Maryland and the Wes Moore paradox

By Shvilla Rasheem

In May 2025, Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland vetoed a bill that would have established a commission to study reparations for descendants of enslaved Africans in the state. The bill, modeled after similar initiatives nationwide, sought to create a structured, scholarly and community-informed pathway for understanding and repairing the historical and ongoing harms of slavery. Gov. Moore—Maryland’s first Black governor—justified his veto by arguing that the state does not need more study but rather immediate action.

While this stance may appear progressive on its surface, it ultimately undermines the complex and necessary groundwork required for sustainable and equitable reparative justice. By rejecting the creation of a reparations study commission, Gov. Moore missed a critical opportunity to deepen public understanding, build consensus and develop a robust, transparent implementation strategy for reparations in Maryland.

The limits of existing scholarship

While there is a growing body of literature on the moral and economic justifications for reparations, much of the scholarship stops short of articulating actionable implementation models at the state level. Foundational texts like “From Here to Equality” by William Darity Jr. and A. Kirsten Mullen and the influential work of Ta-Nehisi Coates in “The Case for Reparations” offer historical context, economic rationale and moral arguments, but they are not substitutes for local policy infrastructure. They do not provide granular details on how Maryland, with its unique history of slavery, segregation and racialized disinvestment, should structure and distribute reparative resources.

Moreover, while these texts argue convincingly that reparations are owed, they are often conceptual rather than logistical. They are national in scope and not tailored to the specific needs and disparities in housing, health care, education and criminal justice found within Maryland’s Black communities. Without a Maryland-specific commission, the state is left without a framework to translate broad reparations principles into local policy solutions. Therefore, to assert that there is no need for further study ignores the gap between theory and practice—between scholarship and the scaffolding necessary for policy design.

The danger of acting without a plan

Reparations is not a one-size-fits-all initiative. It must account for intergenerational trauma, structural inequality and the lived experiences of Black Marylanders across regions, age groups and class lines. Gov. Moore’s call to “act now” implies that the moral clarity of reparations should immediately translate into policy. 

By vetoing the bill, Gov. Moore has placed the state in a paradox: he claims urgency but offers no public framework for how reparations will be realized. No roadmap, no timelines, no transparent process. The danger here is twofold. First, bypassing the study phase could lead to ill-prepared programs that fail to meet community needs or that misallocate resources. Second, the absence of a commission excludes the very communities meant to benefit from reparations from participating in shaping the policies that would repair their own harm. This undermines principles of democratic participation and racial equity.

The role of study in movement-building and accountability

Study is not synonymous with delay. It is a necessary phase in policy development, especially when the goal is to dismantle centuries-old systems of racial harm. A reparations commission would offer Maryland a structured way to:

• Review state and local policies that sustained racial inequities post-slavery,
• Calculate the economic impact of slavery and its afterlives in Maryland,
• Identify specific forms of repair, from direct payments to institutional reform and
• Recommend mechanisms for accountability, oversight and long-term impact.

Without this, the state’s approach to reparations remains vague, vulnerable to political whim, and likely to underdeliver on its transformative promise. Maryland could have added valuable data and insights to the national conversation by leading with research-driven implementation planning.

Conclusion

Gov. Moore’s veto of the reparations study commission is a missed opportunity for principled leadership rooted in intentionality. By rejecting the bill, Gov. Moore has effectively dismissed the residents who understand that reparations is not just about redistribution—it is about repair, and a reimagining of the social contract. A reparations commission would not have stalled progress; it would have fortified it. In the absence of such a body, calls to “act now” ring hollow, as they are not backed by a transparent, participatory, or evidence-based plan. For Maryland to truly lead the nation in reckoning with the legacy of slavery, it must move wisely, and with the full weight of history, community insight and public accountability behind it.