New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani declined to rule out supporting cash reparations for descendants of enslaved people, saying he wants to review the findings of a city commission before taking a definitive position.
The remarks came during an episode of The Root podcast released this week, where columnist Charles M. Blow questioned Mamdani about New York City’s ongoing reparations study and whether he would support direct cash payments if that is what the commission ultimately recommends.
Blow first read part of a written statement Mamdani had submitted while he was still a mayoral candidate.
“New York City participated actively in the slave trade and furthered its legacy through racist institutions, policies and laws. The city should reconcile and repair this legacy of slavery, stolen wealth and discrimination,” the statement said.
Blow noted that one of the commission’s major reports is expected next summer before asking the mayor directly whether he would back cash reparations if that became one of its recommendations.
Mamdani did not commit either way.
“I stand by my statement,” he said, describing it as a recognition of historical fact rather than a personal opinion.
He added that many Americans associate slavery primarily with the South, but argued that New York City also played a significant role in the institution and should acknowledge that history.
“We often think about slavery and the complicity in slavery as being exclusively to certain geographic areas of the country. Here in New York City, we were very complicit,” Mamdani said.
“I look forward to whatever those findings are. I can’t give you an answer in advance of them, but I can tell you that this is critically important, because this is also what it looks like to acknowledge what history truly was.”
The exchange comes as reparations continue to generate debate in cities and states across the country, with supporters arguing they are an appropriate response to historical injustices and critics questioning both their legality and their practical implementation.
If Mamdani would like me, a white New Yorker who never owned slaves, to pay a black New Yorker who never was a slave, then I propose:
Every Muslim in NYC starting with Mamdani, should pay us for 9/11.
Please explain why the latter makes no sense but the former does. pic.twitter.com/wvPF9CFvEC
— Shabbos Kestenbaum (@ShabbosK) July 29, 2026
Some opponents of reparations argue that the broader history of slavery should also include the role the United States played in abolishing the institution. They point to actions taken during the nation’s founding era, including Pennsylvania’s gradual abolition law in 1780, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory, and the federal ban on the importation of enslaved people that took effect on Jan. 1, 1808, after legislation signed by President Thomas Jefferson in 1807.
They also note that the Civil War ultimately resulted in nationwide emancipation through the 13th Amendment, ending legal slavery throughout the United States.
While historians continue to debate how America’s record compares with other nations, the question before policymakers today is less about the history itself than about whether governments can lawfully compensate individuals based on that history.
That legal issue is already being tested in Illinois.
Evanston became the first city in the United States to establish a reparations program for Black residents. According to ABC affiliate WLS-TV, the city has distributed more than $7 million through grants of up to $25,000 for home repairs, down payments, and certain housing-related expenses tied to documented discrimination in housing policy.
The program is now facing a federal lawsuit brought by six non-Black residents seeking to block additional payments.
Last month, the Department of Justice under the Trump administration filed a statement supporting the legal challenge.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division argued that governments may address past discrimination through lawful means but cannot distribute public funds based solely on race.
“There are sound ways for a city to remedy past discrimination or direct resources to its most vulnerable citizens and neighborhoods,” Dhillon said. “Simply handing out money based on race, however, is not the answer. It is race discrimination, pure and simple. And it is illegal.”
U.S. Attorney Andrew S. Boutros for the Northern District of Illinois similarly argued that the Constitution requires governments to treat individuals equally rather than classify them according to race or ancestry.
