Governance

Call To Action: Upcoming Tribal Consultations: Indian Affairs Workforce Efficiency and Productivity – EO 14210

tlmorri3 — Tue, 22 Apr 2025 23:03:48 +0000

Call To Action: Upcoming Tribal Consultations: Indian Affairs Workforce Efficiency and Productivity – EO 14210

tlmorri3 April 22, 2025

AIPI Blog

Call To Action: Upcoming Tribal Consultations: Indian Affairs Workforce Efficiency and Productivity – EO 14210

The U.S. Department of the Interior's Indian Affairs office has announced a new series of Tribal consultations in response to Executive Order 14210: “Revitalizing the Federal Workforce,” issued by President Trump on February 11, 2025. This directive establishes the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Workforce Optimization Initiative, a government-wide effort to reform the federal workforce by enhancing efficiency, streamlining operations, and improving the delivery of services to the American public, including Tribal Nations.

Who Should Attend?
These consultations are open to elected Tribal leaders or their designated proxies. Tribal citizens, staff, and organizations are also welcome to attend and listen in.

What’s at Stake?
As required by EO 14210, all federal agencies must develop an Agency Reorganization Plan to enhance workforce efficiency and productivity. For agencies serving Tribal Nations, such as Indian Affairs, this process must comply with related federal policies that require meaningful and timely Tribal consultation when developing policies with Tribal implications.

Thus, the decisions informed by these consultations extend beyond internal efficiency; they directly impact the federal government’s ability to uphold its trust and treaty obligations. This process provides a crucial opportunity for Tribal leaders to ensure that restructuring efforts align with Tribal priorities, protect sovereignty, and preserve vital services for Tribal communities.

Consultation Schedule

Session	Area	Format	Date & Time
1	Alaska	Hybrid	May 20, 2025 – 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. AT
2	California	Hybrid	May 22, 2025 – 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. PT
3	Albuquerque	Hybrid	May 27, 2025 – 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. MT
4	Minnesota	Hybrid	May 29, 2025 – 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. CT
5	BIE Personnel	Virtual Only	May 30, 2025 – 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. ET
6	Oklahoma	Hybrid	June 3, 2025 – 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. CT
7	Washington, DC	Hybrid	June 5, 2025 – 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. ET
8	Open	Virtual Only	June 6, 2025 – 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. ET

Why It Matters
In a time of shifting political priorities and heightened scrutiny of federal programs, the future of Indian Affairs is being shaped in real time. Decisions made under the banner of efficiency and streamlining can have profound consequences for Tribal Nations, particularly if those decisions are made without meaningful input from the Tribal community.

Thus, these consultations are not just procedural, but pivotal. They provide formal avenues for Tribal Nations to assert their sovereignty, elevate community priorities, and ensure that restructuring efforts do not compromise the federal government’s trust and treaty obligations.

With EO 14210 driving a government-wide push for workforce realignment, Indian Country must remain at the table to ensure its representation. These sessions provide an opportunity to remind federal agencies that Tribal communities are not just stakeholders; they are sovereign nations. It’s essential to understand how services are delivered, but even more critical to ask who makes those decisions, and whether they reflect the self-determined priorities and visions of Tribal Nations.

How to Participate

Now more than ever, Tribal voices are essential in shaping a future for Indian Affairs that is accountable, responsive, and rooted in the government-to-government relationship. Visit the official Indian Affairs website to register for upcoming consultation meetings!

Additionally, you can review the official Dear Tribal Leader Letter for more information and context. Written comments can be submitted to consultation@bia.gov by May 24, 2024.

Posted on

April 22, 2025

Resource type

Call to Action

Browse topics

Blog Home

Policy Explainer: The Role of Higher Education Institutions in Upholding the Federal Trust Responsibility as Applied by Arizona State University

kssatter — Tue, 15 Apr 2025 18:04:19 +0000

Policy Explainer: The Role of Higher Education Institutions in Upholding the Federal Trust Responsibility as Applied by Arizona State University

kssatter April 15, 2025

AIPI Blog

Policy Explainer: The Role of Higher Education Institutions in Upholding the Federal Trust Responsibility as Applied by Arizona State University

This brief follows up on the recent AIPI Policy Explainer: Federal Trust Responsibility and Higher Education, which clarified the status of programs supporting American Indian students in higher education in response to recent legal and policy developments by explaining that Federal relationships with Tribal Nations and their citizens/members are based on political distinctions rather than racial classifications.

This brief examines how Arizona State University (ASU) upholds the Federal Trust Responsibility through its long-standing commitment to Tribal Nations and their citizens/members. In alignment with its Charter, which states that ASU measures itself “by whom it includes and how they succeed,” the University acknowledges the significant presence and contributions of Tribal communities.

Recently, ASU President Michael Crow reaffirmed the University’s commitment to Tribal Nations, citizens, and members in a letter dated March 25, 2025, stating,

“Our relationship with tribal nations and communities is an extension of the federal trust responsibilities that are recognized in the U.S. Constitution, treaties, executive orders, and judicial decisions as a government-to-government relationship. ASU has established tribal consultation protocols that honor and recognize tribal sovereignty and self-governance—with longstanding investments in Indian country that generates economic vitality benefiting the entire State.”

He further reiterated ASU’s enduring commitment first articulated in his 2015 statement, “ASU Commitment to American Indian Tribes”:

Further, “We are dedicated to supporting tribal nations in achieving futures of their own making while building and strengthening leadership capacities to address challenges for Native nations in the 21st Century and beyond.”

Legal Foundation for University Programs Serving Tribal Members/Citizens:

As demonstrated in the Brief as mentioned earlier, the legal foundations for universities serving tribal members/citizens is based on the facts that 1) tribal citizenship Is a political distinction, not a racial classification, 2) the Federal Government has a Legal and treaty-based obligation to support American Indian education, and, 3) non-tribal universities have a role in upholding the Federal Trust Responsibility.

In a letter dated February 20, 2025, Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Verlon Jose addressed this legal foundation in a statement to the Arizona State Senate leadership:

“Maintaining programs that benefit federally recognized tribes, and their members, does not amount to impermissible racial discrimination. It is important to acknowledge that state and federal programs, including university programs, designed to benefit federally recognized tribes, and tribal members, are not race-and sex-based preferences functioning under the guise of diversity, equity and inclusion.”

Chairman Jose notably highlights a critical legal distinction: educational initiatives grounded in Tribal citizenship and the federal trust responsibility are political in nature and therefore remain constitutionally valid and legally protected.

ASU’s Tribal-Focused Programs and Initiatives

ASU supports American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students, faculty, and communities through a robust network of academic programs, research centers, and government-to-government partnerships:

Research, Policy and Outreach Centers

American Indian Policy Institute – Focuses on Tribal governance and policy.
Center for Tribal Digital Sovereignty – Supports Tribal governments in digital governance.
Indian Legal Program - Trains the next generation of Indian country lawyers and leaders in partnerships with many Tribal Nations, private and governmental entities.
Center for Indian Education – Researches American Indian/Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian education.
Labriola National American Indian Data Center – Provides resources for Tribal librarianship and archival research.

Degree Programs

American Indian Law, American Indian Studies, and social work programs specializing in American Indian/Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian issues.

Tribal Partnerships and Consultation

Formal consultation processes with Tribal governments on research, land use, and education.
Tribal Institutional Review Boards to ensure ethical research practices.

Conclusion

Despite evolving legal interpretations of education policies, programs designed to support Tribal students remain legally protected under the U.S. Trust Responsibility to Tribal Nations. These programs are rooted in Tribal sovereignty, treaty obligations, and federal law, not racial classification. Universities and state governments play a critical role in ensuring that American Indian/Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian students receive the educational support promised through centuries of federal commitments.

ASU’s example shows how public universities can actively fulfill their share of the trust responsibility through collaboration, consultation, and sustained investment in Native communities. Understanding and upholding these responsibilities is essential for university leaders, educators, and policymakers to ensure that American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students continue to access the educational opportunities promised to them under centuries of federal commitments.

Download This Policy Explainer

Additional Resource:

References

Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988. (1988, April 28). https://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/house-bill/5

Eugene Volokh, The California Civil Rights Initiative: An Interpretive Guide, 44 UCLA L. Rev. 1335 (1997) (“The government categorizes individuals based on political affiliation in various manners…. Tribal Indians … are part of a political entity that is specifically recognized by federal law and the U.S. Constitution, rather than an ethnic group that lacks independent legal status.”)

Exec. Order No. 3416, 3 C.F.R. 3 (2025). https://www.doi.gov/document-library/secretary-order/so- 3416-ending-dei-programs-and-gender-ideology-extremism

National Archives. (n.d.). Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity. Federal Register: Executive Order 14173.https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/31/2025-02097/ending-…

Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. (n.d.). Libguides: Indian law: Indian education. Indian Education - Indian Law - LibGuides at Arizona State University - College of Law. https://libguides.law.asu.edu/indianlaw/education

Posted on

April 15, 2025

Resource type

Explainer

Browse topics

Blog Home

Policy Explainer: Federal Trust Responsibility and Higher Education

kssatter — Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:00:12 +0000

Policy Explainer: Federal Trust Responsibility and Higher Education

kssatter April 15, 2025

AIPI Blog

Policy Explainer: Federal Trust Responsibility and Higher Education

This explainer clarifies the status of programs supporting American Indian students in higher education in response to recent legal and policy developments. Federal relationships with Tribal Nations and their citizens/members are based on political distinctions rather than racial classifications. The framework outlined in this document reflects the federal government’s unique relationship with and obligations to Tribal Nations.

Legal Framework

Tribal Citizenship Is a Political Distinction, Not a Racial Classification
- The U.S. Supreme Court (e.g., Morton v. Mancari) and Congress (Title 25 of the U.S. Code) have repeatedly reaffirmed the political status of American Indians as citizens and members of Tribal Nations. Consistent with the United States Constitution, Congress’s ability to legislate in Indian Affairs is not based on racial or ethnic minority status but on a government-to-government relationship between the United States and the various Tribal Nations.
- This legal distinction based on tribal citizenship/membership ensures that educational opportunities for American Indian students remain constitutionally valid as an extension of the United States’ trust responsibilities.
The Federal Government Has a Legal and Treaty-Based Obligation to Support American Indian Education
- Federal treaties, laws and regulations mandate support for American Indian education programming and are part of a substantial legal trust responsibility.
- Over 150 treaties include explicit provisions for educational support, reflecting a longstanding federal obligation to uphold Tribal sovereignty and self-determination based on the unique status of tribes and tribal citizens/members.
Non-Tribal Universities Have a Role in Upholding the Federal Trust Responsibility
- Public institutions that receive federal funding, such as Arizona State University (ASU), are integral to fulfilling the trust obligation by offering tailored support services and American Indian-focused academic programs.
- State governments can legally extend educational support to Tribal citizens/members, just as they provide benefits or services based on the state residency/citizenship of certain classes of students.

Tribal Sovereignty and the Federal Trust Responsibility: A Legal Obligation

Tribal Nations are sovereign governments with a distinct political and legal status recognized in the U.S. Constitution, treaties, and federal law. As part of the United States’ sovereign-to-sovereign relationships, Tribal nations and their citizens/members have a unique relationship with the federal government, which is legally bound by treaty and law to uphold its trust responsibility. This obligation is a fundamental aspect of Tribal sovereignty. The federal trust responsibility ensures the protection of Tribal sovereignty, fulfillment of treaty commitments, and support for self-determination, including specific programs such as education.

To operationalize the Trust obligation, Congress has enacted key federal statutes that codify the federal government’s role in supporting education for American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students. These statutes serve as the basis for implementing the trust responsibility in educational contexts:

Key Federal Statutes

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (1975): This Act empowers Tribal Nations to manage their education programs and services, honoring the government-to-government relationship.
The Tribally Controlled Schools Act (1988): This statute supports the development and operation of schools governed by Tribal Nations, reflecting an enduring commitment to American Indian education.
The Native Hawaiian Education Act (1965): This Act similarly recognizes the unique political and trust relationship between the federal government and Native Hawaiian peoples.

These statutes represent only a portion of the broader legal framework guiding educational support for Tribal Nations. A wide array of additional laws, regulations, and policies collectively shape the implementation of the federal trust responsibility in education and beyond. For a more comprehensive overview, explore the ASU American Indian Education Law Library Guide for curated legal and policy resources.

Conclusion

A long-standing political relationship between the United States and Tribal Nations, anchored in the U.S. Constitution, federal treaties, laws, statutes, and regulations, forms the bedrock of Trust Obligations. For generations, education has been explicitly recognized in treaties as a central pillar of the United States’ obligation to Tribal members/citizens. These treaties and other legal duties guarantee access to education and affirm the political status of Tribal Nations, ensuring that any program designed to benefit Tribal citizens aligns with these foundational promises.

Download This Policy Explainer

Additional Resource:

Posted on

April 15, 2025

Resource type

Explainer

Browse topics

Blog Home

Letter to the President From Tribal Organizations: Tribal Funding Is a Legal Obligation, Not Discretionary Spending

tlmorri3 — Tue, 04 Feb 2025 23:12:01 +0000

Letter to the President From Tribal Organizations: Tribal Funding Is a Legal Obligation, Not Discretionary Spending

tlmorri3 February 4, 2025

AIPI Blog

Letter to the President From Tribal Organizations: Tribal Funding Is a Legal Obligation, Not Discretionary Spending

On Sunday, Feb. 2, a coalition of 23 Tribal organizations and intertribal councils representing the majority of sovereign American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Nations formally called on the President, members of Congress, and the Interior Secretary to uphold federal treaty and trust obligations. Their letter urges federal officials to consult with Tribal Nations and protect critical funding following recent executive actions that negatively impact Tribal programs.

At the core of the letter is a reaffirmation that “Tribal Nations are not racial groups but sovereign political entities with a unique legal and political relationship with the United States.” This relationship is rooted in inherent sovereignty, recognized by the U.S. Constitution, and upheld by treaties, federal laws, and court decisions. Thus, the signatories stress that federal funding for Tribal programs is not a discretionary budget item but rather should be understood and acknowledged as a legally mandated obligation owed to Tribal Nations.

Furthermore, the letter raises concerns about the impact of recent executive orders and the rescission of OMB Memorandum M-25-13, which M-25-14 now replaces. The new memorandum shifts decision-making authority to agency general counsels, increasing the risk that Tribal funds could be frozen or restricted under vague interpretations of executive orders. This uncertainty undermines the government’s ability to meet its trust and treaty responsibilities.

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and other Tribal organizations call on the administration to take immediate action, ensuring that executive decisions do not undermine the unique sovereign status of Tribal Nations. Specifically, they demand:

Clear recognition of Tribal sovereignty in the implementation of all executive orders.
Agency guidance that protects Tribal programs from unnecessary funding disruption.
Separation of Tribal programs from diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) and environmental justice (EJ) initiatives, emphasizing that Tribal programs are not DEIA or EJ initiatives. It warns that misclassifying these programs would undermine treaty obligations and harm Tribal communities.

Additionally, the organizations stress that reducing the federal workforce must not disrupt Tribal affairs, stating that workforce cuts should not disrupt the government’s ability to manage and administer trust and treaty obligations.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently recognized and upheld the distinct legal and political status of Tribal Nations and their citizens, and the administration is urged to ensure that all agencies continue to engage and consult with Tribal Nations at the government-to-government level.”

To emphasize the urgent concerns, Tribal leaders have extended an invitation to the administration and members of Congress to attend the NCAI Executive Council Winter Session, held Feb. 10-13 in Washington, D.C. This session is a critical moment for lawmakers to hear directly from Tribal leaders about their responsibility to uphold Tribal sovereignty, honor trust obligations, and ensure that treaty rights and funding commitments are fully protected.

Government Response and Call to Action

In response to reports of Tribal Nations being unable to access different types of funding, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has committed to tracking how pauses in federal funding impact Tribal communities. Tribal leaders and organizations experiencing funding disruptions are encouraged to report their issues by contacting the committee at oversight@indian.senate.gov.

To assist with oversight efforts, Tribal representatives should provide the following details:

Name of the Tribal program.
What grant(s)/loan(s)/funding/Tribe program has and tried to access?
How much funding was sought during the funding drawdown (Jan. 24 to present)?
What was the issue experienced? Is it ongoing currently?
When was the last successful fun drawdown (including a date)?
What were the impacts of this? Were services stopped, was staffing sent home, etc?

Posted on

February 4, 2025

Resource type

Call to Action

Browse topics

Blog Home

Unrelenting Litigation? The Supreme Court’s Overruling of Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises & Relentless, Inc. and What’s Next for Tribes

bsantist — Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:00:38 +0000

Unrelenting Litigation? The Supreme Court’s Overruling of Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises & Relentless, Inc. and What’s Next for Tribes

bsantist July 8, 2024

AIPI Blog

Unrelenting Litigation? The Supreme Court’s Overruling of Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises & Relentless, Inc. and What’s Next for Tribes

The decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. is just as impactful as the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, its ruling on Presidential immunity, or any of the other recent blockbuster decisions. On its face, Loper Bright appeared to be a rather benign case involving commercial fishing vessels and whether private parties had to pay for federal observers on those vessels for purposes of monitoring possible overfishing – a scenario with little relevance to most tribes. But what it actually did is much more foundational and potentially far-reaching for Indian Country.

Last Friday, June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court, with a 6-3 majority divided along ideological lines, released its opinion in the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce (decided together with the case Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce), 603 U.S. ____ (2024). The ruling eliminated a fundamental principle of administrative law known as "Chevron deference" that had been in place for 40 years. In sum, the ruling means that federal courts will no longer give deference to federal agency interpretations of ambiguities or gaps in federal law, but instead independently take on those legal interpretations themselves.

This is important because now it will be up to federal courts primarily to address such ambiguities or gaps in the law in the administrative agency context. Going forward that could mean that federal agency actions (including actions affecting tribes) are more frequently overturned by the courts or more frequently decided in the first instance by courts rather than agencies.

The rule of agency deference had been in effect since its pronouncement by the Supreme Court in the case Chevron U.S.A. Inc v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The rule pertained to decisions made by federal administrative agencies involving ambiguous or incomplete congressional statutes and involved a two-step analysis by a court reviewing a challenge to the agency’s action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq. The court would first determine if Congress had specifically addressed the issue at hand in the relevant statute – if so, that was the end of the court’s inquiry and the court either upheld agency action aligning with congressional intent or rejected contrary action. Id. at 842. But if the court determined there to be an ambiguity in the law or the statute did not address the issue at hand, the court was to defer to the agency's expertise and not disturb the agency action in interpreting the statute, so long as the agency in essence acted reasonably and had support for its interpretation. Id. at 843, 865. This deference by the reviewing court had to be given, even if the court independently disagreed with the agency’s interpretation. Id. Under the Loper Bright decision, courts will no longer give such deference and are to interpret ambiguities and gaps in the law themselves in assessing an agency action challenge.

The need for such agency interpretations is very common, because Congress cannot address every possible scenario or contingency when drafting statutes, such that laws are often unclear or incomplete. In the Chevron case, the Supreme Court had reasoned that allowing for agency interpretations made sense because the relevant agency would have the technical expertise and experience to fill in gaps in the law in a practical manner. Now courts will fill that role.

Although the nature of the process issue raised in the case – whether an agency or a court should interpret statutory ambiguities – may seem abstract on the surface, the Loper Bright ruling from Friday is groundbreaking and possibly affects 40 years of subsequent court decisions implementing the Chevron deference rule. It has implications for tribes across the country in many different possible contexts – virtually all federal agencies with which tribes interact could be affected. But the specifics will have to be gained from future litigation testing how courts react with their new-found responsibilities under the Loper Bright decision.

In viewing the future of administrative action, the various views held of Chevron over the past four decades will undoubtedly be invoked. There are those who believed wholeheartedly in its deference to administrative agency experts, and do not believe courts could ever have sufficient technical expertise to tackle agency work. And many of those same supporters believe that agency interpretations of less-than-clear statutes are a form of policy-making that courts should not be taking from the executive branch with its prerogative to create policy under any given Presidential Administration. Those concerns will be compounded when taking into account most federal courts already have full dockets and limited bandwidth to take on a significant portion of the role of federal agencies. On the other hand, there are those who have complained for decades about many of the deficiencies in Chevron, noted in the Supreme Court decision overturning it – among them, the lack of uniformity in defining what constitutes a statutory ambiguity, the “thumb on the scale” bias upholding much agency action, and a lack of congruence with the Administrative Procedure Act in its direction that relevant questions of law are to be decided by reviewing courts, not agencies. Those alleged faults with Chevron are on top of its detractors’ most significant argument – Chevron failed to adhere to the Constitution’s separation of powers requirements and amounts to a power grab by the administrative state.

So what does all of this mean for tribes? Like other parties dealing with federal agencies, many tribes have had a “love it” or “hate it” view of Chevron that often varied depending upon the particular matter at hand. If you were in front of an agency that granted a decision favorable to your cause and the agency had a reasonable basis for doing so, you had a good chance of it withstanding an appeal. But if the agency issued an unfavorable decision to you, or if the actions of another party that you opposed were approved, the chances for reversal on appeal often were challenging. After the Loper Bright decision, that dynamic may be less certain, because a court will now independently review any ambiguous or incomplete provisions of the law at hand, without necessarily taking into account the agency’s attempt to do so. That statement as to predictability is subject, of course, to the assumption that judicial review of agency action will itself be free from political or other predictable leanings.

Regardless of how tribes may have felt about Chevron or its tendency to uphold agency decisions, one thing is almost certain from the Loper Bright decision – tribes need to plan to be part of the litigation that will be necessary to fill in the contours of the decision for years to come. That is not “the sky is falling” talk. Overruling, or at least calling into question, the past 40 years of administrative law precedent decided in Chevron and its progeny, without an overarching framework to take its place other than to say it is up to federal judges to take back from federal agencies the responsibility of interpreting federal law, will cause a major shift. And tribes need to be a part of the foundational rebuilding process. But doing so is likely to be costly for tribes and any other parties who routinely interact with federal agencies. The stability of agency deference likely will give way to the unpredictability of court interpretations (at least initially after this decision); unpredictable courts require a trial-and-error approach to get precedent in place to create future stability; and such an approach obviously will require a greater expenditure of time, effort and resources than a path with greater certainty from the outset.

What is the next step for tribes after Loper Bright and its overruling of Chevron? Litigation budgeting and planning. Because it’s coming, so tribes should get ready. That may be the one near-certainty stemming from the uncertainty caused by Loper Bright.

Posted on

July 8, 2024

Resource type

Explainer

Browse topics

Blog Home

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to create the Missing and Endangered Persons (MEP) alert code for the Emergency Alert System (EAS).

bsantist — Fri, 14 Jun 2024 20:20:36 +0000

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to create the Missing and Endangered Persons (MEP) alert code for the Emergency Alert System (EAS).

bsantist June 14, 2024

AIPI Blog

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to create the Missing and Endangered Persons (MEP) alert code for the Emergency Alert System (EAS).

On March 14, 2024, The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to create the Missing and Endangered Persons (MEP) alert code for the Emergency Alert System (EAS). This proposed MEP event code would address missing adults ages 18 - 64 who fall outside of the event codes for AMBER and Silver alerts. The Not Invisible Act Commision and the National Congress of American Indians have recommended that New alerts be created to help address the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Peoples crisis facing Tribal communities.

The EAS is used to deliver emergency information to large audiences (i.e. weather and disaster alerts) through broadcast mediums like radio and TV. The following are some of the questions from the FCC regarding the new event code.

Other than national emergencies, participation in the EAS is voluntary. Would the creation of a dedicated event code for MEP increase voluntary participation in retransmitting alerts?
Should there be a dedicated event code for Missing Indigenous Persons? (Similar to the Feather Alert or Colorado and Washington’s Missing Indigenous Person Alert.)
Should the proposed MEP event code also be extended to the Wireless Emergency Alert System to enable alerts to mobile devices?
Are there any concerns for privacy, civil rights, or Tribal Sovereignty in the creation and implementation for these kinds of alerts?

Additional questions, technical information, and background can be found in the full NPRM document. The FCC is accepting reply comments through June 17, 2024. The FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy is also hosting a virtual consultation on June 17, 2024 1 - 3 PM ET. Information on how to submit a comment can be found at the FCC’s MEP page.

Posted on

June 14, 2024

Resource type

Call to Action

Browse topics

Blog Home

Ittifatpoli: Executive Director Update

bsantist — Mon, 11 Sep 2023 21:55:39 +0000

Ittifatpoli: Executive Director Update

bsantist September 11, 2023

AIPI Blog

Ittifatpoli: Executive Director Update

On August 21 through 22, 2023, I attended the Chickasaw Listening Conference in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. As a citizen who lives outside Chickasaw Treaty Territory and a member of the Arizona community council, I and 300 plus other members from various community councils in various states attended the first listening council since 2007. The conference was an opportunity to gather with fellow council members, share ideas, and provide feedback for at-large programs and services in the areas of health, housing, education, and more.

This year is the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Chickasaw 198 3 Constitution. With a portfolio of over 100 business enterprises and a population of over 80,000 both inside and outside of the Treaty Territory, Governor Anoatubby stated that the Listening Conference “is an exercise in self-determination.”

Over the course of this two-day event, I met a lot of Chickasaws and learned about the many programs that CN offers to its citizens (we are not a per capita Tribe). Additionally, we visited both the First American Museum and the Chickasaw Nation Cultural Center. I’ve been to the cultural center a number of times, but I always love going there. But, I had never been to the new First American Museum. I’ve been excited to see this museum, and it did not disappoint. It is a very indigenous space, and the installations were powerful and moving.

As the line spoken by John Trudell from the movie Smoke Signals goes, “It’s a good day to be Indigenous.” That was the way it felt being in Oklahoma for the first time after the pandemic. Chickasha Saya! (We Are Chickasaw)

As Always #BeTheSolution

Posted on

September 11, 2023

Resource type

Newsletter

Browse topics

Blog Home

The Office of Management & Budget Proposes Updates for Reporting Race and Ethnicity Data

spesweviwridriclitrauespuuadruwujihuthacrijowosomijeclifrewr — Tue, 18 Apr 2023 18:05:59 +0000

The Office of Management & Budget Proposes Updates for Reporting Race and Ethnicity Data

spesweviwridri… (not verified) April 18, 2023

AIPI Blog

The Office of Management & Budget Proposes Updates for Reporting Race and Ethnicity Data

**PUBLIC COMMENT DEADLINE EXTENDED**

In January, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released proposals for changing Federal Race and Ethnicity Standards. The proposals were advanced by the The Federal Interagency Technical Working Group on Race and Ethnicity Standards (the Working Group). The Working Group includes more than 20 intergovernmental agencies and is comprised of Federal government career staff. Agencies included are those that regularly work with Tribes such as the Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The proposed changes aim to improve the quality and value of federal race and ethnicity data. The proposals would revise OMB's 1997 Statistical Policy Directive No. 15: Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity and would hope to provide minimum standards meant to ensure the ability to compare information and data across Federal agencies. The proposed changes include, among others:

Collecting data on race and ethnicity together within a single question;
Changing the American Indian or Alaska Native minimum category description to include all individuals who identify with any of the original peoples of North, Central, and South America;”
Adding the phrase “who maintain Tribal affiliation or community attachment” in the American Indian or Alaska Native definition; and
Adding a space for self-identifying Tribal affiliation.

Accurate and genuine data of U.S. population groups is crucial to informing necessary policy, directions of research and overall public understandings. Inadequate data creates inadequate support of individual population group needs. While these changes aim to gather correct data on identities in the U.S., there is concern that their approach will only continue trends of ignoring unique American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) identity characteristics and inherent Tribal sovereignty principles, consequently continuing to produce inaccurate data on AI/AN populations.

First, although the AI/AN population category is the only census-defined racial category that is concurrently considered a political entity, the proposed changes do not directly address this. Instead, AI/AN identities are lumped together with other population groups solely in the “racial” identification category. Classification of AI/AN peoples solely as a “race” rather than also sovereign Native Nations that have maintained a unique government-to-government relationship with the United States since its inception will cause continued misunderstandings pertaining to AI/AN identities and the inherent civil and political right that accompany it. We are currently seeing a direct consequence of this in the Supreme Court Case, Haaland v. Brackeen. In contrast, supplying an AI/AN identity option outside of the racial category to collect data would allow for the separation between understandings of AI/AN peoples as simply connected to race and would give an accurate picture of Tribal data.

Second, the collection of this data will continue to be through self-reporting, as opposed to meeting the individual sovereign standards each of the 574 Federally Recognized Tribes require in order to be legally considered a Tribal citizen. If the race and ethnicity categories adhered to requirements upheld by sovereign Native Nations in order to correctly identify as AI/AN, it would ensure more accurate data on Tribal populations and maintain data sovereignty, or the inherent right of Tribes to govern the collection, ownership, and application of its own data.

Finally, the OMB’s proposed changes could increase the number of AI/AN individuals who identify as two or more races. Lumping larger amounts of the AI/AN community into the “two or more” race category as opposed to protecting the accuracy of the nuances in AI/AN populations by breaking down their identity groups fails to take into account individualized trends. This will continue the skewing of data and further the misunderstandings of different AI/AN populations’ unique experiences and support requirements.

The above concerns regarding the miscollection of Tribal data could cause mistakes in research, create flawed policy initiatives and continue negative and misinformed conceptions about the AI/AN population. Regardless of the final outcomes of changes to the OMB’s race and ethnicity standards, it is necessary for the Federal government to take into account the unique AI/AN identity characteristics and inherent Tribal sovereignty principles when they collect information on AI/AN identities. This is the singular path to factual data on Tribal Nations and comprehensive support for their communities.

The updates to OMB’s Race and Ethnicity Standards are set to be complete by Summer 2024 and would take effect for the 2030 census. The OMB has extended the public comment period on these proposed changes to April 27, 2023. For more information on how to submit public comments, view the original Federal Register Notice and Request for comments on the Initial Proposals For Updating OMB's Race and Ethnicity Statistical Standards. To view already submitted public written comments, please visit the regulations.gov comment docket. Additionally, recordings of the OMB Town Hall meetings on the proposed changes can be viewed here.

AIPI will continue to release information on the OMB’s proposals for revising the Federal Race and Ethnicity Standards as it becomes available.

Additional Resources:

Posted on

April 18, 2023

Resource type

Policy Solution

Browse topics

Blog Home

CALL TO ACTION: Submit Public Comments on the Digital Equity Act Programs

spesweviwridriclitrauespuuadruwujihuthacrijowosomijeclifrewr — Wed, 08 Mar 2023 20:02:00 +0000

CALL TO ACTION: Submit Public Comments on the Digital Equity Act Programs

spesweviwridri… (not verified) March 8, 2023

AIPI Blog

CALL TO ACTION: Submit Public Comments on the Digital Equity Act Programs

On March 2, 2023, the National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA) published a request for written comments on upcoming digital equity program grants. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA) created several programs to improve broadband connectivity across the country. Some of these programs are collectively known as the Digital Equity Act Programs (DEA). They are designed to address digital equity challenges by providing resources for projects to promote accessibility, digital skills education, and other activities to facilitate the adoption of broadband. States and Tribes are among the eligible entities for these programs, and The NTIA seeks written comments from all stakeholders on the implementation of these programs.

The DEA programs are made up of three separate programs. The $60 million State Digital Equity Planning Grant Program, the $1.44 billion State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program, and $1.25 billion Competitive Digital Equity Program. Together, these programs are meant to promote the adoption and meaningful use of broadband internet for the following covered populations:

Individuals who live in low-income households
Aging individuals
Incarcerated individuals, other than individuals who are incarcerated in a Federal correctional facility
Veterans
Individuals with disabilities
Individuals with a language barrier, including individuals who are English learners and have low levels of literacy
Racial and ethnic minorities
Rural inhabitants

These covered populations include individuals in both State and Tribal communities. Although the DEA programs are partially intended for states, Tribal communities are key stakeholders in these programs.Therefore, It is essential that Tribes and Tribal entities submit comments on the implementation of these programs. The NTIA asks for a response to 24 questions about the DEA programs. The questions ask about technical assistance, Tribal consultation, goal metrics, and other key components of the DEA programs.

Written comments must be submitted by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on May 1, 2023. Please see NTIA’s Federal Register Notice for all 24 questions as well as further details on the DEA programs and directions on submitting written comments. Please also see NTIA’s additional information on writing and submitting comments. Continue to follow AIPI for more updates on this and other Tribal broadband updates.

Pub. Law No. 117-58 Section 60302(1)(8)

Posted on

March 8, 2023

Resource type

Call to Action

Browse topics

Blog Home

The White House & Tribal Nations: A 2022 Summary

jjhern40 — Thu, 02 Feb 2023 19:39:42 +0000

The White House & Tribal Nations: A 2022 Summary

jjhern40 February 2, 2023

AIPI Blog

The White House & Tribal Nations: A 2022 Summary

The Biden-Harris Administration completed another year in which it continued its work to strengthen the nation-to-nation relationship between Tribal Nations and the Federal Government. The various events, initiatives and policy actions were compiled in the White House Tribal Nations Summit Progress Report, released at the 2022 White House Tribal Nations Summit.

The following list includes some of the Administration's notable actions from the last year.

Nation-to-Nation Relationship

Investments in Indian Country

Protecting the Sacred

Proposed revisions to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Regulations

Tribal Homelands

Completed removal of Derogatory Names from Federal Lands

Voting

Published the Native Voting Rights Report

Broadband & Technology

Water Infrastructure

Invested over $400 million in Rural Water Projects for Tribal Communities through the IIJA

Missing or Murdered Indigenous Peoples

The Indian Child Welfare Act

Updated the Indian Child Welfare Act Manual

Federal Indian Boarding Schools

Publication of Volume 1 of the Federal Indian Boarding School Report

For a complete list of the Tribally focused actions taken by the Biden-Harris Administration during 2022, see the full White House Tribal Nations Summit Progress Report.

Posted on

February 2, 2023

Resource type

Policy Solution

Browse topics

Blog Home