California Governor Rejects Reparations: Was It All a Ruse?

California looked like it was on the verge of doing something historic. In 2020, the state launched the first-ever task force to study how to repair the harms of slavery and its legacy.

By 2023, that panel recommended more than 100 ideas – including major benefits for some older Black Californians.

Laurel Rosenhall reports in the New York Times that the momentum has since slowed as elected leaders faced the hard choice of spending real dollars while public support lagged.

Then came October 2025. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill creating a state agency to verify lineage – a gatekeeper for any future programs – but vetoed several bills that would have delivered tangible benefits now, Rosenhall notes.

That mixed message sparked the backlash. Commentator Lucas Beyn (The Amazing Lucas) calls it a bait-and-switch: the Governor “created” a reparations bureau, then “killed” reparations by rejecting bills that mattered.

My read is that one hand built the on-ramp; the other blocked the lane.

The Bills That Died – And The One That Lived

Rosenhall details three high-profile vetoes. First, Newsom rejected a bill to give college admissions preference to the descendants of enslaved people.

Second, he vetoed a proposal to reserve 10 percent of a state home loan program for reparations recipients, citing legal risk and potential federal funding conflicts.

Third, he rejected a plan to create a statewide compensation system for people whose property had been taken through racially motivated eminent domain.

At the same time, the Governor approved a new state agency tasked with confirming who qualifies as a descendant of slavery.

State Senator Akilah Weber Pierson – who leads the California Legislative Black Caucus – told the Times it’s a “first step,” because no benefits can be fairly distributed until lineage is verified.

Critics see that “first step” as a cul-de-sac. Beyn argues the agency is effectively a nothing-burger if the state refuses to fund the benefits that verification would unlock.

In plain terms: the ID office is open, but the store is closed.

The Money, The Law, And The Politics

Rosenhall points to the core headwinds: cost, law, and politics. A majority of Americans oppose taxpayer-funded reparations; even in California, a 2023 UC Berkeley poll found 59 percent opposed the task force’s cash-payment idea.

Legally, the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling ending affirmative action complicates anything resembling race-based preferences.

That’s partly why some advocates pivoted to lineage-based approaches – trying to sidestep race while targeting the specific harm.

Beyn seizes on that point. He says one bill (he references “AB 7”) would have permitted lineage-based admissions, fitting the legal moment. In his telling, Newsom’s “unnecessary” veto contradicted his own rhetoric about addressing systemic harm without using race.

Budget is the third barrier. Rosenhall cites the Governor’s veto message on property restitution: the price tag, potentially hundreds of millions, wasn’t in the budget.

Economist William A. Darity Jr., who advised the task force, told the Times the fiscal reality is brutal: closing the racial wealth gap in a single state could exceed California’s entire budget.

He believes state and local reparations are financially impossible at the required scale – a sobering claim that explains why the Legislature reframed proposals as a “road to repair,” not simple cash.

Newsom’s Record: One-Off Wins, Broad Retreat?

Supporters of the Governor can cite real actions.

He signed the 2021 measure that enabled the return of Bruce’s Beach to the descendants of a Black couple whose land was taken by Los Angeles County in 1924 – a landmark local restitution.

He also signed a 2024 apology for the state’s role in enforcing fugitive slave laws and allowing more than 2,000 enslaved people to be brought into California in the 19th century, as the Times recounts.

Beyn calls that a double standard.

He argues that Newsom celebrated the Bruce’s Beach fix for one family, then vetoed a statewide mechanism to compensate similar takings elsewhere. To Beyn, that’s proof of posture over policy.

Rosenhall’s reporting – while measured – lands in a similar place on the trajectory.

The Governor found a middle path: endorse the infrastructure (lineage verification) while dodging the payouts (admissions preference, home loans, eminent domain restitution). It is, as one quote suggests, thread-the-needle politics in a country that’s more conservative than California, especially with 2028 in mind.

My view: the pattern is coherent if your north star is legal risk aversion and budget restraint. It’s incoherent if your north star is immediate repair.

The “Road To Repair” Or The Road To Nowhere?

Rosenhall notes the caucus even removed the word “reparations” from its package, recasting it as a “road to repair.” That’s messaging triage – an attempt to keep incremental gains alive in a chilly climate.

Beyn sees it as a tell. If the state won’t fund the destination, what’s the point of paving the road? He frames the new bureau as performative: useful for press releases, not for people.

There’s a fairness to that critique if the lineage office becomes a credentialing machine with nothing to credential for.

Verification without delivery can morph into bureaucratic theater.

Yet there’s also a practical defense. If benefits ever do survive court scrutiny and budget battles, the slow work of lineage proof will be the crucial bottleneck. Building that capacity early isn’t crazy.

The risk is trust. After high hopes in 2020–2023, the vetoes land like a rug pull. People remember momentum, not memos.

Was It A Ruse – Or A Reset?

Beyn’s rhetoric is hot. He accuses the Governor of talking out of both sides of his mouth, citing the fresh vetoes against his public claims of leadership on racial justice.

You don’t have to echo his adjectives to grasp the core claim: symbolic wins have replaced substantive ones.

Rosenhall’s piece supplies the cooler context: public opposition, constitutional limits, and fiscal math are real constraints. Newsom might simply be governing inside those walls while keeping a symbolic light on.

Here’s my candid take. If you create an eligibility agency while vetoing the first obvious uses of eligibility, you are choosing optics over outcomes – at least for now. That may be prudent politics. It isn’t persuasive policy.

And it fuels the sense, captured by Beyn, that the big talk of 2020 has curdled into “window dressing,” as Assemblymember Isaac Bryan put it in Rosenhall’s reporting.

What Would Real Movement Look Like?

Three steps would change the narrative fast:

First, pair the lineage agency with a funded pilot. Start small but real: targeted eminent-domain restitution for a limited set of documented cases, with transparent criteria and a capped budget.

Second, anchor benefits in lineage and harm, not race. Design programs that survive current Supreme Court scrutiny. That means specificity, not slogans.

Third, publish a multiyear costed plan. If the gap is too large for a state, say so – and scope what is possible without pretending otherwise. Honesty beats hype.

If Newsom took those steps, critics like Beyn would still hammer him, but the substance would be hard to deny.

Absent that, expect more distrust – and more contentions that the bureau is a resume line, not a lifeline.

Laurel Rosenhall’s reporting lays out the facts: the Governor created an agency to determine who qualifies as a descendant of slavery while vetoing admissions preference, home-loan set-asides, and a statewide restitution framework. Lucas Beyn calls that a “reparations scam,” arguing that Newsom built the facade and bricked up the door.

Both accounts describe the same building from different angles. Right now, the sign says “Open,” but the counter is empty.

Is it a ruse? If no funded, court-ready program emerges from the lineage office, it will look that way.

If the agency becomes the foundation for concrete, lawful benefits in the next budget, then this month’s vetoes will read as a painful reset rather than a retreat.

California promised a road.

People are waiting for a ride.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.