Biden Visits Site of Tulsa Massacre a Century Later. ‘While darkness can hide much, it erases nothing.’
A century after a white mob destroyed a vibrant African-American community in Tulsa, Okla., torching hundreds of homes and indiscriminately shooting people in the streets, President Biden told a crowd of survivors and their families that the story of the massacre “would be known in full view.”
It was the first time a president had visited the area to address what happened 100 years ago in Greenwood, the African-American community in Tulsa, that was the site of one of the worst outbreaks of racist violence in American history but one that went largely ignored in history books.
“For much too long, the history of what took place here was told in silence,” Mr. Biden told the crowd. “While darkness can hide much, it erases nothing.”
Mr. Biden, who has made racial equity and justice central themes of his presidency, was there to shed light on a painful part of the country’s history, by recalling in detail the horror that occurred between May 31 and June 1 in 1921, when angry whites descended on Greenwood, a prosperous part of Tulsa known as Black Wall Street, killing as many as 300 people and destroying more than 1,250 homes.
“My fellow Americans, this was not a riot,” Mr. Biden said, as people in the crowd rose to their feet. “This was a massacre.”
A man was strapped to a pickup truck and dragged through the street, the president said. The bodies of a murdered family were draped over the fence outside of their home. An older couple were shot while praying.
“We do ourselves no favors by pretending none of this ever happened,” Mr. Biden told the crowd in Tulsa. “We should know the good, the bad, everything. That’s what great nations do. They come to terms with their dark sides.”
Mr. Biden’s visit was also intended to highlight steps his administration is taking to close the wealth gap between Black and white people in the United States, even as activists criticized him for not going far enough to correct historical wrongs and put the disadvantaged on equal footing.
He announced several initiatives to reduce racial disparities, including a pledge to boost federal contracts to minority-owned businesses by 50 percent and a rollback of two Trump-era actions that have hamstrung fair housing laws.
Before he delivered remarks, Mr. Biden met privately with survivors of the massacre, each between the ages of 101 and 107, whom he mentioned throughout his speech.
The decision could ultimately end any plans to drill in one of the largest tracts of untouched wilderness in the United States, delicate tundra that is home to migrating waterfowl, caribou and polar bears. Democrats and Republicans have fought over whether to allow oil and gas drilling there for more than four decades, and issuing the leases was a signature achievement of the Trump White House.
Interior Secretary Deb Haaland on Tuesday published a secretarial order formally suspending the leases until the agency has completed an environmental analysis of their impact and a legal review of the Trump administration’s decision to grant them.
While the move was widely expected and follows President Biden’s Inauguration Day executive order to halt new Arctic drilling, it serves as a high-profile way for the president to solidify his environmental credentials after coming under fire from activists upset by his recent quiet support for some fossil fuel projects.
Arctic tribal leaders who have protested oil drilling praised the move.
The refuge, 19 million acres in the northeastern part of the state, had long been off limits to oil and gas development, with Democrats, environmentalists and some Alaska Native groups successfully fighting efforts to open it.
But Mr. Trump made opening part of the refuge, about 1.5 million acres along the coast, a centerpiece of his program for developing more domestic fossil fuel production. The area, known as the Coastal Plain, is thought to lie over as much as 11 billion barrels of oil.
President Biden said on Tuesday that he had directed Vice President Kamala Harris to lead Democrats in a sweeping legislative effort to protect voting rights, an issue that is critical to his legacy but one that sees little hope of success in a divided Senate.
“To signify the importance of our efforts, today I’m asking Vice President Harris to help these efforts, and lead them, among her many other responsibilities,” Mr. Biden told a crowd gathered during a trip to Tulsa, Okla. “With her leadership and your support, we’re gonna overcome again, I promise you, but it’s gonna take a hell of a lot of work.”
Mr. Biden was in Tulsa to deliver remarks marking the 100th anniversary of a white mob destroying a vibrant Black business district, a violent episode that was one of the worst outbreaks of racist violence in American history but one that went largely ignored in history books. Mr. Biden told the crowd he saw the protection of voting rights as one of the most fundamental — and most endangered — pathways to ensuring racial equity.
The president described the more than 360 bills in 47 states trying to tighten voting rules as “a truly unprecedented assault on our democracy.” But his decision to have the vice president take it on added another problem to an already unwieldy policy portfolio.
Ms. Harris has been tasked with examining the root causes of migration from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. She will visit Mexico and Guatemala next week.
Her foreign policy portfolio comes in addition to a host of other engagements, including, but not limited to: selling the American Rescue Plan, championing Mr. Biden’s infrastructure package, representing women in the work force, highlighting the Black maternal mortality rate, assisting small businesses, assessing water policy, promoting racial equity, combating vaccine hesitancy, and fighting for police reform.
For her part, Ms. Harris embraced the assignment in a statement issued shortly after Mr. Biden’s announcement.
“In the days and weeks ahead, I will engage the American people, and I will work with voting rights organizations, community organizations, and the private sector to help strengthen and uplift efforts on voting rights nationwide,” Ms. Harris said. “And we will also work with members of Congress to help advance these bills.”
Mr. Biden has focused on issues related to voting rights for much of his career, but he faces especially wrenching decisions when it comes to the voting rights legislation he has asked Ms. Harris to help shepherd through Congress.
Known as the For the People Act, the bill is the professed No. 1 priority of Democrats this year. It would overhaul the nation’s election system, rein in campaign donations and limit partisan gerrymandering. But after passing the House, it hit a wall of Republican opposition in the Senate.
One option for Democrats would be to ram the bill through on a partisan vote by further rolling back one of the foundations of Senate tradition, the filibuster. But at least one Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, remains opposed to the idea, potentially scuttling it.
In Tulsa, Mr. Biden seemed to express open frustration at the odds facing the bill.
“I hear all the folks on TV saying ‘Why doesn’t Biden get this done?’ ” Mr. Biden said. “Well, because Biden has a majority of effectively four votes in the House and a tie in the Senate, with two members of the Senate who vote more with my Republican friends,” a likely swipe at Mr. Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, another moderate Democrat.
The reaction to Ms. Harris’s tough new assignment, at least, was bipartisan.
“Biden carrying on the longstanding American tradition of passing off the terrible/ impossible tasks to your VP,” Alyssa Farah, who served as a spokeswoman for Mike Pence during the early part of his vice presidency, wrote on Twitter.
The tabloid publishing company that paid $150,000 to a former Playboy model in 2016 to suppress her account of an alleged affair with Donald J. Trump, then a presidential candidate, has agreed to pay $187,500 to the Federal Election Commission to settle accusations that the company violated campaign finance law in making the payment.
The commission found that the firm, American Media Inc., and its former chief executive, David J. Pecker, had “knowingly and willfully” violated campaign laws by secretly routing the $150,000 payment to the former model, Karen McDougal, in coordination with senior officials with the Trump campaign, including Michael D. Cohen, who served as Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer at the time.
The idea behind the payment scheme — a method known as “catch and kill” — had been to buy the rights to Ms. McDougal’s story and then never publish it. The details of the effort came out widely in 2018 during Mr. Cohen’s federal trial for, among other things, campaign finance violations.
Mr. Pecker and Mr. Trump had been friends and allies, and American Media tried to argue to the commission that “payments for silence are not contributions or expenditures because silence is not a ‘thing of value,’” according to the settlement, which is known formally as a conciliation agreement.
American Media, the parent company of The National Enquirer, acknowledged in the settlement that the commission had found that the company made an illegal and undisclosed corporate contribution to influence the 2016 election, though the firm did not admit to the violations being “knowing and willful.”
Mr. Trump himself faces no further investigation in relation to the payment to Ms. McDougal, however. Documents released on Tuesday by Common Cause, the government watchdog group which filed the initial complaint, said that the F.E.C. did not have sufficient votes from its commissioners to move forward with an inquiry looking into Mr. Trump’s role. The six-member commission is divided between three Republican-aligned commissioners and three Democratic-aligned ones.
Paul S. Ryan, Common Cause’s vice president of policy and litigation, said he had mixed feelings about the outcome. While he felt “vindicated” by the fine, he said, he was frustrated that Mr. Trump, whom he called “the mastermind of the illegal scheme,” had not been held accountable.
Mr. Cohen, who has served time in prison in part for his involvement in the payments, said during his trial that the transaction had been part of an effort to cover up Mr. Trump’s “dirty deeds.” Mr. Pecker had agreed to an immunity deal with federal prosecutors to provide information related to the payments as part of Mr. Cohen’s trial.
“He’s the only one not to be held accountable,” Mr. Ryan said of Mr. Trump.
The F.E.C. has not yet formally announced the results in this case or revealed all of its internal findings; as the person who filed the original complaint, Mr. Ryan was notified on Tuesday of its outcome.
The commission recently began announcing the outcomes in several old cases after not having a quorum to vote on matters for most of last year.
In May, the F.E.C. announced that it had formally dropped another hush-money case tied to Mr. Trump, related to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels, who received $130,000 shortly before the 2016 election from Mr. Cohen.
In that case, the commission’s professional staff recommended proceeding in its review but Republican commissioners disagreed, saying it was “not the best use of agency resources.”
One Democrat on the commission, Ellen L. Weintraub, said on Tuesday that she had voted to pursue Mr. Trump further in the McDougal case and noted that the commission had found that the illegal contributions were made in coordination with the campaign.
“I would think it would also be illegal to be received,” she said.
But she was outvoted.
Michael T. Flynn, a former national security adviser, suggested that a military coup was needed in the United States during a Memorial Day weekend conference organized by adherents of the QAnon conspiracy theory, drawing criticism from political scientists, veterans, Democrats and a handful of prominent Republicans.
Appearing at the “For God & Country Patriot Roundup” conference in Dallas, Mr. Flynn listened to an audience member ask, “I want to know why what happened in Myanmar can’t happen here” — referring to the Myanmar military’s overthrow of a quasi-democratic government and brutal crackdown on dissent, which some QAnon supporters have cited approvingly. Mr. Flynn replied: “No reason. I mean, it should happen here. No reason.”
Many criticized the comment, including Representative Liz Cheney, a Republican who was kicked out of her House leadership position this month for criticizing former President Donald J. Trump and saying she would do everything possible to ensure he was not the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 2024. On Twitter, Ms. Cheney said, “No American should advocate or support the violent overthrow of the United States.”
Mr. Flynn — who suggested in December that Mr. Trump could invoke martial law to force new elections in swing states — responded to backlash to his remark by arguing Monday in a post on Telegram, a messaging app, that he meant the opposite.
“I am no stranger to media manipulating my words, and therefore let me repeat my response to a question asked at the conference: There is no reason it (a coup) should happen here (in America),” he wrote.
Speaking at the same conference over the weekend, Representative Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas, said that right-wing extremists were not solely responsible for the Capitol riot. The false idea that left-wing groups were responsible is popular among some conservatives.
Mr. Gohmert also minimized the severity of the riot — in which a mob of American supporters of Mr. Trump tried violently to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 election — by citing past attacks by foreigners: “Some of us think Pearl Harbor was the worst attack on democracy. Some of us think 9/11 was the worst attack. Some of us think that those things were worse attacks on democracy.” (President Biden has called the riot “the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.”)
A spokeswoman for Mr. Gohmert did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.
He and Mr. Flynn both spoke in front of a logo that included the QAnon slogan “WWG1WGA,” short for “Where We Go One, We Go All.”
A recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Interfaith Youth Core found that 14 percent of Americans, including about one in four Republicans, believed in three central tenets of the QAnon conspiracy theory: that the United States is being run by a cabal of Satanist pedophiles, that “American patriots may have to resort to violence” to get rid of that cabal, and that a “storm” will soon “restore the rightful leaders.”
President Biden on Tuesday issued a presidential proclamation recognizing June as Pride Month, vowing to fight for full equality for the L.G.B.T.Q. community to be codified into law.
The acknowledgment of Pride, a month defined for many in the L.G.B.T.Q. community by marches, parades and parties across the United States, also offered Mr. Biden his latest opportunity to contrast his own behavior and priorities with those of his predecessor in office.
Last year, Donald J. Trump steadfastly ignored Pride, refusing to acknowledge the celebration of many Americans nationwide with even a presidential tweet, overruling suggestions from several aides that he write one. Embassies overseas were told they were prohibited from flying the Pride flag.
Mr. Trump’s silence came as his administration rolled back a 2016 regulation that mandated health care as a civil right for transgender patients under the Affordable Care Act.
That was then.
As Mr. Biden marked the beginning of Pride on Tuesday, the White House underscored the contrast, noting that “after four years of relentless attacks on L.G.B.T.Q.+ rights, the Biden-Harris Administration has taken historic actions to accelerate the march toward full L.G.B.T.Q.+ equality.”
Since taking office, Mr. Biden has signed an executive order that combats discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. His administration has also reversed a Trump-era ban that prohibited transgender people from serving in the military.
He has also restored protections for transgender people seeking emergency shelter and homeless services. The Trump administration had denied them access to single-sex shelters of their gender identity.
MIAMI — Nikki Fried, Florida’s agriculture commissioner, declared her candidacy for governor on Tuesday, casting herself as the Democratic Party’s best option to defeat Ron DeSantis, the popular Republican incumbent, given her role as the only statewide elected Democrat.
“After two decades of Republican governors, it’s time to try something new,” Ms. Fried said in a brief phone interview days before her announcement. “It’s time for a change.”
Ms. Fried is the second major Democrat to enter the race. Representative Charlie Crist of St. Petersburg began his campaign last month and has been holding political events across the state. Mr. Crist is far better known: He served as Florida’s Republican governor from 2007 to 2011, lost a Senate run as an independent in 2012 and ran unsuccessfully against Gov. Rick Scott in 2014 as a Democrat.
Ms. Fried, who was elected in 2018, acknowledged that Mr. Crist would start the race with better name recognition, but said she had “no doubt” that Democratic voters would be hungry for a fresh alternative.
Before winning the 2018 election by just 6,753 votes, Ms. Fried, 43, worked as a Fort Lauderdale-based lawyer and medical marijuana lobbyist. She boasts that she holds both a medical marijuana card and a concealed-weapons permit.
The governor’s contest in the nation’s third-largest state began early, as Democrats hope to stall the political career of Mr. DeSantis, who is widely seen as a possible presidential contender in 2024 if he wins re-election next year. He has recently traveled to speak at political events in Pennsylvania and Texas.
Representative Val Demings of Orlando had also been seen as a likely Democratic challenger to Mr. DeSantis. But she is set to announce a campaign against Senator Marco Rubio instead, a move that has scrambled plans for other Democrats down the ballot. Representative Stephanie Murphy of Winter Park decided against a Senate run after Ms. Demings’s decision became public.
State Senator Annette Taddeo of Miami, who was Mr. Crist’s running mate in 2014, is still weighing a candidacy for governor.
“I will continue meeting with supporters across the state to assess the best path for me to do the most good for the people of Florida,” Ms. Taddeo said in a statement last week.
The battle among Texas lawmakers over a bill that would impose some of the strictest limits in the nation on voting access escalated Monday as Democrats and Republicans vowed that they would not back down over a highly charged issue that has galvanized both parties.
Stung by the last-minute setback for one of the G.O.P.’s top legislative priorities, after Democrats killed the measure with a dramatic walkout Sunday night, Gov. Greg Abbott suggested he would withhold pay from lawmakers because of their failure to pass the bill.
“No pay for those who abandon their responsibilities,” Mr. Abbott, a Republican who strongly supported the bill, wrote on Twitter as he pledged to veto the section of the budget that funds the legislative branch.
G.O.P. leaders said they would revive their efforts in a special session of the legislature.
“We’ll come back with better legislation and more time for it,” said Representative Briscoe Cain, who leads the House Elections Committee. “Special sessions are focused.”
Democrats were resolute in their opposition, promising to redouble their efforts to keep a new bill from becoming law.
“This is Texas, this is the Alamo,” Representative John H. Bucy III said at an afternoon news conference Monday. “We will do everything we can to stop voter suppression.’’
Democrats stymied the bill late Sunday night by secretly orchestrating a walkout in the House of Representatives that denied the chamber a quorum. As the midnight deadline approached for passing legislation, and with more than five dozen Democrats missing, Republican leaders in the House acknowledged they lacked the required number of lawmakers to conduct a legal vote, and adjourned the proceedings.
In theory, the special election to fill Interior Secretary Deb Haaland’s seat in the House should not be competitive. President Biden carried the Albuquerque-based district by 23 points last year, and there has not been a close race for Congress here since George W. Bush was president.
Democrats in Washington and New Mexico, however, are not taking any chances ahead of the election Tuesday. They have flooded Melanie Stansbury, their nominee, with an infusion of late money, dispatched Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff to appear with her in the state, and sought to energize volunteers on her behalf.
“This race is the highest priority for us,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told nearly a thousand national progressive activists on a conference call Thursday night, adding: “Any victory is good, but we want a nice, decisive victory.”
Ms. Pelosi’s eagerness to notch a resounding win reflects the party’s anxiety over one of the most pressing challenges it faces: defusing Republican attacks over law and order, the key issue on which Ms. Stansbury’s opponent is criticizing her.
More immediately, it signals the urgency House Democrats feel to maintain their tissue-thin majority in the House. With only a four-seat advantage and a largely unified Republican opposition, Ms. Pelosi needs every vote.
The contest between Ms. Stansbury and her opponent Mark Moores, both state legislators, carries symbolic as well as practical implications. Special congressional elections in the first year of a new administration have historically offered insight on the strength of the party in power. And this race may prove to be one of the few competitive elections to fill a vacancy ahead of next year’s midterms.
President Biden on Tuesday announced several initiatives to reduce racial disparities, including a pledge to boost federal contracts to minority-owned businesses by 50 percent and a rollback of two Trump-era actions that have hamstrung fair housing laws.
Mr. Biden, who spoke in Tulsa, Okla., to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the massacre of Black citizens at the hands of a white mob, has aimed many of his recent policy moves at bolstering the Black middle class.
His choice of a city whose vibrant business district was decimated by racial violence was seen as a fitting backdrop to emphasize his commitment to erasing the wealth gap between races, a key campaign promise, White House officials said.
The announcement “builds on the president’s historic approach to advancing equity and racial justice across the whole of federal government,” Karine Jean-Pierre, a spokeswoman for the president, said on Tuesday.
The administration will seek to increase the percentage of contracts to small businesses in underserved communities, a commitment that could mean an additional $100 billion for businesses designated as “disadvantaged” by the federal government.
The average Black family has one-tenth of the assets that a comparable white family possesses, and the administration is seeking to fortify the main source of wealth for Black households: homeownership.
Housing Secretary Marcia L. Fudge will oversee the creation of a task force that will propose solutions to racial discrimination in the appraisal of housing in Black neighborhoods, part of a separate-but-unequal system of segregated homeownership that has grown out of discriminatory housing laws and racist lending policies.
On Friday, Ms. Fudge announced a $100 million initiative intended to spur Black homeownership in areas historically off-limits to minorities because of biased zoning laws or discrimination by banks. The program will boost down payments for recipients of Federal Housing Administration loans, giving borrowers equity comparable to that of their more affluent neighbors.
In addition, the Department of Housing and Urban Development will issue two Fair Housing Act rules that reverse efforts by the Trump administration to weaken protections.
Under the proposed White House budget released last week, the department’s Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity division’s staff will increase about 20 percent. Ms. Fudge has already said she also intends to enforce an Obama-era program intended to increase racial and economic diversity in the suburbs.
“Because disparities in wealth compound like an interest rate, the disinvestment in Black families in Tulsa and across the country throughout our history is still felt sharply today,” a statement posted on the White House website said. “The median Black American family has thirteen cents for every one dollar in wealth held by White families.”
In the national struggle over voting rights, Democrats have rested their hopes for turning back a wave of new restrictions in Republican-led states and expanding ballot access on their narrow majorities in Congress. Failure, they have repeatedly insisted, “is not an option.”
But as Republican efforts to clamp down on voting prevail across the country, the drive to enact the most sweeping elections overhaul in generations is faltering in the Senate. With a self-imposed Labor Day deadline for action, Democrats are struggling to unite around a strategy to overcome solid Republican opposition and an almost certain filibuster.
Republicans in Congress have dug in against the measure, with even the most moderate dismissing it as bloated and overly prescriptive. That leaves Democrats no option for passing it other than to try to force the bill through by destroying the filibuster rule — which requires 60 votes to put aside any senator’s objection — to pass it on a simple majority, party-line vote.
But Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the Democrats’ decisive swing vote, has repeatedly pledged to protect the filibuster and is refusing to sign on to the voting rights bill. He calls the legislation “too darn broad” and too partisan, despite endorsing such proposals in past sessions. Other Democrats also remain uneasy about some of its core provisions.
Summarizing the party’s challenge, another Democratic senator who asked to remain anonymous to discuss strategy summed it up this way: The path to passage is as narrow as it is rocky, but Democrats have no choice but to die trying to get across.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that tribal police officers may sometimes detain and search non-Native Americans on federal highways
In a second case, the high court, also ruling unanimously, found that there is no presumption that testimony from immigrants fighting deportation is credible.
The case on tribal officers, United States v. Cooley, arose from an encounter in 2016 on a federal highway in the Crow Reservation in Montana. Officer James Saylor of the Crow Police Department stopped to assist a truck parked on the side of the road and found that the driver, Joshua Cooley, had what he said were watery and bloodshot eyes.
Noticing two semiautomatic rifles on the front seat, Officer Saylor detained Mr. Cooley and later also found methamphetamine in the truck.
Charged with federal drug and gun offenses, Mr. Cooley moved to suppress the evidence against him, arguing that tribal police officers lacked the authority to investigate violations of state or federal law by non-Native Americans on public highways in Indian reservations.
The lower courts agreed, suppressing the evidence against Mr. Cooley.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the court, acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s precedents generally barred tribes from regulating the activities of those outside them. But he said there was an important exception. Tribes may act, he wrote, quoting a 1981 decision, when a non-Native American’s “conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security or the health or welfare of the tribe.”
That exception, Justice Breyer wrote, “fits the present case, almost like a glove.”
In the immigration case, Garland v. Dai, the court rejected rulings from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, that assumed immigrants’ testimony was credible unless immigration judges specifically said otherwise.
“The Ninth Circuit has long applied a special rule in immigration disputes,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the court, one that “appears to be an outlier.” Unless immigration judges make “an explicit adverse credibility determination,” the appeals court said, “a reviewing court must treat a petitioning alien’s testimony as credible and true.”
The decision involved two cases in which immigrants had avoided deportation thanks to that presumption. In one, an immigration judge ruled that Cesar Alcaraz-Enriquez must be returned to Mexico because a federal law barred leniency for people convicted of serious crimes.
Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez had been convicted of domestic abuse, and his probation report described in detail a series of violent assaults. In testimony before the judge, Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez gave a more benign account, admitting that he had hit a girlfriend but saying he had done so to protect his daughter.
Because the judge made no explicit credibility determination, the Ninth Circuit ruled for Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez, saying his version of events must be accepted.
Veterans of the nation’s decade-long efforts to extend the broadband footprint worry that President Biden’s new infrastructure plan carries the same bias of its predecessors: Billions will be spent to extend the internet infrastructure to the farthest reaches of rural America, where few people live, and little will be devoted to connecting millions of urban families who live in areas with high-speed service that they cannot afford.
There is a political and economic logic to devoting billions of taxpayer dollars to bringing broadband to the rural communities that make up much of former President Donald Trump’s political base, which Mr. Biden wants to win over. But some critics worry that a capital-heavy rural-first strategy could leave behind urban America, which is more populous, diverse and productive, Eduardo Porter reports for The New York Times.
About 81 percent of rural households are plugged into broadband, compared with about 86 percent in urban areas, according to Census Bureau data. But the number of urban households without a connection, 13.6 million, is almost three times as big as the 4.6 million rural households that don’t have one.
Connecting urban families does not require laying thousands of miles of fiber optic cable through meadows and glens. In cities, telecom companies have already installed a lot of fiber and cable. Extending broadband to unserved urban households, most of them in low-income neighborhoods and often home to families of color, typically requires making the connection cheaper and more relevant.