Home Blog Page 9

The Rise of Black Republicans: Traitors or Trailblazers?

DAMON K JONES
-
0
The Rise of Black Republicans: Traitors or Trailblazers?

For more than half a century, Black Americans have been one of the Democratic Party’s most dependable voting blocs. Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Democratic presidential candidates have routinely received between 80 and 90 percent of the Black vote, a level of political loyalty unmatched by almost any other demographic group in American politics. That loyalty helped elect presidents, shape Congress, influence state governments, and secure many of the civil rights gains that transformed this country. Yet while that history deserves recognition, it also raises a question that is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore: Has decades of overwhelming political loyalty produced the measurable outcomes Black America expected, or has it reduced the incentive for either major political party to compete aggressively for Black voters?

That question is one reason the growing visibility of Black Republicans deserves serious attention. Across the country, Black Republicans are running for governor, Congress, statewide office, and local government in numbers and with visibility that would have been difficult to imagine a generation ago. Whether they ultimately win or lose, their campaigns are forcing a broader conversation about race, representation, political independence, and the future of Black political power. More importantly, they are challenging a long-held assumption that Black political identity must be tied almost exclusively to one political party.

The rise of Black Republican candidates extends far beyond two campaigns.

Congressman John James is running for governor of Michigan after serving in Congress and previously seeking statewide office. A West Point graduate, Army veteran, and businessman, James has built his campaign around economic growth, educational opportunity, and government accountability.

Congressman Burgess Owens continues to represent Utah in Congress, while Ohio State Representative Josh Williamsis seeking a congressional seat after becoming one of the first Black Republicans elected to the Ohio House in decades. In Michigan, Navy veteran and former law enforcement officer Amir Hassan is also pursuing a seat in Congress.

Looking ahead to 2027, Danielle Carter-Walters is running for mayor of Chicago. Although her election falls outside the 2026 midterms, her campaign represents another example of Black Republicans competing in cities where Democratic dominance has long been considered politically unshakable.

Another candidate drawing attention is Christian Maxwell, the Republican nominee for Illinois’ 1st Congressional District. A business consultant, entrepreneur, and mother, Maxwell is challenging incumbent Congressman Jonathan Jackson in one of the country’s most historically significant Black congressional districts. Her campaign emphasizes economic growth, public safety, parental rights, and family-centered policies. Regardless of the outcome, Maxwell’s candidacy reinforces the broader trend explored in this article: Black Republicans are increasingly competing for office in districts and communities where Republicans have traditionally struggled, further expanding the conversation about political diversity within Black America.

Taken together, these campaigns demonstrate that Black Republicans are no longer isolated exceptions. Whether they ultimately win or lose, they are becoming more visible in American politics and forcing conversations that many political leaders would rather avoid.

The conversation surrounding Black Republicans is rarely limited to policy. For many, it quickly becomes personal. Black conservatives have often described being called “traitors,” “sellouts,” or “Uncle Toms” because of their political affiliation. Their critics argue that supporting the Republican Party undermines Black political interests and ignores the historical relationship between Black America and the Democratic Party during the modern civil rights era. Their supporters respond that no political party deserves permanent ownership of Black votes and that true political independence requires the freedom to disagree without having one’s racial identity questioned.

That is why this article asks a question instead of offering a conclusion. Are Black Republicans traitors to Black America, or are they trailblazers expanding the boundaries of Black political thought? The answer depends largely on one’s understanding of history, one’s evaluation of current political realities, and one’s expectations for the future. It is also a question that deserves thoughtful discussion rather than partisan slogans.

According to the Pew Research Center, approximately 14 percent of Black Americans identify with or lean toward the Republican Party. In comparison, 73 percent identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, and 13 percent identify with or lean toward neither party. Those numbers make one fact clear. Republicans remain a minority within the Black electorate. They also demonstrate, however, that millions of Black Americans no longer fit the stereotype that Black political thought is unanimous. That reality alone suggests the political landscape is evolving, even if the Democratic Party continues to command overwhelming support among Black voters.

Perhaps no recent campaign illustrates that evolution more clearly than Winsome Earle-Sears’s. In 2025, Earle-Sears had the opportunity to become the first Black woman ever elected governor of any state in American history. She is a Black woman, married to a Black man, raising Black children, and a Marine Corps veteran who built a distinguished public career in Virginia. Yet despite the historic significance of her candidacy, many of the organizations and political leaders who frequently celebrate Black representation showed little enthusiasm for her campaign because she was running as a Republican. The NAACP endorsed her Democratic opponent, Abigail Spanberger, prompting supporters of Earle-Sears to ask a difficult question: If electing the first Black woman governor in American history was not viewed as a historic milestone worth supporting, does Black representation only matter when the candidate belongs to one political party?

The Vote Must Be Earned

Whether Black Republicans are ultimately remembered as traitors or trailblazers will not be decided by television commentators, social media influencers, or political activists. History will make that determination based on something far more important: results.

If these candidates succeed in improving educational outcomes, expanding Black homeownership, creating opportunities for Black-owned businesses, strengthening families, reducing violent crime, and helping Black communities build generational wealth, history may remember them as pioneers who expanded the boundaries of Black political thought. If they fail to deliver meaningful results, history will judge them accordingly. The same standard should apply to Democrats, Independents, and every elected official who asks for the support of Black America.

This article is not an endorsement of the Republican Party or any Republican candidate. Nor is it an argument that Black Americans should abandon the Democratic Party. I am an Independent Freedman, and I believe no political party deserves automatic loyalty. Every candidate should have to earn our vote through character, competence, vision, accountability, and measurable outcomes—not campaign slogans, historical affiliations, or assumptions that our votes belong to them.

Whether people welcome it or not, the political landscape is changing. More Black Republicans are running for office. More Black Americans are identifying as independents. More voters are asking difficult questions about what decades of political loyalty have produced and whether a more competitive political environment could better serve Black communities. That does not mean Black America is abandoning one party for another. It means more Black Americans are insisting that their vote has value and should never be taken for granted.

Perhaps that is the real story behind the rise of Black Republicans. It is not simply about Republicans. It is about political competition. It is about accountability. It is about reminding every elected official, regardless of party, that the Black vote is not owed—it must be earned.

As an Independent Freedman, I have no permanent friends in politics and no permanent enemies. I have permanent interests. My interest is not in electing Republicans or protecting Democrats. My interest is in advancing the constitutional, economic, educational, and civic interests of Black America. If the rise of Black Republicans causes both major parties to compete harder for our votes, present stronger ideas, and produce better results, then Black America—not either political party—stands to benefit the most.

The question, then, is not whether Black Republicans are traitors or trailblazers.

The real question is whether Black America is finally prepared to make every political party earn its vote.

Black Political Organization Challenges Mayor Mamdani to Begin Reparations with Seneca Village

Black Westchester
-
0
Black Political Organization Challenges Mayor Mamdani to Begin Reparations with Seneca Village

American Freedmen Independent Party Says New York City’s Reparations Effort Should Begin with One of the City’s Most Documented Historical Injustices

The American Freedmen Independent Party (AFIP) is challenging New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to move beyond supporting the idea of reparations and begin taking concrete action by addressing one of the city’s most documented historical injustices—the destruction of Seneca Village.

The challenge comes in response to Mayor Mamdani’s recent interview with journalist Charles M. Blow of The Root, during which the mayor said New York City has a responsibility to confront its history of slavery and discrimination. When asked whether he would support cash reparations if recommended by the New York City Reparations Commission, Mamdani declined to make that commitment, explaining that he would wait for the commission’s recommendations before deciding.

AFIP says the mayor does not need another commission to identify where reparative justice should begin.

“Mayor Mamdani is not simply another politician discussing history,” said Damon K. Jones, New York Representative for the American Freedmen Independent Party. “He is the Chief Executive Officer of the City of New York. That office gives him the authority to recommend legislation, direct city agencies, appoint advisory bodies, and use the influence of his office to begin correcting historical injustices committed by the very government he now leads.”

Founded as an independent political club, AFIP advocates for the constitutional, economic, educational, and civic interests of American Freedmen—the descendants of those who were enslaved in the United States. The organization says it is guided by principles and measurable outcomes rather than loyalty to any political party.

“At AFIP, we believe no political party owns the Black vote,” Jones said. “Our responsibility is to hold every elected official accountable based on results, not rhetoric. If a public official says government has a responsibility to repair historical injustices, we expect them to explain how they intend to do that.”

According to the organization, Seneca Village represents one of the clearest examples of government-sanctioned economic harm against Black New Yorkers.

Before Central Park existed, Seneca Village was a thriving community of predominantly Black property owners. Residents owned homes, churches, schools, and businesses, building wealth through land ownership during a time when opportunities for Black Americans were severely limited. In the 1850s, the City of New York used eminent domain to acquire the land, displacing residents and demolishing the community to make way for Central Park.

“The city gained one of the world’s most celebrated public parks,” Jones said. “Black families lost homes, churches, businesses, land, and generations of wealth that should have been passed on to their children. That history has already been documented. The question today is whether New York City’s leadership is prepared to act on it.”

AFIP is calling on Mayor Mamdani to establish a Seneca Village Reparative Justice Initiative that would identify descendants where possible, recommend legislation to the New York City Council, preserve the community’s history, and explore policies designed to repair the economic harm caused by the city’s actions.

Jones said reparative justice should extend beyond symbolic acknowledgment and include policies that promote long-term economic opportunity.

“Reparations should not simply be about acknowledging what happened,” he said. “They should be about restoring opportunities that government helped destroy. That includes strengthening Black homeownership, expanding Black-owned businesses, increasing access to capital, preserving historically Black communities, and rebuilding generational wealth.”

The organization also credited Charles M. Blow for raising the issue of reparations during The Root interview but argued that a key follow-up question was left unanswered.

“Charles M. Blow deserves credit for asking the mayor about reparations,” Jones said. “But the obvious follow-up is this: If you believe New York City has a responsibility to repair historical injustice, what specific actions are you prepared to take today? Leadership isn’t about waiting for another commission. Leadership is about using the authority of your office to begin solving problems now.”

AFIP said its challenge is intended to move the public conversation beyond general support for reparations and toward specific policies tied to documented historical injustices.

“We’re not asking the mayor to abandon the commission,” Jones said. “We’re asking him to lead. Seneca Village is one of the most well-documented examples of Black wealth being taken through government action. If New York City is serious about reparative justice, that’s where the conversation should begin.”

The American Freedmen Independent Party describes itself as an independent political organization dedicated to advancing the permanent interests of American Freedmen through civic education, policy development, leadership training, and voter engagement.

“Our guiding principle is simple,” Jones said. “‘No Permanent Friends. No Permanent Enemies. Only Permanent Interests.’ That’s how we evaluate every elected official and every public policy.”

For more information about the American Freedmen Independent Party or to read the organization’s full statement, visit www.AFIPNY.org.

The New York State Police are investigating an officer-involved shooting that occurred in the city of Mount Vernon.

AJ Woodson
-
0
The New York State Police are investigating an officer-involved shooting that occurred in the city of Mount Vernon.

Earlier, Black Westchester reported that a Mount Vernon police officer shot an armed man during a court-ordered mental health response, based on an initial statement released by the City of Mount Vernon.

However, the limited information provided by city officials left Black Westchester—and many concerned residents—with more questions than answers.

After our original report was published, the New York State Police released a more detailed statement regarding the officer-involved shooting. While the latest account answers several of the questions we raised, important questions remain.

You can read the New York State Police’s full statement below.

On July 30, 2026, at about 9:50 p.m., members of the Mount Vernon Police Department responded to an apartment on East Fourth Street to execute a mental health commitment order.

Officers encountered the subject, 58-year-old Ulysses McGhee, who was armed with two knives. McGhee retreated into his apartment, and members of the Mount Vernon Police Department attempted to negotiate with him into the early morning hours. After those efforts were unsuccessful, search and arrest warrants were obtained, and the department’s Emergency Service Unit (ESU) responded.

At about 2:06 a.m. this morning, ESU members breached the door to the apartment and encountered McGhee, who was still armed with the knives. Officers attempted to subdue McGhee using less-lethal measures, including Tasers and beanbag rounds, which were not effective, and one officer discharged their firearm, striking McGhee.

McGhee was transported to Jacobi Medical Center in the Bronx, where he remains in critical condition.

The officer who discharged the firearm was transported to New York-Presbyterian Westchester for evaluation. No injuries to that officer were reported. A second Emergency Service Unit officer was treated for an ear injury sustained during the incident.

At the request of the Mount Vernon Police Department, the New York State Police is conducting the investigation. The investigation remains ongoing, and additional information will be released as it becomes available.

After the statement released by the NYS Police, Kenneth Chamberlain Jr, son of Kenneth Chamberlain Sr who was murdered by the White Plains police shared how this incident is painfully familiar.

“While every case is different and must be judged on its own facts, there are troubling similarities that cannot be ignored.

Once again, we have a person reportedly experiencing a mental health crisis, negotiations taking place, and an encounter that ended in the use of deadly force.” Chamberlain Jr shared with Black Westchester.

Stay tuned to Black Westchester for the latest developments. Continue checking back and refreshing this page, as we will update this story whenever new information becomes available.

BW News Brief: Mount Vernon Police Officer Shoots Armed Man During Mental Health Crisis

AJ Woodson
-
0
BW News Brief: Mount Vernon Police Officer Shoots Armed Man During Mental Health Crisis

MOUNT VERNON — A Mount Vernon police officer shot 58-year-old Ulysses McGhee, who was armed with two knives and had barricaded himself inside an apartment during an apparent mental health crisis Thursday night, according to police.

Members of the Mount Vernon Police Department’s (MVPD) Emergency Services Unit (ESC) responded shortly before 10 p.m. to serve court-ordered mental health commitment papers at an apartment near Columbus Avenue and East Fourth Street.

Police said the man was armed, refused to comply with the order, and barricaded himself inside the apartment. Hostage negotiators and mental health professionals attempted to de-escalate the situation, while officers also used non-lethal methods without success.

According to a statement released by the City of Mount Vernon, upon arrival, ESU officers encountered an armed individual who refused to comply with the court order or be taken into custody. Officers immediately employed non-lethal tools in an effort to safely gain compliance. Those efforts were unsuccessful, and the individual subsequently barricaded himself inside the apartment.

Hostage negotiators and the Mount Vernon Police Department’s Wellness Division were then called to the scene. For several hours, hostage negotiations, de-escalation techniques, and wellness interventions were utilized in an effort to execute the commitment order. Despite these sustained efforts, the individual remained noncompliant.

After obtaining a warrant and exhausting negotiation efforts, at about 2:06 a.m., ESU officers entered the apartment. Police said the man continued threatening to harm himself and responding officers. After additional non-lethal efforts failed, an officer discharged a firearm.

McGhee was transported to Jacobi Medical Center in the Bronx for treatment. His condition was not immediately released.

While this may ultimately prove to have been a justified shooting, the statement released by the City of Mount Vernon was vague and left many residents with more questions than answers.

We understand the city’s need to acknowledge the incident and get ahead of the story. However, when officials are intentionally vague about a police shooting, they create an information vacuum. That vacuum is quickly filled with speculation, social-media commentary and people rushing to judgment before all the facts are known.

Kenneth Chamberlain Jr., co-founder of the Westchester Coalition for Police Reform, cautioned against doing exactly that when he spoke with Black Westchester. He stressed the importance of waiting for a thorough, independent investigation before reaching conclusions, while also recognizing that transparency from public officials is essential to maintaining the community’s trust.

“I don’t think anyone should be rushing to judgment, but if you read the department’s statement, it raises more questions than it answers,” Chamberlain Jr shared with Black Westchester. “We know there was a mental health response, we know negotiations took place, and we know an officer discharged their firearm. What we don’t know are the circumstances that led to that decision, which is why transparency is so important. Far too often, people pick a side before they know the facts. If the facts support the actions that were taken, then let the facts speak, but if they don’t, then accountability must follow.”

Statement by officials leaves residents with more questions than answers

As the New York State Police investigates Thursday night’s officer-involved shooting during a court-ordered mental health response in Mount Vernon, several important questions deserve clear answers. These questions are not intended to assign blame or reach a premature conclusion. They are necessary to promote transparency, accountability, and public understanding.

Was the individual armed? If so, what type of weapon did he possess, and what immediate threat did it present to officers, other occupants, or the public? If he was unarmed, what specific actions led officers to believe deadly force was necessary? Sources have told us that after the first posting, the individual was armed with two knives, but we have not been giving confirmation from MVPD.

Was anyone else in immediate danger? Reports indicate that the individual had barricaded himself inside an apartment. Were there hostages or other occupants inside? If no one else was at risk, what circumstances made an immediate entry necessary? We were able to confirm he was alone; his family was there, but they were outside.

What role did the Mount Vernon Police Department’s Wellness Division play? If crisis negotiators, mental health professionals, and Wellness Division personnel had been working to resolve the situation peacefully, what changed? Why did the response move from negotiation and de-escalation to forced entry?

Why didn’t the Mount Vernon Police Department request assistance from Westchester County’s Project Alliance for crisis intervention? Project Alliance was created in the aftermath of the 2011 fatal shooting of Kenneth Chamberlain Sr. by White Plains police to provide specialized crisis response and de-escalation services. Based on the initial reports, this incident appears to be similar to the circumstances surrounding Mr. Chamberlain’s case. If that is true, why wasn’t Project Alliance activated or consulted before the situation escalated to the use of deadly force?

What crisis-intervention training had the responding officers received? Were members of the Wellness Division and Emergency Services Unit certified in Crisis Intervention Team training or another recognized de-escalation program? Who provided that training, and how frequently is it renewed?

Who made the decision to enter the apartment? Was the entry authorized by the incident commander, a supervising officer, or another official? What information and risk factors were considered before that decision was made?

What happened at the moment deadly force was used? Police officers generally do not wait for a separate command authorizing them to fire when they believe an immediate threat exists. Therefore, the public deserves to know which officer discharged the weapon, what threat that officer perceived, and whether the shooting was consistent with departmental policy and state law.

Were the officers’ body-worn cameras activated? If so, was all footage properly preserved, and will it be released in accordance with state law and departmental policy? Body-camera footage may provide crucial context that a written statement cannot.

What is the individual’s current condition? Is he still alive? How many times was he shot, and where on his body was he struck? As of the latest publicly available information, the City of Mount Vernon reported that the man was transported to a local hospital and was in stable condition, which indicates he was alive when that update was issued. However, officials have not publicly disclosed how many times he was shot, where he was struck, the extent of his injuries or whether his condition has changed since then. Those details are not insignificant. They could help the public better understand the level of force used, the nature of the perceived threat and what occurred when officers entered the apartment. Until the New York State Police or the City release more information, those questions remain unanswered.

What specific less-lethal methods were attempted? Police said non-lethal tactics were used before the officer fired. What tools or techniques were deployed, how many times were they attempted, and why did they fail? Mental health calls are among the most difficult and unpredictable situations officers face. They require officers to balance compassion, public safety and the safety of the person experiencing the crisis. That is precisely why transparency is essential.

Lastly and not least: Did the MVPD follow the recommendation of the DOJ Investigation

A thorough and independent investigation must answer not only what happened, but why officers made the decisions they made. Until those answers are provided, the public should avoid rushing to judgment—but the City of Mount Vernon must also understand that vague statements only create more questions, speculation, and distrust.

This is not the first time a resident experiencing a mental health crisis has been shot by the Mount Vernon Police Department. In 2014, Anthony Smith was shot multiple times during a mental health-related incident. More than a decade later, the public deserves to know: What lessons have been learned? What policies, training, or crisis intervention protocols have been implemented since then to prevent another tragedy? And if changes were made, why did this situation still end with the use of deadly force?

Black Westchester Magazine has previously reported that the U.S. Department of Justice’s 2024 investigation found systemic deficiencies within the Mount Vernon Police Department, including concerns involving training, supervision, accountability, and departmental policies. In fact, several findings in the DOJ report make these questions even more relevant—not because they prove anything about this incident, but because they identify systemic issues that warrant additional scrutiny. Those findings reinforce why the public deserves transparency and clear answers as the New York State Police conduct their independent investigation.

Stay tuned to Black Westchester for the latest developments. Continue checking back and refreshing this page, as we will update this story whenever new information becomes available.

****Update**** After our original report was published, the New York State Police released a more detailed statement regarding the officer-involved shooting. While the latest account answers several of the questions we raised, important questions remain. You can read the New York State Police’s full statement here.

Dr. Fauci, the Fifth Amendment, and the Questions America Still Deserves Answered

DAMON K JONES
-
0
Dr. Fauci, the Fifth Amendment, and the Questions America Still Deserves Answered

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s recent appearance before Congress did not bring the answers many Americans were hoping to hear. Instead, it raised new questions.

The longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the public face of America’s COVID-19 response invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination rather than answer questions before the Senate. Let us be clear from the beginning: the Fifth Amendment is a constitutional protection. Every American has the right to invoke it, and exercising that right is not, by itself, proof of guilt.

But constitutional rights do not eliminate public accountability.

For years, Dr. Fauci stood at the center of decisions that affected virtually every American. Businesses closed. Schools shut down. Churches suspended services. Millions of workers faced vaccine mandates. Families were divided over public health policies. The federal government, public health officials, technology companies, employers, and media organizations all played significant roles in shaping what Americans could say, question, and do during one of the most extraordinary periods in modern history.

Many Americans who questioned aspects of the government’s COVID-19 response paid a price. Some doctors and scientists who challenged prevailing public health guidance said they faced professional consequences. Countless individuals reported being criticized, deplatformed, or labeled as spreading misinformation for raising questions about lockdowns, mandates, vaccine policies, or the origins of the virus. Whether every criticism was valid is a separate question. The point is that public debate often became narrower than many Americans believed it should have been.

That is why many people see an irony today.

Citizens who questioned government policy often found themselves publicly condemned for asking questions. Now, one of the government’s most prominent officials has chosen not to answer questions under oath by invoking a constitutional protection. The Constitution protects that choice, but Americans are equally justified in asking why the questions remain unanswered.

The discussion becomes even more complicated when considering President Joe Biden’s pardon of Dr. Fauci. A presidential pardon is a lawful constitutional power. At the same time, it has fueled public debate. Critics ask why a pardon was necessary and why, after receiving one, Fauci would still decline to answer questions before Congress. Legal experts point out that a pardon does not necessarily eliminate every potential legal concern, including possible state matters or issues that could arise from future testimony. Even so, the combination of a pardon and the invocation of the Fifth Amendment has understandably become part of the national conversation.

The COVID-19 vaccines remain another area where Americans continue to seek transparency. Billions of doses have been administered worldwide, and years of research have identified known risks, including rare cases of myocarditis, certain clotting disorders associated with specific vaccine platforms, and severe allergic reactions. At the same time, no one can honestly claim to know every possible long-term effect decades into the future because the vaccines have not existed for that length of time. Continued monitoring and research are both appropriate and necessary.

Science is strengthened by transparency, not weakened by it. Asking questions is not anti-science. In fact, questioning, testing, challenging, and verifying are foundational to the scientific process itself.

The public debate surrounding the vaccines also became a debate about individual liberty, government authority, and social pressure. If there was one public figure who became the face of the vaccine mandate era, it was Kyrie Irving. His decision not to receive the COVID-19 vaccine cost him the ability to play home games in New York City, millions of dollars in salary, and subjected him to relentless public criticism. He was portrayed by many as reckless, selfish, and anti-science, despite maintaining that his decision was a personal medical choice.

Whether one agreed with Irving’s decision is beside the point. His experience demonstrated how government mandates, league policies, corporate decisions, media narratives, and public opinion could converge to pressure individuals into making a medical decision. For many Americans, Kyrie Irving became the most recognizable symbol of the vaccine mandate era—an example of how compliance was often rewarded. At the same time, dissent carried significant personal, professional, and financial consequences.

The larger issue extends far beyond Dr. Fauci or one athlete. It is about trust.

Public trust cannot be sustained if citizens are expected to accept extraordinary government authority while public officials decline to explain the decisions that shaped those extraordinary measures. During the pandemic, Americans sacrificed businesses, careers, education, family gatherings, religious worship, and personal freedoms in ways unseen in generations. Many accepted those sacrifices because they believed they were acting on the best available information.

Now those same Americans deserve answers.

Accountability is not vengeance. Transparency is not persecution. Congressional oversight is not political theater when it seeks to understand decisions that affected hundreds of millions of lives. In a constitutional republic, public officials are entrusted with enormous authority, but that authority carries a responsibility to explain their actions to the people they serve.

Regardless of where one stands on COVID-19 policy, one principle should unite us all: Americans deserve honest answers, open debate, and institutions willing to earn—not demand—the public’s trust. That trust is built through transparency, accountability, and the willingness to answer difficult questions, especially when the stakes have been as high as they were during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BW News Brief: Vacant Mount Vernon Building Collapses, Damaging Parked Cars

AJ Woodson
-
0
BW News Brief: Vacant Mount Vernon Building Collapses, Damaging Parked Cars

MOUNT VERNON — A vacant three-story building at 16 North Bond Street suffered a total structural collapse Thursday morning, crushing several parked vehicles and prompting the evacuation of two neighboring apartment buildings.

The collapse occurred between Mount Vernon Avenue and Oak Street while construction workers were shoring up the fire-damaged building as part of an approved stabilization project. Three workers who had been inside were taking a break near the rear of the property and escaped without injury.

“They were taking a break, luckily for them, they were in the rear of the building when the collapse happened,” Mount Vernon Fire Department Chief Rodney Samson said. “It was a pancaked collapse, so that means each floor just basically dropped straight down on each other.”

The building had been heavily damaged by a fire in 2023, and the property owner received permits late last year to perform structural work.

As a precaution, residents of the adjoining buildings at 14 and 18 North Bond Street were evacuated while city officials conducted interior and exterior structural assessments, including evaluations of the neighboring buildings and roofing systems. Residents have since been allowed to return.

Electric service, which was temporarily disconnected as a safety measure, has been restored, and the surrounding streets have reopened.

The Mount Vernon Department of Public Works will continue debris-removal operations. North Bond Street between Oak Street and Mount Vernon Avenue will be closed from 6:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. during the cleanup. Motorists are encouraged to use alternate routes and expect delays.

The cause of the collapse remains under investigation. City officials said additional updates will be provided as more information becomes available.

The Root Failed Black America: This Interview Asked the Questions—But Never Demanded the Answers

DAMON K JONES
-
0
The Root Failed Black America: This Interview Asked the Questions—But Never Demanded the Answers

There is a unique responsibility that comes with being a Black-owned publication. It is not simply to interview elected officials or provide them another platform to repeat campaign promises. It is to ask the questions that millions of Black Americans would ask if they were sitting across the table themselves. That responsibility becomes even greater when the subject is the Mayor of New York City, whose policies will affect one of the largest urban Black populations in America. For that reason, I found Charles M. Blow’s recent interview with Mayor Zohran Mamdani to be a missed opportunity.

The interview covered many of the issues that dominate today’s political conversations. Affordability, universal child care, free bus service, housing, and public safety were all discussed at length. These are legitimate public policy issues, and no reasonable person would argue that they are unimportant. The problem is not that these subjects were discussed. The problem is that they were discussed almost entirely as universal policy goals rather than through the lens of what they specifically mean for Black Americans.

This distinction matters because every politician speaks about affordability. Every administration promises to make life easier for working families. Those are campaign themes, not a Black agenda. The question Black America has been asking for generations is much narrower and much more specific: How will your policies increase Black wealth, expand Black homeownership, grow Black-owned businesses, improve educational outcomes, and create safer communities where Black families can thrive? Those are not ideological questions. They are measurements of success.

Throughout the interview, Mayor Mamdani returned repeatedly to affordability as the answer to many of New York City’s problems. Charles M. Blow accepted that premise without demanding a more detailed explanation of how those policies would produce measurable gains for Black New Yorkers. Affordability may be part of the solution, but it is not, by itself, an economic strategy. It does not explain how wealth will be created. It does not explain how ownership will increase. It does not explain how Black businesses will gain greater access to capital or government contracts. Most importantly, it does not explain how the next generation of Black families will accumulate assets instead of simply reducing expenses.

That distinction is not academic. It goes to the heart of why Black Americans continue to trail the nation in household wealth despite decades of political promises. A family may receive temporary financial relief through government programs while never increasing its net worth. A renter may benefit from lower monthly housing costs while never acquiring the equity that transforms housing into generational wealth. A business owner, however, creates jobs. A homeowner builds equity. An investor builds assets. These are fundamentally different outcomes, and they require fundamentally different policies. Those questions should have driven the interview from beginning to end.

To Charles M. Blow’s credit, he asked Mayor Mamdani whether he would support cash reparations if New York City’s reparations commission ultimately recommended them. That was an important question. However, it also raises a larger one that was never explored. Mayor Mamdani is one of the Democratic Socialists of America’s highest-profile elected officials, and the DSA’s national politics have largely emphasized universal social and economic programs rather than a sustained, Black-specific reparations agenda in the way the interview framed it. While the organization has expressed support for reparations in various resolutions and statements, its broader platform is not centered on a comprehensive Black economic agenda built around homeownership, Black business development, or generational wealth. 

That makes the exchange even more significant. If reparations warranted a direct question, then Charles M. Blow should also have pressed for equally direct answers on Black homeownership, access to capital, Black-owned businesses, educational outcomes, and measurable wealth creation. Those are the issues that will determine whether Black New Yorkers are better off four years from now. It is also worth acknowledging the political context. The DSA’s membership has been reported to be overwhelmingly white, with internal surveys and analyses indicating Black members make up only a small share of the organization. That reality makes it even more important to ask how a movement with relatively limited Black membership intends to address the specific needs and priorities of Black Americans

Charles M. Blow did ask whether there should be a Black agenda. In many respects, that was the strongest question of the interview. Yet when the mayor answered by returning to universal affordability policies, the obvious follow-up questions never came. If affordability is the Black agenda, what measurable improvements should Black New Yorkers expect to see four years from now? How many additional Black homeowners? How many new Black-owned businesses? How much growth in Black household wealth? Without measurable objectives, broad political themes remain exactly that—broad political themes.

Black Americans deserve more than reassurance that general government programs will eventually benefit everyone. We deserve to know whether our communities will own more, earn more, save more, invest more, and pass more wealth to the next generation. That is the standard by which every elected official should be judged, regardless of party or ideology. It is also the standard by which Black journalism should hold those elected officials accountable

Democrats Face Growing Financial Crisis as DNC Leadership Comes Under Fire Ahead of 2026 Midterms

DAMON K JONES
-
0
Democrats Face Growing Financial Crisis as DNC Leadership Comes Under Fire Ahead of 2026 Midterms

With the 2026 midterm elections approaching, Democrats should be preparing to capitalize on what many political analysts consider a favorable political environment. President Donald Trump’s approval ratings continue to face challenges over inflation, gas prices, and criticism surrounding his administration’s handling of the conflict with Iran. Yet instead of presenting a unified strategy, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) finds itself battling financial instability, internal conflict, and growing questions about its leadership.

According to reports discussed in the transcript, the DNC is reportedly carrying approximately $2 million in debt, while Republicans enter the election cycle with a significant financial advantage. President Trump reportedly controls a $400 million super PAC, and the Republican National Committee (RNC) has roughly $130 million in cash reserves.

The financial concerns extend beyond fundraising.

Reports indicate the DNC used its Washington, D.C., headquarters as collateral to secure a $15 million line of credit, a move that has raised eyebrows because it comes well before a presidential election year, when such borrowing would traditionally be expected. Party officials have also reportedly discussed delaying payments to vendors until after the midterms in an effort to relieve immediate financial pressure.

Leadership Under Scrutiny

Much of the criticism has centered on DNC Chairman Ken Martin, who has faced increasing pressure from party donors and insiders.

According to reports referenced in the discussion, Martin has been criticized over his handling of the long-awaited 2024 election “autopsy” report, which many Democrats hoped would provide a roadmap for rebuilding after Vice President Kamala Harris’ election defeat. Instead, critics argue the report failed to offer meaningful direction for the party moving forward.

The controversy doesn’t end there.

Reports also describe Martin as increasingly isolated within the organization, with allegations that he became involved in a workplace confrontation that resulted in an HR complaint. Critics argue the combination of leadership turmoil and financial uncertainty is undermining donor confidence at the very time Democrats need to be aggressively organizing for the next election cycle.

Spending Priorities Raise New Questions

One of the most debated issues involves how the DNC has allocated limited resources.

During a public appearance, Martin defended the decision to provide equal financial support to Democratic organizations in U.S. territories—including Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa—as it does to state parties.

Federal spending records cited in the discussion indicate approximately $840,000 has been directed to those territorial organizations since the beginning of last year. Critics argue that while these areas deserve representation, they do not directly determine control of Congress and question whether those funds would have been better spent strengthening battleground states such as Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

Martin defended the strategy by arguing that “when we organize everywhere, we can win anywhere.” Critics, however, say the party simply cannot afford that philosophy while carrying debt and discussing layoffs.

A Party Without a Strategy?

Political commentators featured in the discussion argued that Democrats appear to be missing what should have been a prime opportunity to reconnect with voters.

Rather than focusing on a clear economic message or presenting a unified alternative to the Trump administration, the party has found itself consumed by internal disagreements, fundraising problems, and ideological battles between progressive activists and more centrist Democrats.

Several commentators questioned why, nearly two years after the 2024 election, Democrats still appear to lack a comprehensive strategy for rebuilding their national coalition.

Instead of projecting confidence, they argued, the party is projecting uncertainty.

Money Still Wins Elections

While favorable polling can help shape political narratives, campaigns ultimately require money, organization, volunteers, advertising, and voter outreach.

Commentators noted that Republicans currently possess a significant fundraising advantage while Democrats reportedly struggle to pay vendors and maintain financial stability. They argued that if the party cannot rebuild donor confidence soon, it risks entering the 2026 midterms at a severe organizational disadvantage despite national dissatisfaction with several Republican policies.

What This Means for Black Voters

For Black voters, these developments should be viewed beyond simple party politics.

For decades, Democrats have relied heavily on overwhelming support from Black communities. Yet many Black voters continue asking a fundamental question:

What is the long-term strategy?

Internal dysfunction, fundraising struggles, and leadership disputes do little to address issues that consistently rank among the top concerns for Black Americans—including public safety, economic mobility, homeownership, education, entrepreneurship, and wealth creation.

Political parties cannot simply expect loyalty because of historical voting patterns. They must demonstrate competence, fiscal responsibility, and a clear vision that benefits the communities they seek to represent.

As the 2026 midterms draw closer, Democrats still have time to reorganize and present a unified message. But time alone will not solve financial problems, restore donor confidence, or rebuild trust with voters.

The question now is whether party leadership can change course before those challenges become political liabilities at the ballot box.

Con Edison Natural Resources Scientist Shows ELOC Summer Students What a Career in the Environmental Field Looks Like

Black Westchester
-
0
Con Edison Natural Resources Scientist Shows ELOC Summer Students What a Career in the Environmental Field Looks Like

By  Marvin V Church, Associate Executive Director of Environmental Leaders of Color

NEW ROCHELLE, N.Y.—July 27, 2026 — Students in Environmental Leaders of Color’s (ELOC) summer program got a firsthand look at what it means to build a career protecting and revitalizing local ecosystems when John Pavacic, a natural resources scientist with Con Edison, visited the organization’s New Rochelle site at the Booker T. Washington program on Wednesday, July 22nd.

The visit was part of ELOC’s summer program curriculum, which this year centers on the theme of “Ecosystems”. Students will spend the summer exploring how plants, animals, water, and humans interact with and depend on one another in the communities where students live.

As a subject matter expert in Con Edison’s Environmental, Health & Safety department, Pavacic guides the utility’s projects through environmental regulatory processes, negotiating permits and terms with agencies such as NYC Parks, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He also leads Con Edison’s sustainability programs, including its Rewilding Initiative, living shoreline projects, and efforts to incorporate green infrastructure into the company’s work. He is also one of the authors of Con Edison’s Biodiversity Plan.

Pavacic walked students through the wide range of projects he leads and supports at Con Edison, from eradicating invasive species that crowd out native plants to designing rain gardens that capture stormwater before it overwhelms local sewers and waterways to rewilding initiatives that reintroduce native species and pollinators to areas where they had previously disappeared. He also shared projects the utility is planning, giving students a look at how green infrastructure is shaping the region’s future.

As valuable as the science was, the key message was that a career in environmental studies is possible. Pavacic’s visit showed students that the environmental concepts they study each week translate into real careers where scientists dedicate their time to restoring habitats, managing stormwater, and bringing pollinators back to their neighborhoods. For many students, it was their first time meeting a working natural resources scientist and hearing how someone turns a passion for the environment into a profession.

“Our students see environmental science in textbooks every week, but moments like this show them it’s also a real career, one where you can spend your days restoring wetlands, protecting shorelines, and bringing pollinators back to neighborhoods like theirs. When they meet someone like John, who’s doing that work at a company as large as Con Edison, it becomes tangible. They start to see themselves in that role, not just as students learning about ecosystems, but as future scientists and stewards of their own communities,” said Marvin V. Church, Associate Executive Director of Environmental Leaders of Color.

The guest speaker engagement reflects ELOC’s ongoing commitment to connecting Westchester youth with environmental professionals and demonstrating pathways into the green workforce. ELOC thanks the Booker T. Washington program for its partnership and Con Edison for supporting environmental education in the community.

About Environmental Leaders of Color (ELOC)

Environmental Leaders of Color (ELOC) is a Westchester County-based nonprofit organization dedicated to engaging, educating, and empowering young people to become leaders in environmental justice. Through hands-on environmental programming, civic partnerships, leadership development, and academic support, ELOC equips the next generation with the knowledge and skills to create healthier, more sustainable communities.

For more information, visit www.eloc.earth.

A City-Owned Grocery Store Sounds Good—But Economics Doesn’t Care About Good Intentions

DAMON K JONES
-
0
A City-Owned Grocery Store Sounds Good—But Economics Doesn’t Care About Good Intentions

Let’s start with something we can all agree on. Every New Yorker wants lower grocery prices.

Food costs have climbed dramatically over the past several years, squeezing working families, seniors on fixed incomes, and many Black households already struggling with the rising cost of living. Any proposal that promises to make groceries more affordable deserves serious consideration.

That is why Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s plan to open city-owned grocery stores selling food 30 percent below retail prices has captured so much attention. On its face, it sounds like an innovative solution to a real problem.

But public policy should be judged not only by its intentions, but by whether the economics actually work.

Good intentions alone do not pay wholesalers. They do not cover payroll, refrigeration, transportation, utilities, insurance, inventory losses, or the countless operating costs of running a grocery business.

The question isn’t whether New Yorkers deserve lower grocery prices—they do.

The question is whether a city can sustainably sell groceries 30 percent below market prices without creating an ongoing financial burden for taxpayers or putting neighborhood grocery stores at a competitive disadvantage.

Before we celebrate the promise, we should understand the price.

Unlike many industries, grocery stores operate on razor-thin margins. Most supermarkets earn only 1 to 3 percent in net profit after paying for inventory, labor, utilities, transportation, refrigeration, insurance, maintenance, spoilage, and theft.

That raises a simple question:

If private grocery stores can barely make money selling food at today’s prices, how can a city-owned grocery store sell the same products 30 percent cheaper without someone absorbing the loss?

Government doesn’t receive groceries at a magical discount.

The city will still purchase food from wholesalers. It will still pay employees, maintain buildings, cover utility costs, replace spoiled inventory, and manage one of the most logistically demanding businesses in the country.

If the city has discovered a business model that allows groceries to be sold at 30 percent below market prices while remaining financially sustainable, it should publish it. Economists, retailers, taxpayers, and small business owners deserve to see how the numbers work.

Supporters often point to municipally owned grocery stores in other parts of the country as proof that government can successfully operate grocery stores.

But the comparison is misleading.

The most successful examples are found in small rural towns like St. Paul, Kansas, where the community had lost its only grocery store. The city’s goal was not to beat private businesses on price. It was simply to make sure residents had access to groceries at all. In a town of only a few hundred people, residents supported the store because the alternative was driving many miles for necessities.

Other municipal grocery stores have struggled or failed. Communities such as Baldwin, Florida, and Erie, Kansas, experienced years of operating losses, management challenges, or eventually turned operations over to private management after the economics proved difficult. These examples demonstrate just how challenging the grocery business can be—even on a much smaller scale.

New York City is an entirely different situation.

This isn’t a rural food desert with no grocery options. New York already has thousands of supermarkets, neighborhood grocery stores, bodegas, warehouse clubs, and specialty food markets competing for customers every day.

The proposal is not simply to provide access to food where none exists.

It is to have government compete in an existing marketplace while selling groceries at prices 30 percent below retail.

Running a business by selling products 30 percent below market prices may sound like a win for consumers, but the economics raise an unavoidable question: Who pays the overhead? Every grocery store—whether privately owned or government-run—must pay for inventory, employee wages, utilities, refrigeration, insurance, transportation, maintenance, technology, spoilage, and theft. Those costs do not disappear simply because the city owns the business. If the revenue from selling groceries at significantly reduced prices is not enough to cover those expenses, the shortfall must be made up elsewhere. In a government-owned operation, that burden typically falls on taxpayers through subsidies or public funding. In other words, while shoppers may save money at the checkout counter, taxpayers could ultimately be paying the operating costs behind the scenes. The question is not whether lower grocery prices are desirable—they certainly are. The question is whether a business can sustainably sell products 30 percent below market prices without shifting the true cost from the customer to the taxpayer.

That raises another important question.

What happens to the neighborhood grocery stores and family-owned supermarkets that cannot rely on taxpayer funding to offset losses?

Many of these businesses already operate on extremely thin margins while paying some of the highest commercial rents, labor costs, insurance premiums, and taxes in the country. If government becomes a subsidized competitor, some private stores may lose customers, reduce staff, or eventually close.

Every business has overhead, regardless of who owns it. A grocery store must pay for inventory, employee wages, refrigeration, utilities, transportation, insurance, maintenance, security, and food spoilage before it can ever make a profit. Those costs do not disappear because the government operates the store. If groceries are sold 30 percent below retail prices and the revenue generated is not enough to cover these operating expenses, the difference must be paid from another source. In the private sector, the business owner absorbs the loss. In a government-owned grocery store, that burden typically falls on taxpayers through public subsidies. Lower prices at the checkout counter may provide immediate relief for shoppers, but they do not eliminate the true cost of running the business—they simply shift who ultimately pays the overhead.

That would hardly strengthen neighborhood economies.

None of this means government should ignore food affordability.

Far from it.

The city should absolutely look for ways to reduce grocery costs. It could reduce unnecessary regulations, improve public safety along commercial corridors, lower the cost of doing business, encourage more competition, expand targeted nutrition assistance, or partner with existing neighborhood grocery stores rather than compete against them.

Those are conversations worth having.

But promising groceries at 30 percent below retail without fully explaining the long-term financial model risks creating expectations that may be unsustainable.

Economics is not partisan.

Whether you’re a Democrat, Republican, Socialist, or Independent, every business must eventually answer the same question: Will revenues cover expenses?

If they don’t, someone else pays the difference.

Government cannot suspend the laws of economics.

Good intentions are admirable.

Sound economics are essential.

Before New Yorkers embrace this proposal, they deserve more than a slogan. They deserve a transparent business plan that explains exactly how these stores will operate, who pays if they lose money, and whether this model can truly succeed in the most expensive city in America.

Because in the end, good intentions don’t balance budgets.

Economics does.

1...8910...195Page 9 of 195