rigby finds that most of these bills have focused on creating commissions rather than introducing concrete reparations policies. She writes that while policymakers’ calls for commissions do raise awareness and keep reparations on the political agenda, the risk remains that commissions will serve more as political cover than as vehicles for change.
In recent years, more and more Democratic policymakers in the US have voiced support for reparations for the descendants of those who were enslaved. In new research, my colleague Vernicia Griffie and I took a closer look at legislators’ reparations proposals and the politics surrounding them. We draw primarily on two sources of information: our analysis of the legislative text of every bill addressing slavery reparations introduced in Congress or any state legislature, and our findings from a public opinion poll that provides the first nationally representative estimates of support for a reparations commission versus different forms of reparations. We conclude that these commissions can be valuable tools for advancing the reparations debate—particularly in the current U.S. political climate in which racial justice issues are under attack. However, commissions also risk becoming little more than political placeholders—even in the best of times.
The appeal of reparations commissions
For Democratic legislators, proposing a reparations commission offers several advantages. First, it allows policymakers to signal responsiveness to racial justice advocates and the broader progressive wing of the party, which has pushed for reparations to address the historical and ongoing harms of slavery and systemic racism. Second, it allows policymakers to sidestep contentious debates over what reparations should look like. Reparations commissions provide a way for policymakers to balance competing political pressures, respond to advocates, while avoiding direct commitments that might alienate moderate voters.
This use of strategic ambiguity enables politicians to appear proactive without immediately confronting the practical and political challenges of enacting reparations policies. So, it is not surprising that reparations commissions appeal to Democratic policymakers willing to introduce legislation on reparations. In fact, our analysis of 99 bills addressing slavery reparations (with the first introduced in 1989) found that most of these bills—83 percent—focused on creating commissions or calling on Congress to create a commission rather than on enacting actual reparations policies. Figure 1 below shows this trend by year.
Figure 1 – Reparations commissions introduced by year
The federal reparations bill, H.R. 40, exemplifies this trend. First introduced in 1989, it has never advanced beyond the committee stage, despite growing support among Democratic legislators. Rather than outlining a direct reparations program, H.R. 40 would create a commission to study and make recommendations on reparations.
This mirrors most state and local efforts, such as California’s Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals, which released a comprehensive report in 2023.
“Juneteenth reparations rally to demand r” (CC BY 2.0) by Fibonacci Blue
What reparations commissions can (and cannot) do
There is historical precedent for commissions paving the way for meaningful reparations. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which provided financial compensation to Japanese Americans interned during World War II, was preceded by a federal study commission that documented the injustices suffered by victims. Proponents argue that reparations commissions can play a similar role for Black Americans by creating a foundation for future policy action.
However, the design and authority of these commissions are crucial in determining their effectiveness. We found that most proposed commissions, including H.R. 40, are purely advisory, with no power to enact policies. Even in California, where a commission was enacted and issued detailed recommendations, including a method for calculating cash payments, political leaders have struggled to translate these proposals into actionable policies, as seen in California’s 2024 legislative session where most major proposals stemming from the commission’s work failed to pass.
Research in other areas has found that some commission designs are more likely to produce tangible policy outcomes. Specifically, commissions with institutional authority, adequate funding, and clear legislative integration have a greater chance of leading to real change. However, in our content analysis of 20 unique commission bills, we found that most of the proposed commissions lack these elements, making it likely they would be largely symbolic.
The political calculus of reparations commissions
Public opinion further complicates this dynamic. As Figure 2 shows, only 58 percent of Democrats express support for a reparations commission, while significant opposition to a commission was found among Republicans and (to a lesser degree) independents. Ironically, we found more support and far less opposition for actually providing community-level investments, educational initiatives, and other non-cash forms of reparations—suggesting that pursuing reparations through commissions may be a more popular approach among Democratic policymakers than among the American public.
Figure 2 – Commission support by party
Yet, another important finding from our public opinion poll was that—even among Democrats—there was very limited support for reparations in the form of cash payments. This suggests that reparations commissions may serve as a middle ground for now, keeping a more ambitious policy discourse and development going without forcing politicians to take a firm stand in favor or opposed to cash reparations—the most divisive aspects of the issue. This political cover is particularly important right now in the US where racial justice policies are under attack, being rolled back, and erased from the record.
Moving beyond reparations commissions
For reparations advocates, the challenge is ensuring that commissions do not become a political dead end. Policymakers must be held accountable for translating commission findings into substantive action, whether through direct compensation, institutional reforms, or community investments.
The future of reparations policy will depend on whether Democratic policymakers are willing to move beyond symbolic gestures of support. Commissions may be a necessary first step, but real progress requires a commitment to enacting tangible policies that address the legacies of slavery and systemic racism. Without follow-through, the risk remains that commissions will serve more as political cover than as vehicles for change.
This critique of reparations commissions was used recently by Maryland’s Democratic Governor Wes Moore (the state’s first Black governor), who disappointed reparations advocates by vetoing a bill to establish the Maryland Reparations Commission. In his veto letter, Governor Moore wrote: “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.” Moore reiterated that while scholarship on reparations is plentiful, the next phase must be rooted in action such as his administration’s recent investments in Black-owned businesses, support for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, mass pardons for low-level marijuana convictions, and other efforts to redress the impacts of racism and discrimination in the state.
While reparations commissions have become the dominant policy tool proposed by Democratic lawmakers addressing this issue, their ultimate impact remains uncertain. Our research highlights both the opportunities and limitations of these commissions. On the one hand, they provide a way to keep reparations on the political agenda and can generate valuable research and recommendations. On the other, they risk functioning as little more than symbolic gestures unless they are designed with real authority and backed by a political commitment to enacting change. If reparations policy is to move forward meaningfully, advocates and policymakers alike must push beyond proposals for symbolic commissions and toward concrete policies that address the enduring racial disparities rooted in slavery and systemic discrimination.
