H. Res. 173 is a House resolution that formally recognizes the history and continued vulnerability of Freedmen’s settlements — towns and communities founded by emancipated and free Black Americans — and urges federal, state, and local actors to prioritize their preservation, documentation, and economic recovery.
The text catalogs specific examples (Sand Branch, Africatown, Mossville, Edmondson, Allensworth, Oberlin Village, Independence Heights), links present harms to historical disinvestment and environmental injustice, and frames these communities as models for regenerative, community‑led development.
Because it is a resolution, the bill does not appropriate funds or create new regulatory authorities. Its practical effect lies in signaling congressional priorities: it encourages designated funding for preservation and economic justice programs, asks federal agencies to coordinate with states and nonprofits, and calls for protections against gentrification, harmful development, and environmental hazards.
For practitioners — preservationists, planners, agency program managers, and advocates — the resolution is a roadmap of what Congress expects agencies and funders to prioritize, even though it stops short of creating enforceable mandates.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution affirms the historical importance of Freedmen’s settlements and urges comprehensive documentation (including oral histories), physical commemoration, and investment in preservation and economic justice initiatives. It calls for coordinated action among federal agencies, state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and communities to protect these places from environmental hazards, unwanted development, and displacement.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies named in the text — notably the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development — are the immediate addressees, along with state and local governments, historic preservation bodies, environmental justice nonprofits, and descendants/residents of Freedmen’s settlements. Community developers, small business support organizations, and researchers documenting Black history will also be directly implicated.
Why It Matters
Although non‑binding, the resolution signals congressional priorities that can shift agency attention, grantmaking, and interagency coordination toward these communities and the Justice40/Environmental Justice agendas. It consolidates diverse policy goals — preservation, remediation, anti‑displacement, and community economic development — into a single congressional posture, which can influence program design and funding allocation across multiple agencies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H. Res. 173 opens with a series of findings that trace the origin and decline of Freedmen’s settlements: communities founded by formerly enslaved or free African Americans that provided safety, land ownership, churches, schools and local businesses but were later undermined by violence, discriminatory policy, divestment, and industrial encroachment.
The preamble names concrete examples from across the country and links their present challenges — contaminated wells, industrial pollution, loss of infrastructure, and displacement — to historical failures such as broken Reconstruction promises, redlining, and exclusionary housing practices.
The operative text is a set of non‑binding directives: the House affirms the ongoing importance of Juneteenth as a moment to acknowledge unfinished work, honors the communities and founders of these settlements, and explicitly encourages documentation using oral histories and archival records as a preservation strategy. It urges designated funding for historic preservation and economic‑justice work (while not itself allocating funds), and it directs attention to community‑led economic development, small‑business creation, workforce development, and education as tools to rebuild local economies.The resolution emphasizes intergovernmental coordination.
It names agencies and program types — the EPA’s environmental and climate justice work, HUD’s programs, food assistance, clean water efforts, and historic land preservation — and asks for better coordination between federal, state, local, and nonprofit actors. It also sets aspirational living‑standards goals for these communities (sewage, roads, emergency services, climate‑resilient infrastructure) and calls for protections against gentrification and harmful development.
Because the text is a resolution rather than statute, its force is hortatory: it creates expectations and a policy agenda but leaves actual funding, regulatory changes, and project implementation to existing programs and appropriations decisions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution explicitly urges comprehensive documentation and physical commemoration of Freedmen’s settlements, specifying the use of oral histories alongside archival records.
It calls for designated funding for historic preservation and economic‑justice initiatives to support descendants and remaining residents, but it does not appropriate money or create new entitlement programs.
H. Res. 173 names federal actors (EPA, HUD and unspecified food assistance, clean water, and historic preservation programs) and asks for coordinated action among federal, state, local, and nonprofit partners.
The text links preservation to concrete protections: the House urges shielding Freedmen’s settlements from development, gentrification, and environmental hazards through strategic investment and external development regulation.
The resolution sets aspirational standards for living conditions in these communities — sewage, roads, emergency services, climate‑resilient infrastructure, and access to clean water — as markers of equitable investment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings: history, harms, and community examples
The preamble gathers historical findings and local case studies to establish congressional awareness of both the cultural significance and present vulnerabilities of Freedmen’s settlements. By naming multiple communities and cataloguing harms (environmental contamination, lack of municipal services, industrial encroachment, and theft of land), the text creates a factual predicate meant to justify coordinated preservation and investment without proposing specific legal remedies.
Affirmation of Juneteenth context and historical repression
These early operative clauses affirm that emancipation did not end the struggle for racial justice and recognize historical terror and repression that curtailed the economic and civic development of Black communities. Practically, this is symbolic framing: it anchors the resolution’s calls in a recognized historical moment and links present policy needs to long‑standing federal failures, which can be leveraged by advocates when requesting programmatic focus or grant priorities.
Preservation, documentation, and encouraged funding
The House 'honors' Freedmen’s settlements and 'supports' preserving them through documentation (including oral histories) and physical commemoration. It 'encourages' designated funding for historic preservation and economic justice programs directed at descendants and current residents. The language invites agencies and funders to prioritize these activities but stops short of creating eligibility criteria, allocation formulas, or enforcement mechanisms.
Call for intergovernmental coordination and agency engagement
The resolution urges coordination across federal, state, and local governments and highlights specific federal entities — the EPA and HUD — alongside roles for nonprofits and schools. The clause creates a congressional expectation that these actors will work together, which could influence agency memoranda, grant guidance, or technical‑assistance offerings; however, it does not mandate interagency processes or dedicated funding streams.
Protections from development and support for community leadership
The House expresses a commitment to 'enshrine' historic community preservation and to protect settlements from development, gentrification, and environmental hazards through strategic investment, external development regulation, and community‑led economic development. The text emphasizes community control — local leadership in development projects — signaling a preference for participatory approaches even though it does not specify regulatory tools or conservation mechanisms.
Aspirational living standards and honorific closing
These clauses set aspirational standards for basic infrastructure and resilience (clean water, sewage, roads, emergency services, climate resilience) and explicitly link support for Freedmen’s settlements to equity goals, environmental justice, and repair of historic wrongs. The final clause is honorific, reaffirming the legacy of these communities and tying the resolution’s moral purpose to Juneteenth remembrance.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Civil Rights across all five countries.
Explore Civil Rights in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Current residents and descendants of Freedmen’s settlements — the resolution spotlights their communities for preservation funding and technical assistance, elevates their oral histories, and endorses community‑led development approaches that could unlock targeted resources.
- Historic preservation organizations and researchers — the bill legitimizes work cataloging these sites and can strengthen grant applications and institutional partnerships focused on Black‑founded towns.
- Environmental‑justice and community development nonprofits — by linking Freedmen’s settlements to Justice40 and EPA climate/environmental justice efforts, the resolution creates an argument for prioritizing these communities in remediation and resilience programs.
- Local governments and community development corporations in named or similar communities — the resolution creates political cover to request federal technical assistance, competitive grants, or prioritization within existing programs.
- Small Black‑owned businesses and workforce programs — the emphasis on economic justice and small business creation directs attention (and potential future funding) to local entrepreneurship and workforce development initiatives.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies (EPA, HUD and others) — while not required to spend new funds, these agencies will likely face political and administrative pressure to reprioritize existing programs, adjust grant priorities, and provide technical assistance without new appropriations.
- State and local governments — they may need to match, coordinate, or reallocate resources to align with federal priorities identified in the resolution, and to participate in documentation or preservation activities.
- Nonprofits and community organizations — tasked with leading oral history, documentation, and community‑driven development, these groups may need to expand capacity and bear upfront costs to apply for and administer grants.
- Developers and property owners in and around designated settlements — community protections encouraged by the resolution can translate into stricter local controls or community review processes, creating additional compliance steps and potentially limiting certain types of development.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is symbolic recognition versus concrete resources: the resolution asks the government to document, protect, and invest in Freedmen’s settlements and signals a comprehensive agenda, but it provides no funding, definitional clarity, or enforcement mechanisms — raising expectations among communities while leaving the costly, complex work of remediation, infrastructure, and anti‑displacement policy to existing programs with limited capacity.
H. Res. 173 is hortatory: it sets congressional priorities but does not appropriate funds, create definitions, or establish new regulatory authorities.
That matters because the most difficult work — remediation of contaminated sites, construction of sewer and water infrastructure, and durable anti‑displacement measures — requires sustained federal and local funding streams plus legal tools that the resolution does not provide. Practically, the resolution is most useful as a political lever to shape agency guidance, grant priorities, and interagency memoranda rather than as a standalone vehicle for action.
The bill is also thin on operational detail. It does not define what counts as a 'Freedmen’s settlement' or provide eligibility criteria for the 'designated funding' it encourages, leaving open who decides which places receive priority.
Coordination is urged across many actors, but without clear mechanisms (interagency working groups, timelines, or reporting requirements), agencies will have discretion in how seriously to treat the call. There is a further trade‑off between preservation and community needs: historic designation can protect cultural assets but may, if poorly designed, accelerate gentrification or restrict residents’ ability to adapt or sell property.
Finally, by naming certain communities, the resolution can draw resources to them while leaving other, smaller or less visible settlements competing for limited attention and funding.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.