The European Union is considering a “reparations loan” for Ukraine that could reach up to 130 billion euros. This amount will be finalized after the International Monetary Fund assesses Ukraine’s financial needs for 2026 and 2027.
The loan proposal, suggested by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, is based on frozen Russian assets in the West following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The intention is to help Ukraine fund its war efforts, with repayment expected only once Ukraine receives reparations from Russia through a peace deal. The potential risk is shared by EU and possibly some G7 countries.
Most of the approximately 210 billion euros worth of Russian assets in Europe are currently held in Euroclear, with 175 billion euros now matured into cash. Before moving ahead with the new loan, the EU aims to repay the existing 45 billion euro G7 loan. The final loan details are still under discussion, and the EU is planning a mechanism to use these frozen assets without confiscating them, a concern for many European governments and the European Central Bank. The loan could involve a Special Purpose Vehicle to manage the immobilized Russian cash in exchange for bonds issued by the European Commission.
SACRAMENTO — With diversity programs under full assault by the Trump administration, California lawmakers are considering a measure that would allow state colleges to consider whether applicants are descendants of African Americans who were enslaved in the United States.
The bill, which would probably face a legal challenge if passed, is part of a package of 15 reparations bills supported by the California Legislative Black Caucus being considered in the current legislative session.
Assembly Bill 7, introduced by Assemblymember Isaac G. Bryan (D-Los Angeles), if passed, could potentially skirt around the state’s ban on affirmative action. California voters in 1996 approved a state ballot measure, Proposition 209, that bars colleges from considering race, sex, ethnicity, color or national origin in admissions under Proposition 209. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 also ruled those programs were unconstitutional.
Bryan, however, says his has nothing to do with race and doesn’t use the terms “Black” or “African American” in its text.
“Descendants of people who are enslaved could identify in a variety of racial ways, and then phenotypically even present in different ways than they racially identify,” he said in an interview with The Times. “But if your ancestors were enslaved in this country, then there’s a direct lineage-based tie to harms that were inflicted during enslavement and in the after lives thereafter.”
The bill, and others in the reparations package, had seen widespread support within the Legislature’s Democratic supermajority and are representative of California’s values, Bryan said.
“I think California is quite clear where it positions itself in this moment, and that is in the support of all people, recognizing the harms of the past and trying to build a future that includes everybody. And if that appears in conflict with the federal government, I think that has more to do with the way the government is posturing than who we are as Californians,” he said.
Last year, when only 10 of 14 bills in the reparations package passed through the Legislature, reform advocates felt the efforts were lackluster. Lawmakers believed it was a foundation they could build upon, Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City) said in September.
AB 7’s focus on lineage, said Taifha Alexander, a professor at UCLA and expert in critical race theory, could face legal trouble if a judge believed it used lineage as a proxy for race. It could be ruled unconstitutionally discriminatory under the 14th Amendment.
A separate reparations bill, however, could help offer a legal definition to separate race from lineage. Senate Bill 518 would create a state bureau for descendants of American slavery. The state agency would verify a person’s status as a descendant and help applicants access benefits.
Comprehensive reparation legislation isn’t a novel idea and has been enacted before, Alexander said. In the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, the federal government formally apologized to Japanese Americans for their illegal incarceration in detention camps during World War II, and included a one-time payment of $20,000 to survivors.
Reparations — in the form of cash payments — fell flat with voters when last polled by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times in 2023. More than 4 in 10 California voters “strongly” opposed cash payments and 59% opposed the idea, with 28% in support. None of the bills currently before the Legislature includes cash reparations.
Other forms of reparations, such as a change to the college admissions process and social programs, are still valid ways to address inequities, Alexander said.
But a bill like AB 7, which looks to circumvent existing law, could face headwinds from the public who could see it as unfair, she said.
With the outcome of the 2023 Supreme Court case which banned college admissions processes from using race, she said the policy was unlikely to be popular.
Opponents argue the bill’s distinction between race and ancestry is not enough to survive judicial review, and believe a court will find lineage to be a proxy for race to circumvent the ban.
“Suppose, instead, that a state passed a law making university admission more difficult for descendants of American slavery. Would anyone argue that such a law should be upheld? Of course not,” Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions and the lawyer who argued and won the case to ban affirmative action, said in a statement to The Times.
“It would be struck down immediately as unconstitutional racial discrimination. That hypothetical reveals the core defect of AB 7 — it makes a race-linked classification under the guise of ancestry and will not withstand judicial review. If enacted, this legislation will face a swift and vigorous legal challenge in federal court and be struck down. It takes Herculean stupidity to believe otherwise,” Blum wrote.
Other bills still working through the legislative process include measures that would set aside home purchase assistance funds for descendants of American slavery that are buying their first homes and direct state agencies to address mortgage lending discrimination.
The reparations legislation that has failed to advance includes a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have banned prisons from requiring inmates to work, which some consider state-sanctioned slavery or indentured servitude.
When Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill last year that could have led to reparations for Mexican American families forced from their homes in Chavez Ravine in the 1950s, few knew the Dodgers had weighed in.
Newsom’s explanation was brief. He supported making amends for the injustice that occurred when Los Angeles officials uprooted three communities, seizing land for a housing project that would ultimately fall through before selling it to the Dodgers to enable the team’s move from Brooklyn. But the governor didn’t like that the bill would create a state-level task force rather than a local commission.
“A task force to study the events that occurred should be established at the local level,” Newsom wrote.
But previously unreported records show that the Dodgers lobbied state officials on the bill — as did the baseball team’s previous owner, Frank McCourt, who still shares ownership of the Dodger Stadium parking lots. McCourt’s lobbyists at the time included a firm led by Newsom’s friend Jason Kinney, whose French Laundry birthday dinner Newsom infamously attended at the height of the pandemic.
The records show that the Dodgers and McCourt lobbied on Assembly Bill 1950 — but not what side they took, if any. Did they oppose the legislation? And if so, did that lead to Newsom’s veto? It’s hard to know, because neither the Dodgers nor McCourt responded to my requests for comment.
As for Newsom, a spokesperson told me the governor’s office wasn’t lobbied on the bill — despite McCourt’s real estate company reporting otherwise.
Whatever actually happened, the Dodgers’ involvement raises questions about what went on behind the scenes. The public deserves answers — especially now that President Trump’s immigration raids have placed the team in the political spotlight, forcing its owners to grapple with the political and cultural power they wield.
For nearly two weeks after federal agents began rounding up brown-skinned people across the region, the team refused to comment, despite its more-than-40%-Latino fan base. For many fans, the silence felt like a betrayal — particularly after the team’s recent visit with Trump. A Dodgers employee even told Latina musician Nezza not to sign the National Anthem in Spanish before a game. (She did it anyway.)
I’ll get back to the ICE raids and reparations bill shortly. But first, let’s note that this is hardly the first time that the Dodgers have hesitated to stand for social justice — despite being the franchise of Jackie Robinson.
Since last summer, 28,000 people have signed a petition urging the team to end its relationship with oil company Phillips 66, which advertises its 76 brand gasoline throughout Dodger Stadium. State officials have accused the oil giant of participating in a “decades-long campaign” to cover up the climate crisis — a crisis that affects everybody but is especially harmful to low-income families and people of color, including L.A.’s Latino communities.
A 76 gasoline ad above the right-field scoreboard at Dodger Stadium, seen during a July 4 game against the Astros.
(Kevork Djansezian / Los Angeles Times)
In March, California Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) called on the Dodgers to drop Phillips 66 as a sponsor. In a letter to controlling owner Mark Walter, she pointed out that Angelenos breathe some of the nation’s most polluted air. She also alluded to the link between fossil fuels and more devastating wildfires.
“For decades, the Dodgers have been ahead of the curve. On issues from banning cigarette ads to making history by signing Jackie Robinson, this team has occupied a unique place in American sports,” Gonzalez wrote.
How have the Dodgers responded? At least publicly, they haven’t. Every time I’ve written about Phillips 66, they’ve declined to respond. I suspect they’re hoping the whole issue will just go away.
News flash: It’s not going away. Especially after the ICE raids.
To understand the connection between immigration and environmental justice, I’d recommend listening to Alicia Rivera. She’s an organizer with Communities for a Better Environment, and she’s spoken at rallies outside Dodger Stadium protesting Phillips 66. Even before Trump launched his harsh anti-immigrant crackdown last month, she was explaining how deportations and dirty air are part of the same system of injustices.
As drivers entered the Dodger Stadium parking lots before a game in May, she talked about her young grandson, and her fears over what kind of world he would inherit: How much worse would wildfires get? Would fossil-fueled weather disasters in other countries prompt even more refugees to flee to the U.S.?
“Workers are being detained, arrested in the middle of the street, people who don’t even identify themselves are deporting them. And these oil companies have been complicit in denying us to know the truth, paying millions to pay so-called scientists to deny that their products have caused climate change,” Rivera said.
When I asked Rivera if dumping 76 would be a worthy response to the ICE raids — a way for the Dodgers to show that they care about Latino fans — she had a simple answer: “Of course. That would be a major breakthrough.”
“I see a consistent pattern of disregard for the well-being of the people they are profiting from,” she said.
Community organizer Alicia Rivera speaks at a rally outside Dodger Stadium on Sept. 22.
(Marcus Ubungen / Los Angeles Times)
That pattern arguably goes back decades.
The Chavez Ravine bill wouldn’t have forced the Dodgers to pay a cent to displaced families or their descendants; all it would have done is create a task force to study reparations. But the team has long shied away from so much as discussing the land’s grim backstory.
Only five entities paid lobbyists to weigh in on AB 1950, per an open-source database that compiles state records. Two of them — Fieldstead and Co. and Inclusive Action for the City — went on record supporting the legislation. I confirmed that a third group, the Western Center on Law & Poverty, was also in support.
Only the Dodgers and McCourt’s real estate company, McCourt Partners, haven’t publicly taken a stance.
The Dodgers lobbied the Legislature on AB 1950, while McCourt lobbied both the Legislature and the governor’s office, the records show.
Again, it’s tough to know what happened behind the scenes. Lawmakers passed the bill overwhelmingly, but only after a Senate committee nixed plans for a local task force — exactly what Newsom claimed he wanted.
As far as Wendy Carrillo is concerned, though, the lobbying records speak for themselves.
Carrillo was the state Assembly member, no longer in office, who wrote AB 1950. When I told her what I’d learned, she was outraged. She felt the records confirmed her suspicion that the Dodgers helped kill the bill.
She accused the team of “being disconnected from the very fan base that they have.”
“That same criticism can be made toward their visit to Trump at the White House, and their lack of understanding this moment in Los Angeles amid the growing ICE raids,” Carrillo said.
Dodgers owner Mark Walter looks on as President Trump speaks at the White House in April. The team visited Washington, D.C., to celebrate its 2024 World Series championship.
(Alex Wong / Getty Images)
Indeed, many fans are far from satisfied with the team’s response to Trump’s cruelty. Which is no surprise, given that the Dodgers still seem eager to avoid angering Trump. Team president Stan Kasten was maddeningly vague in his statement touting the $1 million for immigrants, describing the raids as “what’s happening in Los Angeles” and acknowledging only that said happenings have “reverberated among thousands upon thousands of people.”
In contrast, L.A. women’s soccer team Angel City spoke up immediately about the “fear and uncertainty” created by the raids. Its players wore “Immigrant City Football Club” shirts that declared, “Los Angeles is for everyone.”
To Carrillo, the Dodgers’ latest failure to show true solidarity with its Latino fan base is another manifestation of the team’s original sin — its decades-long refusal to acknowledge the Mexican American communities of Bishop, La Loma and Palo Verde, which were bulldozed to make way for Dodger Stadium.
Carrillo, who’s running for state Senate in a district that would include Dodger Stadium, wants Walter and his co-owners — who include basketball legend Magic Johnson and tennis star Billie Jean King — to support a memorial for displaced Chavez Ravine families. And to offer more vocal support for persecuted immigrants today.
The team said its $1 million in donations would be followed by “additional announcements.” So far, crickets.
Owning up to Chavez Ravine’s sordid history would be a great step. So would getting rid of the 76 ads.
Both actions would infuriate the MAGA crowd — but so would just about anything the Dodgers might do in response to the ICE raids. In fact, the backlash has already started. A group co-founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s anti-immigrant policies, has filed a civil rights complaint against the Dodgers.
Whatever they do next, the Dodgers will make some enemies. Just like they did when they signed Jackie Robinson and broke baseball’s color barrier. The only question is whether they’ll once again stand for justice.
This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our “Boiling Point” podcast here.
