<![CDATA[Association on American Indian Affairs - Blog]]>Mon, 05 Oct 2026 19:34:36 -0400EditMySite<![CDATA[Native Voters Still Face Barriers]]>Thu, 17 Sep 2026 20:34:07 GMThttps://www.indian-affairs.org/blog/native-voters-still-face-barriers
By: Trista Vaughn

Published in Association on American Indian Affairs, Indian Affairs Journal, Volume 198, Spring/Summer 2026 and has been updated since originally published.

​For many Americans, voting is often framed as a simple civic act. Register to vote, show up to the polls, and cast a ballot. However, for Native voters, the path to the ballot box has rarely been straightforward. It is shaped by geography, documentation, infrastructure, and systems that have not always recognized Native identity or access.
 
The history of Native voting rights in the United States reflects a long struggle for political participation despite the inherent sovereignty of Native Nations. Although Congress unilaterally passed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924 (without the consent of Native Peoples), citizenship alone did not guarantee the right to vote. Many states continued to use laws and policies that effectively disenfranchised Native voters, arguing that Native citizens living on Native lands were under federal guardianship, exempt from taxation, or otherwise ineligible to participate in state elections. As a result, Native Peoples in several states remained excluded from the electoral process long after citizenship was formally recognized.
Native Nations and Native advocates spent decades challenging these and other barriers through litigation, legislative advocacy, and grassroots organizing. Landmark court cases in states such as Arizona and New Mexico helped secure voting rights for Native citizens, yet obstacles persisted in many forms. Polling places were often located far from Native Nation lands, election materials were not always accessible to Native language speakers, and voter registration systems frequently failed to account for the realities of life in Native Country.
 
While significant progress has been made, the history of Native voting rights demonstrates that access to the ballot has never been automatic for Native Peoples. Understanding this history provides important context for the barriers Native voters continue to face today, including identification requirements, nontraditional addresses, limited election infrastructure, and other policies that disproportionately affect Native Nations.
 
Proposed legislation like the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or the SAVE America Act, introduces a new aggravated layer to that reality. The bill would require individuals to provide documentation of U.S. citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, in order to register to vote or update their registration. It would also require many voters to present this documentation in person, limiting the use of online and mail-in registration systems that millions of people rely on. (1)
 
At first glance, these requirements may seem like standard safeguards. But for millions of people, access to these documents is not guaranteed. Many Americans do not have passports and cannot afford to obtain a passport, and others face financial or logistical challenges in obtaining a birth certificate. These barriers disproportionately impact people of color and low-income individuals.
 
For Native voters, this issue is further complicated by how Native identity and citizenship are recognized. Native Nation citizenship is defined by Native Nations themselves, and many Nations provide identification that reflects that relationship. However, under the SAVE Act, Native Nation IDs alone may not be sufficient because they often do not include place of birth or other federally required details. (2) According to the Native American Rights Fund (NARF), this could require Native voters to obtain additional documentation, creating new obstacles to participation.
 
A Native person’s inability to use their Native Nation ID highlights a larger issue between Native Nation citizenship and federal recognition. Native Nations have the sovereign right to determine their own citizenship, and their IDs are official government-issued documents within those Nations. However, state and federal systems do not generally recognize Native Nation identification in the same way they recognize other government-issued IDs. As a result, Native voters may still be asked to provide additional paperwork, such as a birth certificate or passport, even though their Native Nation citizenship has already been verified by their Nation’s sovereign government.
 
Documentation is only one part of the challenge. Many Native voters live in rural areas or on Native Nation lands where access to local, state or federal government offices are limited. In some cases, registering to vote under the SAVE Act could require traveling long distances that range over 100 miles or more to reach an election office. For voters without reliable transportation, flexible work schedules, or nearby services, these requirements can quickly become barriers. What may be a simple task for some becomes a multi-step process for others, requiring time, money, and access that is not always available.
 
These concerns have also been raised at the federal level. U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican who serves as Chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, has spoken out against the SAVE Act, warning that it could suppress Native voter access, particularly in rural and remote areas. (3) In places like Alaska, where many villages are not connected by road systems, she noted that requiring in-person documentation could mean traveling by plane just to register to vote.
 
The impact of these policies extends beyond Native Nations. Communities of color, including Black and Latino voters, are also more likely to face barriers in accessing government-issued identification. These disparities are tied to broader systemic issues, including income inequality, access to transportation, and availability of government services. When these factors intersect, the result is compounded barriers to participation. For Native voters, those barriers are layered on top of existing challenges tied to geography, infrastructure, and the ongoing need for federal systems to recognize Native identity.
 
Supporters of the SAVE Act argue that it is designed to protect election integrity and ensure that only eligible voters participate. However, evidence consistently shows that noncitizen voting is extremely rare. This raises an important question: if the issue the policy seeks to address is minimal, what is the impact of the solution?
 
Past examples offer some insight. According to the NARF, when states implemented similar “show your papers” laws, tens of thousands of eligible voters were prevented from registering, including disproportionately high numbers of Native voters. Despite these challenges, Native-led organizations continue to work to ensure that Native voters have access to the ballot box. Efforts include voter education, outreach, and assistance with navigating registration and identification requirements. Organizations like Rock the Native Vote focus on mobilizing Native voters and providing resources that make participation more accessible. Groups like VoteRiders help individuals obtain the identification they need to vote. (4)
 
These efforts reflect a broader commitment to ensure that Native voices—and all voices—are heard. They also highlight the importance of solutions that remove barriers rather than create them. Expanding recognition of Native Nation identification, increasing access to polling locations, and maintaining flexible registration options are all part of building a more equitable system.
 
Voting has always been about more than a single moment at the ballot box. For Native Nations, it is connected to the ability to influence decisions that impact land, water, culture, education, healthcare, and next generations. For Native voters, the journey to the ballot box continues to be shaped by both progress and ongoing challenges. As legislation like the SAVE Act move forward, there is an opportunity to ask not just who can vote, but how accessible that right truly is. Because when access becomes limited, so does representation. And when representation is limited, so is the ability to shape a future that shares our values as citizens.
 
The conversation surrounding the SAVE Act highlights the ongoing need to protect fair voting access for Native Nations and people of color. People can support this work by staying informed about changes to voting laws, helping Native voters understand registration and identification requirements, supporting Native-led voter outreach organizations, and advocating for the recognition of Native Nation identification in election systems. Reducing barriers to participation is an important step toward ensuring every eligible Native voter has the opportunity to make their voice heard.
 
As of September 2026, the SAVE Act has still not become law, but it has advanced along two tracks. After the House passed its version earlier in the year, Republican leaders pursued a second path through the budget reconciliation process, which would allow election-related provisions to move through the Senate with a simple majority rather than the 60 votes most legislation requires. In July 2026, the House approved a budget framework setting aside roughly $10 billion in grants to encourage states to adopt SAVE Act-style requirements — a shift toward incentivizing states rather than mandating the rules outright. (5)
 
In the Senate, however, the legislation has repeatedly stalled. Supporters brought versions of the bill to the floor multiple times throughout 2026, including a narrower measure focused only on photo identification, but none secured the votes needed to advance. (6) The Senate left for its August recess without passing the bill. When lawmakers returned in mid-September the Act had still not advanced, leaving both the legislation and the separate reconciliation effort unresolved as the November midterm elections approach. (7)
 
For Native Nations, the concerns have only sharpened. The Navajo Nation unanimously passed a resolution opposing the legislation, with their leaders warning that in-person documentation requirements would create chaos where voters already travel long distances to reach election offices. (8) Newer versions of the bill list Tribal IDs among acceptable forms of photo identification for voting (9), but because most Tribal IDs do not include a place of birth, they still may not satisfy the proof-of-citizenship requirement at registration — leaving the core barrier for Native voters in place. (10)

​Sources
1 Native American Rights Fund, The SAVE Act Hurts Native Voters (March 12, 2026), NARF.org/save-act-hurts-native-voters.
2 Ginny Underwood, “Tribal IDs and REAL IDs do not confirm U.S. Citizenship. That’s a Problem.”, (March 19, 2026), Rock the Native Vote, Rockthenativevote.org/news.
3 Levi Rickert, "Sen. Murkowski Opposes SAVE Act, Warns It Would Suppress Native Voter Access,"(March 20, 2026) Native News Online, Nativenewsonline.net/currents/sen-murkowski-opposes-save-act-warns-it-would-suppress-native-voter-access.
4 VoteRiders, Voter ID Assistance Resources (2026), Voteriders.org.
5 Democracy Docket, "House passes SAVE America Act anti-voting measures in budget reconciliation, stock trading bills," (September 16, 2026) https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/house-passes-save-america-act-anti-voting-measures-in-budget-reconciliation-stock-trading-bills/
6 Democracy Docket, "Voters spared as Senate recesses without passing SAVE America Act's voter ID measure," (September 16, 2026) https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/voters-spared-as-senate-recesses-without-passing-save-america-acts-voter-id-measure/
7 One America News Network, "Senate departs D.C. for recess without passing SAVE America Act," (September 16, 2026) https://www.oann.com/newsroom/senate-departs-d-c-for-recess-without-passing-save-america-act/
8 Here & Now (WBUR), "'It's going to be chaos': On rural Navajo Nation, tribal leaders slam voter-ID bill," (September 16, 2026) https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2026/04/09/navajo-nation-save-act
9 Congressional Research Service via Congress.gov, "Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE America Act) and Federal Voter Registration Policy and Law," (September 16, 2026) https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12902
10 American Indian College Fund, "Tell Your Senator to Vote NO on the SAVE Act," (September 16, 2026) 
​https://collegefund.org/blog/advocacy/tell-your-senator-to-vote-no-on-the-save-act-a-barrier-to-voting-rights/
]]><![CDATA[From Texas to Native Country: Texas v. Kennedy’s Threat to Natives with Disabilities]]>Tue, 11 Aug 2026 14:14:20 GMThttps://www.indian-affairs.org/blog/from-texas-to-native-country-texas-v-kennedys-threat-to-natives-with-disabilities
By Kim Mettler & Karen Wheeldon

Published in Association on American Indian Affairs, Indian Affairs Journal, Volume 198, Spring/Summer 2026 and has been updated since originally published.

In 2024, a group of 17 Republican-led states sued the federal government attacking section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and its implementing regulations that protect people with disabilities from discrimination. Driven by concerns that the regulations make gender dysphoria a protected disability and the commitment to dismantle the anti-discrimination protections in Section 504, the lawsuit claimed that Section 504 and its regulations were unlawful and unconstitutional. The initial lawsuit changed after actions by the current administration, and now only five states continue their attack against people with disabilities to be protected from discrimination.(1) While the parties in the lawsuit have agreed to a temporary pause in the litigation, it is important that disability justice advocates and allies are aware of the case and the potential negative impacts to Native Peoples with disabilities. This article provides background information regarding disability rights, disabilities in Native Country, a summary of legal protections at stake, and the lawsuit. It also includes what readers can do to be allies at a time when civil rights for people with disabilities are under threat.
Background
State and federal governments have allowed people with disabilities to be discriminated against in employment, healthcare, and education. Medical care has been denied.(2) Children with disabilities have been explicitly excluded from school, often being segregated in large residential facilities, institutions, boarding schools, sheltered workshops or even in their own homes.(3)  While many of these facilities provide legitimate services and support, too many others housed people with disabilities inhumanely, with staff inflicting abuse, neg lect, and maltreatment.(4) During the Civil Rights Movement, disability rights advocates challenged forced institutionalization and stood for their rights to exist in their communities like any other person. Their efforts led to significant changes in anti-discrimination protections, including the 1973 enactment of the Rehabilitation Act, Section 504 regulations in 1977, and the 1990 enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which will be discussed in more detail below.(5)

Native Country is no stranger to institutionalization or to disabilities. Institutions—hospitals, boarding schools, even foster care and jails—have never been places of support, treatment or care. Instead, they have been weapons to facilitate United States’ assimilation and genocidal policies against Native Nations and Native Peoples. The Canton Asylum for Insane Indians was a psychiatric facility built exclusively for Native People.(6) Between 1902 and 1934, it operated on the windswept plains of South Dakota and confined nearly 400 Natives. While some residents did suffer from physical illness, disability, or mental illness,(7) the majority were there because they were considered by local and federal governments to be “inconvenient Indians:” Natives who continued to engage in cultural practices, speak their language or who had conflicts with U.S. officials, boarding school superintendents, or reservation agents.(8)

During the same era Canton operated, Native children were being stolen from their families and Nations and sent away to boarding schools.(9) Stripped of their names, languages, spiritual practices, and their family connections, thousands of children were subjected to abuse, neglect, and other maltreatment, the effects of which still ripple through Native families and Nations today. Neither the threat, nor the trauma have faded with time. Elders report that, whether disabled or not, one of their greatest fears as they age is that they will be taken from their home and forced into an institution.(10)

Today, thirty percent of Native adults have a disability, the highest rate of disability of any ethnicity(11) and are the third highest population without insurance.(12) According to a 2019 estimate by the U.S. Census Bureau, almost 6% of Native homes had a child with a disability, the highest of all ethnic or racial groups.(13) More than 17% of Native children lack health insurance.(14) Every type of disability is found in Native Country and many people have hidden or unseen disabilities.(15)

Braided together with the prevalence of disabilities is chronic illness, both of which comprise significant health disparities in Native Country. A bi-directional relationship exists between chronic illness and disabilities: disability can be a result of chronic illness, and often people with disabilities develop chronic health conditions.(16) Native Peoples suffer more from higher rates of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, alcohol-induced illness and liver disease than other populations.(17) The disabilities that most often occur in Native Country are diabetes, visual and hearing impairments, mobility disability, emotional or mental health issues, learning disabilities, and substance use disorder.(18) Inconsistent sources of care, language and communication barriers, lack of diversity in the healthcare workforce, high rates of poverty, underfunded healthcare from the Indian Health Service and a lack of insurance coverage all exacerbate Native health issues.(19)

Despite these statistics, Natives with disabilities are underrepresented in academic studies, and substantive data about disabilities in Native Country is sparce.(20) In 2024, the Inter-Tribal Disability Advocacy Council (IDAC) published its report, Personal Journeys towards Hozho (Holistic Wellness): The Lives of Indigenous Relatives with Disabilities (the “IDAC Report”), which, through an Indigenous lens, documents the primary issues facing Native Peoples with disabilities.(21) According to the IDAC Report, Natives with disabilities experience a number of barriers to meaningful inclusion and quality of life.

Barriers include:
  1. Basic accommodations for disabled people, such as accessible pharmacy services for the blind, are routinely denied.
  2. Legally mandated educational services are routinely withheld, and Native students are stigmatized simply for needing special education services.
  3. Natives with disabilities face discrimination in hiring based on both their Native identity and their disability.
  4. Accessible housing is rare in Native Country and waiting times for housing assistance and home modifications can last from months to years, while overcrowded multigenerational housing makes accommodating medical equipment difficult.
  5. Historical and intergenerational trauma has created deep and justified distrust of systems and service providers. Natives with disabilities are routinely told that to access the services they are entitled to, they must leave the reservation, forcing them to abandon their family, community and cultural support systems.

These are only a few of the barriers identified in the IDAC Report.(22)

The Rehabilitation Act Section 504, and the Americans with Disabilities Act
Signed into law by President Richard Nixon after he twice vetoed it, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (hereafter the “Act”) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by programs receiving federal money, by programs conducted by federal agencies, in federal employment and in employment practices of federal contractors.(23) It is the first civil rights legislation protecting people with disabilities and is in direct response to protests by powerful anti-discrimination advocacy groups.(24)

The Act includes authorization for formula grants to states and Native Nations to operate vocational rehabilitation programs for people with disabilities to support them in preparing for and engaging in gainful employment.(25) The Act prohibits discrimination in the hiring of qualified persons with disabilities for federal employment(26) and requires accessibility of information and communication technology and maintaining websites with accessibility features for blind users.(27)

Section 504 of the Act is the anti-discrimination provision. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs receiving federal financial assistance or any program or activity of any federal agency, including those of federal contractors.(28) Section 504 is far reaching, as it applies to all employers receiving federal financial assistance, as well as federal funding tied to education, housing, social services, recreation, and healthcare.(29) It covers, for example, all programs funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the Indian Health Service, from healthcare providers accepting Medicaid or Medicare to state child welfare programs.(30) But Section 504 does not just prohibit exclusion of people with disabilities, it also re quires their inclusion.(31)

The Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) became law in 1990. The ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in employment, education, transportation and in public and private places that are open to the public.
The ADA offers civil rights protections to people with disabilities similar to those protections provided based on race, color, gender, national origin, age and religion.(32)

In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Olmstead v. L.C., which established that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities is a form of disability discrimination under the ADA.(33) The Court held that public entities must provide community-based services to people with disabilities when such services are appropriate, the affected person does not oppose community-based treatment, and when community-based treatments can be reasonably accommodated.(34)

This has become known as the integration mandate and it not only has been applied to settings where people live, but also to where they receive services, go to school and where they work.(35) Integration into the community ensures access to the full spectrum of opportunities that allow a person to live a fulfilled, independent life.(36)

From Olmstead also came the “at-risk” doctrine. This extends anti-discrimination protections to people with disabilities who are at serious risk of institutionalization or segregation.(37) This risk may arise, for example, when in-home services are eliminated or reduced, when an agency fails to provide accessible, affordable housing options, or in any circumstance where a person is at risk of being separated from their community and maintained in the least restrictive settings. Under the at-risk doctrine, a person with disabilities does not need to wait until they are segregated or institutionalized to enforce their rights under the law.

Section 504 Regulations
No implementing regulations were issued for Section 504 of the Act until four years after its enactment, and after disability rights activists coordinated sit-ins across the United States, including a 26-day occupation of a federal building in San Francisco.(38) The 1977 regulations, issued by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (the predecessor to the HHS), stated what federally funded entities had to do in order to ensure non-discrimination, including ensuring physical access, modifications to programs and effective communication.(39) The regulations themselves have rarely been amended, but legislative and judicial developments since then have changed the scope and strength of the nondiscrimination protections.(40) The developments that changed the nondiscrimination protections include amendments to the Rehabilitation Act, the enactment and amendment of the ADA, enactment of the Affordable Care Act and growing discrimination in accessibility of information and communications technology.(41) Regulations implemented in May 2024 were intended to ensure that implementation of Section 504 is consistent with those developments.

In May 2024, the Biden Administration published final regulations implementing Section 504.(42) The purpose of these final regulations was to address developments in the statutory and judicial landscape since the first regulations were issued in 1977 and to help service providers and service recipients better understand their rights and responsibilities.(43) The 2024 regulations were the culmination of decades of civil rights advocacy by people with disabilities, and represents a giant step forward in the disability rights movement, and contains a number of important provisions.(44)

Among other things, these regulations addressed discrimination in medical care, ensuring that treatment decisions are not based on bias, stereotypes or judgments about whether a person will be a burden on others or beliefs about the value of a disabled person’s life. It adopted standards for medical equipment to address barriers to care, such as mammogram machines that require a patient to stand to use them. The regulations prohibit the use of assessments, tools or measures that discount the value of life extension of a person based on disability. It also includes the integration mandate, clarifying obligations to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of a person with disabilities, consistent with the 1999 Olmstead decision discussed above.(45)

The publication of these regulations was cause for celebration. However, the regulations have not been without controversy, which has ultimately led to the lawsuit that currently threatens disability rights.

In the notice of proposed rulemaking for the Section 504 regulations, issued in May 2023 prior to the final regulations, Section 84.4(g) included a list of conditions taken directly from the Act that were consistent with exclusions in the ADA definition of “disability.”(46) The exclusions included “gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments.”(47) The proposed rulemaking also included a discussion of gender dysphoria in the context of a disability from a Fourth Circuit lawsuit brought under both section 504 and the ADA.(48)

HHS stated in the proposed rulemaking that restrictions interfering with a qualified individual’s access to care because of gender dysphoria may violate section 504.(49) In the 2024 final regulations, HHS again explicitly noted that gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairment were excluded from the definition of disability. It also reiterated its prior statement that interfering with an individual who is disabled and has gender dysphoria may be a violation of Section 504. It did not state that gender dysphoria was a disability.(50)

Nonetheless, opponents of transgender and diversity, equity and inclusion laws saw an opportunity to further their attacks on transgender rights.

The Lawsuit: Texas v. Kennedy (formerly Texas v. Becerra)
In September 2024, 17 Republican-led states filed a lawsuit challenging the 2024 regulations on a number of grounds.(51) The primary allegation of the lawsuit was that the regulations upended established federal disability law by adding the term “gender dysphoria” to the definition of “disability,” unlawfully changing Section 504 and the ADA.(52) It also alleged, among other things, that both Section 504 of the Act and its regulations are unconstitutional. In January 2025, HHS notified the district court that the President had issued an Executive Order reflecting the current administration’s position that agencies shall not promote gender ideology and requested a stay in the litigation while it evaluated its position regarding the case.(53)

In April 2025, HHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register stating—again—that the regulatory language in the 2024 regulations does not state that gender dysphoria is a disability and that the regulatory text incorporates and is consistent with language in the Rehabilitation Act that expressly excludes gender identity disorders as a disability.(54) This notice appears to be in response, in part, to the January 2025 Executive Order.55 That same month, the 17 Republican-led states and HHS filed a joint status report with the court and in it, HHS requested a continuing stay on litigation. The states informed the court they were no longer challenging the constitutionality of Section 504 of the Act. Eight of the 17 states dropped their challenge of the 2024 regulations altogether.

In January 2026, Texas, Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, and South Dakota filed an amended complaint, renewing their attack on the 2024 regulations.(56) They argued that the regulations exceed HHS’s statutory authority under both Section 504 and the ADA because neither statute empowers HHS to mandate services be delivered in a community-based setting, or to authorize a discrimination claim where there is a serious risk of institutionalization without actual institutionalization.(57) Additionally, the states claim that the regulations are unconstitutional, because they redefine Section 504 to include the integration mandate and the at-risk theory of discrimination without Congressional approval.(58) On March 31, 2026, at the request of the plaintiffs, the judge lifted the stay on litigation. Indiana and South Dakota subsequently dismissed their claims, followed by Kansas and Missouri, leaving five states—Texas, Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, and Montana—as plaintiffs. On July 13, 2026, the court extended the deadline until September 22, 2026, for the remaining parties to respond to each other’s motions.(59)

If the Court Finds in Favor of the Trump administration
According to disability advocates, the Trump administration has engaged in an “all-out war” against people with disabilities.(60) An executive order signed in April 2025 ended the federal government’s practice of recognizing disparate-impact discrimination under civil rights laws.(61) Disparate-impact discrimination means that discrimination can occur even when it is not intended. It can occur when a policy or practice that applies to everyone causes a disproportionate and unjustified negative harm to a group.(62) The executive order directs federal agency leadership to stop enforcing policies, regulations and agreements that rely on theories of dispar ate impact liability, making it difficult to enforce civil rights laws such as the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA.(63)  Texas v. Kennedy appears to be not just another weapon in the war against people with disabilities, but also a tool in broader efforts to dismantle everything that supports diverse and unique human beings that are not fully abled, not white, not Christian, not economically secure, and not cisgendered.

A worse-case scenario result from this lawsuit would be set back disability rights more than 50 years. Programs and services would no longer be required to be provided in community-based settings, if at all. This means that either people with disabilities would have access to fewer services, or they would have to seek them in more segregated, institutional settings—like nursing homes, residential facilities or psychiatric facilities, for example. And rather than having a cause of action against programs and services (or lack thereof) posing serious risk of institutionalization, people would have to wait for institutionalization and harm to occur before bringing a civil rights claim. Weakening the integration mandate and erasing the at-risk doctrine would clear the way for people with disabilities to again be segregated from their communities, increasing the possibility of a return to forced institutionalization and the discrimination that previously existed.

For Native Country, it is difficult to imagine how a win for plaintiffs in Texas v. Kennedy could make things worse for Natives with disabilities. One of the Association’s concerns is the threat of losing the integration mandate. The IDAC Report documents the absence of resources altogether in some cases and having to leave the reservation to access resources.(64) Without the integration mandate, it appears there would be nothing to protect Natives with disabilities from having to choose between services, resources, or even independence and their culture, family, and Native Nation. The threat of forced separation from family, Nation and culture carries a particular weight for Native Peoples, and it re opens a wound that has never fully healed.

Native Peoples already experience some of the most severe health disparities in the United States, including disproportionately high rates of diabetes, traumatic brain injury, behavioral health conditions, and chronic illness — meaning disability is not an abstract concern but a lived reality for a significant portion of the population. Without Section 504 and its regulations, health and disability disparities will only be exacerbated, and, as the IDAC Report reveals, there is not much more ground that can be lost for Natives with disabilities.(65)

Arguably nearly every barrier meant to be removed by Section 504 and the 2024 regulations exists because these dis ability discrimination protections are already underenforced. Indian Health Service facilities already lack specialized knowledge for disabilities and cultural responsiveness, leading to misdiagnoses and poor outcomes.(66)  Indian Health Service funding limitations, staffing shortages and high provider turnover mean long wait times for appointments, and un affordable healthcare.(67) Physical accessibility to education and ensuring Individual Education Plans are enforced are already the most common challenge in education.(68) Affordable, accessible housing is scarce both on and off reservation; reliable, accessible transportation for even routine tasks like grocery shopping, attending community events or going to work is not available consistently and is expensive; the list is long.(69) Texas v. Kennedy and other attacks on the civil rights of Natives with disabilities is a direct threat to the resources that many depend upon to live independently, participate in community life, or in some instances, just to survive.

Conclusion
The health disparities Native Peoples experience and the barriers faced by Natives with disabilities did not emerge overnight. They are the product of generations of colonial violence, including forced assimilation, separation from culture, lack of education, housing, healthcare, and nutrition owed to Native Nations and Peoples through treaties and other federal laws, and outright neglect. They persist in the waiting rooms of understaffed IHS facilities, in IEP meetings where caregivers are confused and outnumbered, in in accessible and unaffordable housing, and in the silence of responses to requests for assistance or accommodation. While Section 504 and the implementing regulations are not a fail-safe or complete solution to these issues, they do represent a significant legal framework available to ensure inclusion, dignity and care for Natives with disabilities. Losing these basic civil rights protections would be a long fall for some and would embolden those who want to strip other marginalized people of their rights, too.

Though it seems grim, there is still a light on. Texas v. Kennedy seems to be a slow-moving case and Kansas and Missouri have now joined Indiana and South Dakota in dismissing their claims. The litigation is being monitored by disability rights champions, civil rights activists, and other allies. A win for the plaintiffs would be tempered with likely years of litigation on appeal. There could be an intervening regime change. And it remains true that we are not powerless—there are things we can do.

Contact the attorneys general of the five remaining plaintiff states: Texas, Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, and Montana. Demand they withdraw from the lawsuit and remind them that their attack does not protect the citizens of their respective states, it abandons the most vulnerable of them.

Contact your Representatives and Senators and demand they take a stand in defense of Section 504 and the regulations. Urge them to oppose any legislation that weakens disability and civil rights protections. Demand that they approve full, sustained funding for Indian Health Service and for Bureau of Indian Education services and programs to Native Country.
​
Support Native advocacy organizations, such as the Native American Disability Law Center whose work centers the voices and lived experiences of Native Peoples with disabilities. Make donations, share their social media, volunteer.

Disability rights, civil rights and Native rights movements progressed and survived because people refused to accept that their lives were less valuable, their inclusion unimportant or that their People deserved less. Natives and non-Natives with disabilities and their allies continue this forward movement, despite the history that has tried to break them. Now is the time to be a good Relative and join them.
​
Sources
1 Texas v. Becerra, No. 5:24-cv-00225 (N.D. Tx. filed Sept. 26, 2024), sub nom. Texas v. Kennedy, No. 5:24-cv-00225-C (filed Feb. 19, 2025). See Free Law Project. Court Listener. State of Texas v. Becerra, 5:24-cv-00225, (N.D. Tex.). Courtlistener.com/docket/69200578/state-of-texas-v-becerra/, accessed May 26, 2026.
2 Education Rights Counsel. Protect 504 Public Means Everyone Educationrightscounsel.org/pdfs/Section504-WhitePaper.pdf, accessed March 11, 2026.
3 Disability Justice. Dehumanization, Discrimination, and Segregation. Disabilityjustice.org/justice-denied/dehumanization-discrimination-andsegregation/, accessed March 10, 2026.
4 Bhattar, Kala. “The American Education System and the Treatment of Disabilities in America.: A History.” University of Alabama Institute for Human Rights Blog. February 2023. Sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2023/02/20/ the-american-education-system-and-the-treatment-of-disabilities-inamerica-a-history/, accessed March 10, 2026.
5 Id.
6 Yellow Bird, Pemina. Wild Indians: Native Perspectives on the Hiawatha Asylum for Insane Indians. Power2u.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ NativePerspectivesPeminaYellowBird.pdf, accessed March 10, 2026.
7 Richards, Richie. “The nation’s only insane asylum for Indians was in South Dakota.” Indianz.com September 2018. Indianz.com/News/2018/09/28/thenations-only-insane-asylum-for-india.asp, accessed March 10, 2026.
8 Whitt, S., (2022) “‘Care and Maintenance’: Indigeneity, Disability and Settler
*Kim Mettler is a citizen of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation and serves as the Next Generations Director for the Association on American Indian Affairs.
*Karen Wheeldon is a Ph.D. student in special education at Texas Tech University. Having had the opportunity to serve students with disabilities, their families, and communities for about thirty years, Karen is serving while learning as an intern through the Association on American Indian Affairs.
Disability rights, civil rights and Native rights movements progressed and survived because people refused to accept that their lives were less
valuable, their inclusion unimportant or that their
People deserved less.
Colonialism at the Canton Asylum for Insane Indians, 1902-1934”, Disability Studies Quarterly 41(4). Dsq-sds.org/article/id/753/, accessed on March 10, 2026.
9 Id.
10 Dr. Kimberly Yellow Robe. Personal conversation. February DATE, 2026.
11 National Council on Disability. Understanding Disabilities in American
Indian and Alaska Native Communities Toolkit Guide. February 2023 at page 10. Nicoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/NCD_Understanding_ Disabilities_in_American_Indian_508.pdf, accessed March 7, 2025.
12 Singh, Gopal K, and Sue C Lin. “Marked ethnic, nativity, and socioeconomic
disparities in disability and health insurance among US children and adults: the 2008-2010 American community survey.” BioMed research international vol. 2013 (2013). Article ID 627412. Pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/ PMC3819828, accessed March 16, 2026.
13 National Council on Disability, note 11 at page 10.
14 Singh, Gopal K, and Sue C Lin at note 12.  The Indian Health Service (IHS)
is an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that delivers health care to Natives and funds Native Nation and urban Native health programs. The obligation for the U.S. to provide health care to Natives Peoples arises from the Constitution, treaties, laws, Supreme Court decisions and Executive Orders. The IHS plays a central role in Native healthcare access, especially in rural and reservation areas. However, IHS is not health insurance and does not ensure access to all medical care. Native Peoples still need health insurance. For one reason, IHS is chronically underfunded and not all needed services are available. For another reason, IHS may not provide specialists for health conditions requiring specialized treatment. Third, IHS facilities are not available everywhere and therefore it may be difficult for Natives to access care when they are away from an IHS facility. To learn more about IHS, see: Cms.gov/outreach-and-education/ american-indian-alaska-native/aian/downloads/10-importantfacts-about-ihs-and-health-care-.pdf; Ihs.gov/forpatients/faq/#; and Nativereach.com/native-american-healthcare-access/#elementortoc__heading-anchor-1 all accessed April 7, 2026.
15  National Council on Disability, note 11 at page 11.
16 Lyon, JoLynne. “USU Researchers: Nationwide, 80% of Adults with Disabilities
Report Chronic Illnesses.” April 10, 2025. Usu.edu/today/story/usuresearchers-nationwide-80-of-adults-with-disabilities-report-chronicillnesses# conditions, accessed on March 19, 2026.
17 Indian Health Service. Disparities. October 2019. Ihs.gov/newsroom/
factsheets/disparities/#, accessed March 19, 2026.
18 Lyon, JoLunne, note 16.
19 National Indian Council on Aging, Inc. American Indian Health Disparities.
Nicoa.org/elder-resources/health-disparities/, accessed on March 16, 2026.
20 National Council on Disability, note 11 at page 11.
21 The Inter-Tribal Disability Advocacy Council. Personal Journeys Towards
Hozho (Holistic Wellness): The Lives of Indigenous Relatives with Disabilities. July, 2024. Nativedisabilitylaw.org/about-us/latest-updates/351-intertribal-disability-advocacy-council, accessed March 16, 2026.
22 Id at pages 13-17.
23 Employer Assistance and Resource Network on Disability. “Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 (Rehab Act).” Askearn.org/page/the-rehabilitation-act-of-1973rehab-act, accessed March 11, 2026.
24 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Community Living. Final Rule Implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Administration for Community Living. September 25, 2024. Acl. gov/504rule, accessed March 12, 2026.
25 29 U.S.C. §720 and §741.
26 29 U.S.C §791 and §793.
27 29 USC §794(d).
28 29 USC §794.
29 Id.
30 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Community Living, note 19.
31  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Community Living. 25th Anniversary of Olmstead Decision. June, 2024. Acl.gov/news-and-events/events-and-observances/25th-anniversaryolmstead-decision#, accessed March 19, 2026.
32 ADA National Network. “What is the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Act?”
adata.org/learn-about-ada, accessed May 26, 2026.
33 Olmstead v. L. C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999).
34 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Civil Rights. Understanding
Olmstead and Community Integration. June 23, 2025. Hhs.gov/civil-rights/
for-individuals/special-topics/community-living-and-olmstead/servingpeople-disabilities-most-integrated-setting, accessed March 13, 2026.
35 Oded, Yair and Veliz, Jesus. “The Right to Community Integration.” Bazelon
Center for Mental Health Law. September 11, 2025. Bazelon.org/the-ada-at- 35-the-right-to-community-integration/, accessed March 9, 2026.
36 Dubé, Kate. “Community Integration: What It Is and Example Activities:
Foothold Technology. October 31, 2023. https://footholdtechnology.com/ news/community-integration, accessed March 10, 2026.
37 Center for Public Representation. The Right to Community Participation:
Olmstead v. L.C. Centerforpublicrep.org/the-right-to-communityparticipation-olmstead-v-l-c accessed March 14, 2026.
38 Education Rights Counsel, note 2, at page 5.
39 Id.
40 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities
Receiving Federal Assistance. 89 FR 40066. May 9, 2024.
41 Id.
42 Id.
43 Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Health and Human Service
Programs or Activities. 88 FR 63392. September 14, 2023.
44 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Community Living, note 19.
45 Id.
46 Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Health and Human Service
Programs or Activities, note 40 at 63463.
47 Id.
48 Id. at 63464.
49 Id.
50 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities
Receiving Federal Assistance, note 40.
51 Texas v. Becerra at note 1.
52 Id.
53 Texas v. Becerra, note 1. Unopposed motion for stay of all deadlines.
January 24, 2025. See also Executive Order 14168, 90 Fed. Reg. 8615.
54 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities
Receiving Federal Financial Assistance; Clarification. 90 FR 15412.
55 Texas v. Kennedy, note 1. Joint Status Report January 9, 2026.
56 Texas v. Kennedy, No. 5:24-00225 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2026).
57 Id.
58 Id.
59 Id.
60 Ives-Rublee, Mia and Doherty, Casey. “The Trump Administration’s
War on Disability.” The Center for American Progress. July 28, 2025. Americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administrations-war-ondisability/#, accessed March 7, 2026.
61 Executive Order 14281, 90 Fed. Reg. 17537. April 28, 2025.
62 Congress.gov What Is Disparate-Impact Discrimination? Congress.gov/crs-
product/IF13057, accessed March 14, 2026.
63 Ives-Rublee, Mia and Doherty, Casey, note 6.
64 The Inter-Tribal Disability Advisory Council, note 19 at page 21.
65 Id.
66 Id at page 16.
67 Id at page 14.
68 Id at page 17.
69 Id at page 14, 19.
]]><![CDATA[Native Sacred Places Are Everywhere: Why Recognition and Protection Matter]]>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 20:20:43 GMThttps://www.indian-affairs.org/blog/native-sacred-places-are-everywhere-why-recognition-and-protection-matter
By Riley Ehlert and Amelie Lock* 
  
For many Americans, Native sacred places are treated as distant relics of the past — isolated cliff dwellings, famous landmarks, or sites featured in tourism campaigns and history textbooks. This narrow understanding obscures a much deeper truth: Native sacred places exist throughout the United States, including within cities, suburbs, farmland, forests, waterways, and neighborhoods that millions of people move through every day without recognizing what lives under their feet. 

​
This invisibility is not accidental. It is the direct result of centuries of colonization, forced removal, historical erasure, and educational systems that have minimized or excluded Indigenous perspectives. Across the country, sacred Indigenous landscapes remain hidden in plain sight, not because they lack importance, but because dominant American narratives have long refused to acknowledge Native Peoples as living Nations with enduring relationships to their Ancestral lands that they were put here to protect. 
 
For Native Nations, sacred places are not simply archaeological sites or historical landmarks. They are living cultural landscapes tied to ceremony, identity, language, governance, kinship, and spirituality. These living places connect past, present, and future generations. They are places of prayer, responsibility, memory, and belonging. Many continue to be actively used and protected by Native Nations today. 
 
Too often, American society recognizes sacredness only when it resembles Western religious traditions — churches, cathedrals, temples, cemeteries, or monuments built from stone and visible architecture. Indigenous sacred relationships to mountains, springs, rivers, burial grounds, migration routes, and ceremonial landscapes have historically been dismissed because they do not conform to colonial definitions of religion or land ownership. Even public lands and national parks are frequently framed through narratives of “discovery” and conservation that erase the Native Peoples who have stewarded those lands for thousands of years. 
 
This framework perpetuates the dangerous misconception that Indigenous sacred geography is rare or confined to a handful of famous locations. In reality, Native sacred places exist across the entire continent. 
 
The Legacy of Erasure 
The history of Native sacred lands in the United States cannot be separated from the colonial ideologies that shaped American expansion. Racism and settler colonialism created systems that treated Indigenous Peoples as obstacles to development rather than sovereign Nations with inherent rights and responsibilities to their homelands. 
 
These beliefs influenced federal policy, land development, archaeology, education, and popular culture. Sacred Indigenous sites were mined, flooded, excavated, looted, or destroyed in the name of expansion and economic growth. Burial grounds and ceremonial spaces were treated as scientific curiosities or real estate opportunities rather than protected cultural and spiritual places. 
 
Throughout the nineteenth century, Indigenous burial mounds and ceremonial earthworks across the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys were routinely excavated or flattened for agriculture and urban development. Rather than acknowledging the sophisticated civilizations built by Native Peoples, many white settlers promoted the racist “Mound Builder Myth” — the false theory that a vanished, supposedly more “civilized” race had constructed the mounds before Native Nations arrived. This narrative was used to justify the seizure of Indigenous lands and erase Native achievement from American history. 
 
The effects of this erasure continue today. Many schools still teach westward expansion primarily through the lens of exploration and settlement while failing to address the displacement of Native Nations, the destruction of sacred places, and the ongoing survival of Indigenous Peoples. As a result, generations of Americans have grown up with little understanding of the sacred landscapes that surround them. 
 
Sacred Places in Missouri: Hidden in Plain Sight 
Missouri illustrates how Indigenous sacred geography can be rendered nearly invisible in public memory despite thousands of years of Native history. Today, Missouri is rarely recognized nationally as a place deeply connected to Native sacred landscapes. Yet long before American expansion, the region was home to thriving Nations whose cultural and spiritual connections to the land continue today. 
 
Students often learn about the Lewis and Clark expedition as a story of American exploration while Native participation, knowledge, and perspectives receive little attention. The result is a historical narrative that centers colonization while minimizing Indigenous presence. A major reason this history is overlooked is because Native Nations were forcibly removed from Missouri during the nineteenth century through federal relocation policies and violent displacement. Many Americans mistakenly interpret the absence of federally recognized Nations in Missouri today as evidence that Native Peoples no longer have connections to the region. In reality, removal policies disrupted visibility — not Indigenous identity, history, or responsibility to the land. 
 
One important sacred site in Missouri is Sugarloaf Mound in St. Louis, the last remaining mound of the many that once existed in the city. Indigenous mounds are human-made earth structures created for ceremony, burial, gathering, governance, and spiritual purposes. They remain sacred to many Native Nations because they honor Ancestors and embody enduring relationships with the land. 
 
For years, residential structures sat atop Sugarloaf Mound. In 2009, the Osage Nation purchased the property containing the mound in order to protect and preserve the site. Preservation efforts have continued, including the removal of deteriorating structures and plans for future educational and interpretive work. Sugarloaf Mound serves as a reminder that Native sacred places persist even in heavily urbanized environments. 
 
Sacred Places in California: Survival Amid Urban Development 
California is home to 109 federally recognized Native Nations, as well as many nonrecognized Tribes, Bands and Communities that remain unrecognized by the federal government despite their enduring cultural presence. Across the state, sacred places continue to face threats from development, exclusion, and lack of recognition. One important site is Kuruvungna Sacred Springs, located within what is now Los Angeles.  
 
Kuruvungna Sacred Springs are connected to the Tongva people, the original inhabitants of the region. Also known as Tongva Sacred Springs, the site is now located on the grounds of University High School and is owned by the Los Angeles Unified School District while being managed through stewardship efforts led by the Gabrielino-Tongva Springs Foundation. The reality that Tongva Peoples must work within systems that do not fully recognize their sovereignty over Ancestral sacred lands reflects broader injustices faced by many Native Nations across the country. 
 
Kuruvungna was once part of a Tongva village whose name translates roughly to “a place where we gather in the sun.” Like many Native Nations in California, the Tongva were subjected to forced relocation and missionization under Spanish colonization, including removal to the San Gabriel Mission. 
 
Despite these histories, preservation and restoration efforts at Kuruvungna demonstrate the resilience of Native Peoples and the importance of collaborative stewardship. Community-led restoration has included the removal of invasive species, reintroduction of native plants, reconstruction of a traditional Tongva kiiy (dwelling), educational programming, gardens, and cultural revitalization efforts. The site continues to educate visitors about Indigenous history, environmental stewardship, and the ongoing presence of Tongva Peoples. 
 
Sacred Places and Environmental Stewardship 
Native sacred places are not only culturally significant — they are also deeply connected to environmental protection and ecological sustainability. For many Native Nations, land is not property to be exploited for profit. Land is a living relative with whom people maintain reciprocal responsibilities. Sacred places are tied to water systems, plant life, migration patterns, biodiversity, and ecological balance developed through generations of stewardship. 
 
This understanding challenges dominant Western frameworks that separate spirituality from environmental protection. Indigenous relationships to land recognize that cultural survival and ecological health are inseparable. 
 
The protection of sacred places often safeguards critical natural resources including clean water, wildlife habitats, medicinal plants, and healthy ecosystems. At Kuruvungna Sacred Springs, for example, the springs continue to produce tens of thousands of gallons of freshwater daily despite intense urbanization surrounding the site. You can drink the water directly from the spring in the middle of Los Angeles! 
 
As climate change, resource extraction, and development projects increasingly threaten Indigenous lands, Native Nations will continue to fight to protect sacred places for future generations. In this time of political unrest, however, many Native Nations do not have the capacity to fight against the onslaught of funding cuts, increased development, lack of healthcare, housing and opportunities to build economies, and to fight against the attack of their ecosystems, lands and sacred places 
 
Recognition Must Lead to Action 
Recognition alone is not enough. Protecting Native sacred places requires sustained public education, legal protections, meaningful consultation with Native Nations, and respect for Indigenous sovereignty. And, a lot of lawyers and organizing. 
 
Americans must move beyond viewing Native Peoples as figures confined to the past. Indigenous Nations remain vibrant, sovereign and resilient, with ongoing responsibilities to their sacred places and homelands. Sacred landscapes are not isolated historical artifacts; they are part of living cultures that continue today. 
 
Understanding Native sacred places begins with recognizing that these lands may exist in our own communities, often hidden beneath highways, neighborhoods, schools, parks, and commercial development. The land beneath our feet holds histories, responsibilities, and relationships that long predate the United States. 
 
Educational institutions, government agencies, developers, and the public all have a responsibility to learn these histories and support Native-led preservation efforts. 
Some helpful educational resources include:  
Across the United States, Native sacred places continue to face threats from extractive industries, infrastructure projects, looting, and development driven by profit rather than environmental and cultural responsibility. Protecting these places requires more than acknowledgment — it requires education, advocacy, partnership with Native Nations, and long-term commitment to Indigenous rights and sovereignty. 
 
Native sacred places are everywhere. The question is whether American society is finally willing to see them. 
 
*Riley Ehlert is a citizen of the Muscogee Nation and a current high school junior in Los Angeles. In addition to being involved in various school sports and clubs, Riley is a member of Sacred Path Indigenous Wellness Center’s Indigenous Youth Advisory Council and the Emerging Organizers Cohort for California Native Vote Project. She is also a volunteer columnist for the Indigenous Foundation. Involvement with local Native Nations has allowed her to gain experience in community organizing and advocacy. She is passionate about spreading awareness regarding various issues affecting Native Nations. In doing so, she hopes to deepen her own understanding and strengthen her cultural connection. 
 
Amelie Lock is a high school junior in St. Louis, Missouri with interests in Native studies. Originally from New York City, Amelie has a strong passion for theater and the arts and has performed nationally since the age of 10. Last summer, she studied the American Enlightenment at Stanford under Professor Caroline Winterer, where she developed an interest in Native arts. She currently serves as an Ambassador for Arts Education in the state of Missouri and is interested in using advocacy and storytelling to support the work of Association on American Indian Affairs. 
 
Sugarloaf mound picture Credit: Brian Munoz 
 
Credit for Karuvungna Springs pictures: Evan Meyer
​https://www.2023.nativeplantgardentour.org/17-kuruvungna-and-the-tongva-sacred-springs/ 
]]><![CDATA[President Signs Eagle Feather Memo]]>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 21:23:21 GMThttps://www.indian-affairs.org/blog/president-signs-eagle-feather-memo
For many Native Peoples, eagle feathers are sacred and carry deep spiritual and ceremonial significance. They are used in prayer, rites of passage, healing ceremonies, and other cultural and religious practices that have existed since time immemorial. 

Federal laws including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act heavily regulate the possession and distribution of eagle feathers. While Native cultural and religious use is protected under federal law, Native practitioners have long faced barriers accessing eagle feathers for ceremonial purposes, including lengthy wait times, restrictive permitting systems, and federal control over the distribution process. 
​
The following article, originally published by the Association in 1994, documents advocacy efforts surrounding a presidential memorandum signed by President Clinton addressing eagle feather distribution for Native religious purposes. While this historical moment marked an important step forward, Native practitioners continue to face ongoing challenges related to religious freedom, access to eagle feathers and sacred cultural items, and the protection of Native ceremonial practices.
For more information about eagle feather protections, Native religious freedom, and ongoing advocacy efforts related to eagle feather access and cultural rights, visit our Eagle Feather Protection resource page. The page includes additional historical background, legal context, and information about developments that followed the 1994 memorandum, including continued advocacy efforts to protect Native religious and cultural practices. 

This article was originally published in the Fall 1994, Issue 131 of Indian Affairs. Minor edits have been made to correct certain terms. 
The Coalition for American Indian Religious Freedom scored a small victory when President Clinton signed a presidential memorandum titled, “Policy Concerning Distribution of Eagle Feathers for Native American Religious Purposes.” Although a presidential memo does not carry the full effect of a law, it does mandate federal agencies to take notice and comply with presidential interests. 

The Association is a member of the Task Force on Eagle Feathers created by the AIRFA (American Indian Religious Freedom Act) Coalition. Other members include the Salish-Kootenai Tribe of Montana and the Medicine Wheel Coalition. 
Task Force members have met with numerous Native groups, traditional practitioners and spiritual leaders regarding the process for acquiring feathers needed for special ceremonies. After hearing testimony regarding the bureaucratic problems associated with acquisition of eagle feathers, the Task Force then met with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Officials in regional offices and Washington, D.C. 

As policy now stands, requests for eagle feathers for spiritual use can take years to process. Because of this, many religious ceremonies, including rights-of-passage are delayed. Deceased eagles found on roads, even on reservations, must be submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials then held before distribution. The Task Force suggests that including Native Peoples, sensitive to the religious background, within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife procedure, may speed-up the process. 

It is very disturbing to many Native Peoples that museums, schools and powwow dancers are often granted feathers sooner than Native spiritual leaders. However, the Association is encouraged by the President taking notice—a draft policy position was prepared by the Eagle Feather Task Force and circulated to the AIRFA Coalition for review then presented to the White House. President Clinton signed the policy memo on April 29, 1994 during a historical meeting with Native leaders at the White House.  

Although eagles are on the U.S. endangered species list, before colonization, eagles were as common as other birds in the U.S. Their threat of extinction is not due to Native ceremonial use, but to commercial development of the eagle habitat. Electrocution from high voltage power lines; pesticides and other poisons; automobile hits; and natural causes are the leading factors in the decline of the eagle population. ​

]]><![CDATA[Navigating International Repatriation Requires a Collaborative Approach]]>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 04:00:00 GMThttps://www.indian-affairs.org/blog/navigating-international-repatriation-requires-a-collaborative-approach
​By: Amy Shakespeare, International Repatriation Specialist 
 
Published in Association on American Indian Affairs, Indian Affairs Journal, Volume 195, Fall/Winter 2024

In 2018, French President Emmanuel Macron commissioned a report entitled The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage: Toward a New Relational Ethics,(1) more commonly known as the Sarr-Savoy Report (after the authors). The report called for the unconditional return of African cultural heritage from French institutions. This followed Macron’s speech in Burkina Faso in 2017, where he promised to rebuild France and the African continent’s relationship, including the repatriation of African heritage which he referred to as being held “prisoner” by French museums.(2)
The Sarr-Savoy Report caused a ripple effect across the European press and museum sector. The UK Museums Journal wrote that the report would “add to growing pressure on museums across Europe to re-examine their approach to the repatriation or restitution of colonial-era objects.(3) In the wake of the report, a few other countries published repatriation guidelines and policies. For instance, Germany released their national Framework Principles for Dealing with Collections from Colonial Contexts(4) and the Dutch government convened an advisory committee to produce their Guidance on the Way Forward for Colonial Collections.(5)  
 
By this time, I had been working for nearly a decade in the UK museums and heritage sector. It was against this rapidly changing backdrop of reports, changing policies, and guidelines, that I began my PhD research at the University of Exeter, funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council. At the time, the UK had a conservative government who were vocal about their anti-repatriation stance. I was increasingly frustrated that the UK sector seemed stuck debating whether institutions should repatriate rather than focusing on how to repatriate. I aimed to analyse what could be learned from repatriations from UK museums over the past 30 years and utilise these findings to enable more British institutions to undertake repatriation through more anticolonial processes.
 
In 2023, I undertook a Smithsonian Fellowship at the National Museum of the American Indian’s Repatriation Department. Initially I went to research the NMAI Act and the museum’s approach to repatriation, to consider what UK institutions could learn from the NMAI. During my time there, I was also invited to sit in on the White House Council on Native American Affairs International Repatriation Subcommittee meetings. Through joining these meetings it became clear that the ever-changing landscape in Europe had made it difficult for those who were working on international repatriation to know where to focus their efforts. While some Native Nations were more experienced and already had established relationships, those who were just starting their international repatriation journeys were faced with a lack of available (and translated) information, difficult to navigate webpages, lack of contact details, and media headlines that did not always reflect the full picture.
 
I set out to research laws, policies, guidelines, and procedures, as well as interview museum professionals across Europe, to gather up-to-date information, which was often not written anywhere. Everyone that I spoke to was incredibly generous with their time and knowledge and demonstrated that there was a huge interest and commitment to do this work across Europe. As my own research in the UK had demonstrated, often individuals in institutions were very keen to do this work – even if the frameworks and contexts they were operating within were perhaps less amenable.
 
Through my research, I found that despite the Sarr-Savoy Report and the new German and Dutch policies and guidelines, France, Germany, and the Netherlands had been slow to act on repatriation. In conversations with museum professionals based in these countries, they often said that there was a lack of action because they had not yet been approached by Indigenous Nations about repatriation. And yet, these countries and institutions had often not reached out to Native Nations in the U.S. to share their collections information, or their new policies and procedures. While capacity and funding were often to blame for a lack of proactivity, it seemed that there needed to be something that could improve the sharing of these new policies and guidelines. This information needed to be put in the hands of those who could use it to bring their Ancestors and belongings home. Though there are often many reasons institutions cite for their lack of action on repatriation, the excuse that they had not heard from anyone about making a claim should not be used to delay repatriation any longer.
 
This ultimately led me to launch the website Routes to Return,(6) which features a free resource mapping 17 European countries’ laws, policies, and guidelines that govern their approaches to repatriation.(7) I update the resource regularly, every time that there is an update or change to a country’s approach. I hope it provides a useful starting point for Native Nations at the beginning of their international repatriation journeys and supports them to focus their efforts, by demonstrating which countries are open to, and able to act on, claims.
 
After launching Routes to Return, I began talking with the Association on American Indian Affairs. The Association has been working on international repatriation for the last decade, building upon their longstanding work on the protection of cultural heritage and sacred places. In this time, through consultation with their Tribal Partners Working Group, relationships within the federal government, and at their Annual Repatriation Conferences, they developed an International Repatriation Strategy. The long-term strategy aims to create a more time- and cost-effective international repatriation process that enables the return of multiple Ancestors and belongings from institutions to Native Nations, by building relationships and coalitions that will minimize the burden on Nations.
 
Through my conversations with the Association, we realized that there was a great synergy between the strategy the Association had been developing, and my own work on Routes to Return. The Association’s strategy aims to identify priority countries that are open to repatriation claims from Native Nations. By doing so, Nations can prioritize working with institutions in countries that already have the mechanisms to be able to act on repatriation, rather than countries which may need new laws passed to return to Native Nations, or that might not be welcoming to claims, yet.
 
At the end of 2023, the Association was awarded funding by the Mellon Foundation, part of which would enable them to implement their International Repatriation Strategy. I was delighted to be asked to start working with the Association on this. The strategy focuses on providing research and support to Native Nations looking to work on international repatriation. Though there are Native Nations that are already doing this work, the Association knows that there are many others who would like to but do not have the capacity or are not sure where to start. The strategy aims to give Native Nations as much information as possible about which institutions are open to this work, the collections they hold and potential affiliations, and how to make a successful claim. This should give Native Nations what they need to make international repatriation claims if they so choose to.
 
Starting in February 2024, I was able to utilize the networks that I have developed through Routes to Return to identify priority countries that are most likely to be open to claims from Native Nations. For example, some countries require new laws to be passed for repatriation to occur, or only accept claims from nation-states that they class as “ex-colonies,” which means that Native Nations may struggle to make progress on claims from these places. While there are nuances, opportunities, and challenges in every country, after careful research and several conversations, we chose to focus our efforts initially on Germany, Scotland, England, and Canada. We are continually keeping updated on new developments, and other countries will be added to this list as they too become open to repatriation claims from Native Nations. For this reason, I have been referring to the strategy as an “iterative prioritization process.”
 
We have then worked to determine priority institutions within these countries that have both relevant collections that are affiliated, or potentially affiliated, to Native Nations, and are also open to repatriation claims – as not all institutions are necessarily as ready as others. We have been working with these priority institutions to gather collections information as well as advice on what needs to be included in a successful repatriation claim. As we have already identified that these institutions are open to repatriation, they have been happy to promptly share information. It should be noted that technically this is all already public information, but institutions often do not have complete online databases – if any. Some institutions that have incomplete records have utilized our request for complete lists as a prompt to undertake additional research and allocate resources to compile inventory lists for Ancestors and belongings that are or may be affiliated to Native Nations.
 
Consistently through my research I have heard how institutions do not have the capacity, resources, or knowledge, to be proactive in contacting Native Nations that may be affiliated with the collections they hold. Therefore, the Association’s strategy then involves identifying and contacting relevant Native Nations that may be affiliated with the collections these institutions hold. As might be expected, this information often has a severe lack of any provenience or provenance information.(8) However, where we are able to, we are working to utilize any cultural or geographical information to contact relevant Nations and share all of the information we have gathered – both about the collections and the institution’s repatriation process. We have a team of interns who have been conducting outreach calls to Native Nations to ensure that we have the correct contact details so the information reaches who it needs to. If you work for a Native Nation, we will make sure you are contacted if and when we find any Ancestors and belongings that may relate to your Nation.
 
The strategy is then entirely guided by the Nations involved. We invite all Nations to a meeting to go over the information they have received about the institution and answer any questions they may have. If they then want to pursue a repatriation claim independently, they can contact the Association at any time for support. The Association is here to provide ongoing support to help enable more Ancestors and belongings to return home.
 
We have also been working to build coalitions of Nations that are interested in making claims to an institution together. Though Native Nations would still be making separate claims, there are a number of potential benefits to making them at the same time as part of a broader coalition. Unlike under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act where consultation and other activities precede a claim, for international institutions a claim is often the trigger for work beginning on an international repatriation. Submitting multiple claims creates a demand to the institution to provide resources and capacity to address these claims. Coalitions of Nations making claims together support the strategy’s aim of creating a more time- and cost-effective process for international repatriation.
 
The Association will not be making claims on anyone’s behalf, nor acting as an intermediary for these claims. However, we are there to support both Native Nations and the relevant institutions if needed and wanted at any stage. This could include drafting a template claim letter, reaching out to someone they have not heard back from to restart communications, or looking for funding to enable the physical return of Ancestors and belongings. The Association has the capacity to spend time ensuring that claims maintain momentum and are acted upon as swiftly as possible. This is an iterative strategy that must be guided by Native Nations and will change slightly depending on the policy of each institution. However, by working in this strategic way on a large scale, the Association hopes to support greater numbers of Ancestors and belongings to return home as promptly as possible.
 
Although I am excited to be working on the strategy for the Association, my work here in the UK continues, to ensure repatriation is acted upon as a matter of urgency. My own research, as well as the work I have been doing with the Association, has informed a new policy briefing I have authored urging the UK government to prioritize repatriation as a human rights issue.(9) We have an opportunity in the UK to harness the new Labour Government’s seeming interest in repatriation(10) to push for change. My briefing calls for the UK to honour its commitment to UNDRIP(11) by providing: a national policy on repatriation; specific ongoing funds for provenance research, training and skills programs, and physical returns; and the ability for national museums and galleries to act independently to repatriate cultural items on moral grounds. The briefing was published in October 2024 and has been featured in the national sector press.(12) Time will tell the impact that the briefing may have, but I remain hopeful that with a new government in place and more conversations happening, there may be change ahead soon.
 
In the meantime, the Association’s International Repatriation Strategy can only further the cause for this work to be prioritized here in the UK and Europe more broadly, by raising awareness, building relationships, connecting more Native Nations with their Ancestors and belongings currently held overseas, and making large-scale claims to bring them home.

​Since this blog was originally published, there have been important updates regarding federal support for museums and Tribal Museums. In February 2026, Congress passed and the President signed Fiscal Year 2026 appropriations bills continuing funding for the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), despite previous efforts to reduce or eliminate support for the agency. At the same time, legal challenges to efforts to dismantle IMLS resulted in a federal court permanently blocking those actions. Although the Administration initially appealed the ruling, it later withdrew the appeal, leaving the injunction protecting the agency in place and allowing IMLS to continue carrying out its congressionally authorized work. These developments highlight both the ongoing threats facing Tribal Museums and the importance of continued advocacy to protect federal funding that supports diverse Native cultures, language revitalization, education, and cultural sovereignty.
 
Sources
1. Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy, (November 2018), The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage: Toward a New Relational Ethics, About-africa.de/ images/sonstiges/2018/sarr_savoy_en.pdf, reviewed November 7, 2024.
2. Tristram Hunt, ‘Should Museums Return Their Colonial Artefacts?’, The Guardian, theguardian.com/culture/2019/jun/29/should-museums-returntheir-colonial-artefacts, reviewed November 21 2024.
3. Geraldine Kendall Adams, ‘A Sea Change in Restitution’, Museums Journal, (October 2019).
4. Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media, the Federal Foreign Office Minister of State for International Cultural Policy, the Cultural Affairs Ministers of the Länder and the Municipal Umbrella Organisations, Framework Principles for Dealing with Collections from Colonial Contexts, (March 2019), Auswaertiges-amt.de/resource/blob/2210152/ b2731f8b59210c77c68177cdcd3d03de/190412-stm-m-sammlungsgutkolonial-kontext-en-data.pdf, reviewed November 8, 2024.
5. Deutscher Museums Bund, Guidelines for the Care of Collections from Colonial Contexts, (January 2021), museumsbund.de/publikationen/ guidelines-on-dealing-with-collections-from-colonial-contexts-2/, reviewed November 8, 2024.
6. Routes to Return, “Home,” Routestoreturn.com, reviewed November 10, 2024.
7. Routes to Return, “Understanding the European Museum Landscape,” Routestoreturn.com/understanding-the-european-museum-landscape, reviewed November 10, 2024.
8. Provenience means the actual place where an item originated; provenance refers to its chain of title or what happened after the item left its place of origination.
9. Routes to Return, “UK Policy Briefing,” Routestoreturn.com/policy-briefing-forthe-uk-government, reviewed November 10, 2024.
10. See Pippa Crerar, “Lisa Nandy: Tories” “Violent Indifference” to the Arts Damaged Access to Culture”, The Guardian, Theguardian.com/ culture/2024/sep/24/lisa-nandy-tories-violent-indifference-to-the-arts-gavepoor-access-to-culture?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other, reviewed September 24, 2024); Museums + Heritage Advisor, “Culture Secretary Seeks ‘Consistent’ Approach For Object Repatriation,” Museumsandheritage.com/advisor/ posts/culture-secretary-seeks-consistent-approach-for-object-repatriation/, reviewed 24 September 24, 2024; Gareth Harris, “Repatriation of Objects is on the Government’s Agenda, Says UK Culture Secretary,” The Art Newspaper, Theartnewspaper.com/2024/09/24/repatriation-of-objects-is-on-thegovernments-agenda-says-uk-culture-secretary, reviewed September 24, 2024.
11. United Nations, “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” (2007), UN.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wpcontent/uploads/sites/19/2018/ 11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf, reviewed November 10, 2024.
12. See Geraldine Kendall Adams, “UK Has Opportunity to Become a World Leader in International Repatriation,” Museums Journal, Museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/2024/10/uk-hasopportunity-to-become-a-world-leader-in-international-repatriation/, reviewed October 29, 2024; Chris Sharratt, “Briefing Calls for Museums to be Given Repatriation Powers,” Arts Professional, Artsprofessional.co.uk/news/ briefing-calls-for-museums-to-be-given-repatration-powers?fbclid= IwY2x jawGZpTtleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHVee3ZuwB-KTRtjpOVDkdLzfh75wYQudak3 bsyB6FSfRWfktIo KgFa3VHA_aem_SpWNDTeccQiGG0HyxrN_Og, reviewed October 31, 2024.
]]><![CDATA[Investing in the Next Generations: The Association's Scholarship Legacy]]>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 20:47:35 GMThttps://www.indian-affairs.org/blog/investing-in-the-next-generations-the-associations-scholarship-legacy
​By: CC Hovie and Kay Kkendasot Mattena

In 1947, Florence Ivy Begay, a citizen of the Navajo Nation, became the first student to receive a scholarship from the Association on American Indian Affairs (the Association). Florence had just graduated high school with straight A’s—one of only three students in her school’s history to do so. She dreamed of becoming a doctor so that she could return home and serve her Nation.
​When the Association offered her a four-year scholarship to Sarah Lawrence College in New York, covering tuition and housing, it was a life-changing opportunity. But on her journey east, Florence encountered the harsh realities of segregation. While traveling through Amarillo, Texas, she was forced to sit at the back of the bus. Outraged by the discrimination she witnessed and experienced, Florence ended her trip early when the bus reached Oklahoma City and instead enrolled at Arizona State College. Her story made national news and was covered by major outlets including The New York Times and The Washington Post.
​Help Us Honor Florence Begay’s Legacy
We have not been able to confirm whether Florence Begay completed her education at Arizona State College. If you have information about her life or career, we would love to hear from you so we can help ensure her story continues to be shared. Please send us an email at general@Indian-Affairs.org. 
Florence Begay’s journey marked the beginning of what would become the longest-running Native scholarship program serving Native Country.
 
The Association itself had already faced enormous challenges before launching the program. Shortly after its founding in 1922, the organization struggled to survive the economic devastation of the Great Depression. With funding nearly gone in the mid-1930s, the Association’s President, Oliver La Farge, faced a difficult choice—close the organization or continue its work under extreme hardship. Determined to protect Native rights and strengthen Native Nations, La Farge kept the Association alive by operating it out of his own home while supporting himself through freelance writing. His commitment ensured the organization survived long enough to expand its advocacy and programs in the decades that followed.
 
By the 1940s, it was clear that Native students faced enormous barriers to higher education. Financial resources were scarce, and information about scholarships, training programs, and college opportunities was difficult to access. In response, the Association formally organized its scholarship program in 1948 and began researching educational opportunities across the country. The organization published information about available scholarships and funding opportunities in its journal, The American Indian, encouraging Native students and Native Nations to connect with the Association for support.
 
Demand for assistance grew quickly. Letters and applications began arriving from across Native Country from students hoping to pursue college and professional training.
 
In 1959, one student, Joe Louis Jimenez of Nambe Pueblo, wrote to the Association expressing his gratitude:
 
“Let me tell you that what you have granted me will not in any way be a bad investment. Gosh, if you could understand my Indian language, I would thank you in that language, for the reason I feel that the English-speaking peoples have not made a word or words to express the appreciation that I have for your kind and tremendous aid. Now I can not only pay for a number of things, but also feel like a tree whose branches are being blown from side to side but can depend on the strong roots holding it firmly and steadfastly to the ground.”
 
Throughout the 1950s, the Association continued expanding the scholarship program, establishing its Education Committee and later a dedicated Scholarship Committee to guide the effort. Influential Native leaders and scholars contributed to the program’s growth, including renowned Dakota scholar Ella Deloria (1889-1971), also known as Aŋpétu Wašté Wiŋ or Beautiful Day Woman. The program eventually partnered with the Congregational Church for Scholarships to Indians, forming the United Scholarship Service, which dramatically increased the number of scholarships awarded each year.
 
At the time, Native student enrollment in higher education remained extremely low. In 1957, only about 2,000 Native students were enrolled in colleges and universities nationwide.(1) The Association recognized that meaningful change required more than funding alone. The organization also worked to improve educational opportunities for Native youth at every level, supporting initiatives such as Project Head Start and advocating for Native leadership in local school systems through the formation of Native school boards and Native administration of education programs.
 
These efforts helped lay the groundwork for the growth of Native higher education in the decades that followed. Today, more than 100,000 Native students are enrolled in colleges and universities, yet Native students still represent only about 1% of the undergraduate population, highlighting the continued need to expand access to higher education.(2) The Association’s scholarship program continues to play a pivotal role in that progress.
 
Over the past 8 years alone, the Association has awarded more than $340,000 in scholarships to 128 Native students pursuing degrees across a wide range of disciplines and institutions. The scholarships support the student through obtaining their degree and requires them to maintain a 2.5 GPA and full-time status. If they do so, they don’t have to reapply for the scholarship. The scholarship also provides funds for students (all ages) from either federal or non-recognized Nations.
 
Today’s scholarship recipients continue the legacy that began with Florence Begay nearly eighty years ago.
Aleigha Lenoir, a citizen of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians earned a Bachelor of Science in Biology from Turtle Mountain Community College in 2025, and shared what the scholarship meant to her:
 
“I know that words will never express it enough, but I am extremely grateful for you giving not only myself, but other Native students the opportunity to receive this scholarship. As a Native student living on a reservation, I have seen firsthand how many families struggle financially.”
The Association’s scholarship program has also grown through partnerships with organizations committed to strengthening Native education, including the Center for Braiding Indigenous Knowledges and Science and the American Indian College Fund. These collaborations help expand opportunities for Native students pursuing higher education and research across many fields.
 
For nearly eight decades, the Association has supported Native students as they pursue their educational goals and prepare to serve their Nations and communities.  Education strengthens Native leadership, builds capacity within Native Nations, and ensures that next generations have the knowledge and tools needed to protect sovereignty and culture.
 
That legacy continues today because of the generosity of donors and supporters who believe in the importance of investing in Native students. As we look to the future, the Association remains committed to expanding opportunities for Native youth and continuing the work that began with one scholarship and one determined student. Help us continue this legacy by supporting the Association’s scholarship program and investing in the next generation of Native leaders.

Sources
1. P. M. White III, Assessing the Factors that Affect the Persistence and Graduation of Native American College Students, doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 2007. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send?accession=bgsu1182544100&disposition=inline&utm_source=chatgpt.com
 
2. Postsecondary National Policy Institute, https://pnpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/PNPI_NativeAmerican_FactSheet_Jan26.pdf
]]><![CDATA[A 20-Year Anniversary Reflection on Maria Pearson’s Repatriation and Peace Legacies]]>Wed, 11 Feb 2026 20:53:40 GMThttps://www.indian-affairs.org/blog/a-20-year-anniversary-reflection-on-maria-pearsons-repatriation-and-peace-legacies
This article, “A 20-Year Anniversary Reflection on Maria Pearson’s Repatriation and Peace Legacies” was originally published in issue in the Fall & Winter 2023, Issue 193 of Indian Affairs.  
 
By Lawrence W. Gross, Anishinaabe and a citizen of the White Earth Nation. He holds the rank of Professor and serves as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Endowed Chair of Native American Studies at the University of Redlands in Redlands, California. He has written extensively on the Anishinaabe people and culture, including Anishinaabe Ways of Knowing and Being. 

I want to start this article by sharing that this is a deeply personal and significant article for me. I share the story of Maria Pearson with as many of my students as possible each year. Her non-English name is Hai-Mecha Eunka, which means Running Moccasins, and she comes from the Yankton Sioux Tribe in South Dakota. I tell my students Maria’s story in hopes that it will teach them the deep significance of repatriation work. As a result, I was very happy to receive the invitation to submit this article from one of my former students. That meant to me that I helped her legacy live on and inspire my students in their work. As I explain below, I also consider Maria to be one of my three mothers, so sharing these stories is deeply valuable for me as well. ​
In the fall of 2001, I was working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. Our department chair sent the faculty an email stating that as faculty members of a Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, we were eligible to nominate people for the Nobel Peace Prize. He asked if we knew anyone we would like to nominate. I immediately thought of Maria and decided on the spot to nominate her. I emailed the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to make sure I could, in fact, nominate people. They responded that I could. So, in 2002 I wrote the first of two letters nominating Maria Pearson for the Nobel Peace Prize. My second nominating letter was in 2003. 

I nominated Maria in honor of her lifetime dedication to advancing global peace by stopping the genocidal desecration of Indigenous graves around the world. At the time, she lived in Ames, Iowa and served on the American Indian Advisory Committee for Iowa State University. Since I had a joint appointment with the American Indian Studies Program, I got to know Maria through her work on that committee. Through our conversations, she told me about her work protecting Indigenous graves and repatriating Native Ancestors and cultural items. 

Through my work with Maria, I learned the stories I will share here with you, although she wrote about them, too. She had stories about her inspired leadership with legislators, archaeologists, anthropologists, physical anthropologists, and with other Native Peoples. She recounted stories about her monumental legislative and policy advocacy victories. She related stories that conveyed she was a calm spokesperson for peace and dignity fighting for all Indigenous Peoples. I learned about how her work started in the early 1970s. It is with great love and honor that I share with you this reflection on the 20-year anniversary of my second nomination of Maria Pearson for the Nobel Peace Prize for her lifetime dedication to Indigenous Peoples, peace, and repatriation. 

The roots of the modern repatriation movement are those of the cottonwood 
At the heart of Maria’s story is the sacred cottonwood tree, a tree sacred to her Oceti Sakowin, also known as the Seven Council Fires of the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota people. When Maria and her husband were looking for a home in Marne, Iowa, they looked at a house with large, mature cottonwood trees in the backyard. Maria always told us that she decided they would buy the house as soon as she saw those trees. It was important to Maria to be in the presence of those trees and for good reason. 

One night, her husband John, a district engineer with the then-Iowa Highway Commission, told her about what would come to be known as the Glenwood Incident. During a highway construction project south of Council Bluffs, the remains of 26 Caucasian pioneers were disinterred and respectfully moved to a nearby cemetery for reburial. The remains of a Native woman and her baby and associated belongings, however, were not re-interred. The Native woman and her baby were instead sent to the State Archaeologist for study. Maria could not understand this discriminatory protection of Euro-American but not Native graves. 

That night, Maria went outside to pray under the cottonwood trees. I want to make this point clear: She did not go outside to clear her head or to think things over. She specifically went outside to pray under the cottonwood trees. She always told the story in the same manner: She heard a wind coming from a distance, and then the leaves on the trees started tinkling like crystal. 

Then she heard her grandmother’s voice speaking to her, “Girl, I told you that you would have to stand up for what you believe in. You must protect the places where your Ancestors lie.” Her conversation with her late grandmother that night set her on her journey to “protect the places where your Ancestors lie.”¹ 

Maria could never be scared away from fighting the good fight 
It was not an easy path. While advocating for the protection of Native graves in Iowa, her home was shot at while she and her children were inside. As an example of the scorn she faced, Maria often told a story about an event with Don Wanatee of the Meskwaki Nation.² They were meeting with a group of professional archaeologists from Iowa. Maria did not relate this part of the story in her written account of the event, but as they walked to the auditorium, Don told Maria that she would have to talk for them. He related that the Meskwaki were in ceremony the night before, and the spirits said he would lose his voice. 

In her written account, she related that as Don was speaking about why grave protection was important for his people, the woman who introduced them said, “I’m sick and tired of you Indians trying to ram your culture down my throat! I don’t give a damn whether you dig up my grandmother and take her wedding ring or not.” Don was so stunned that he lost his voice and could not speak. Just as the spirits had foretold, he could only stand there and gasp for breath. So, he told Maria she would have to speak for them, got up, and walked out.  
​
Maria stood up, looked at that woman, and, as she recounted: 
“You invited us here to this meeting and then you insult us in this manner? Well, I came here to tell you something and I’m going to say it. You say you don’t give a damn whether or not we dig up your grandmother and take her wedding ring. Number one, we DO give a damn! Indians do not steal from the dead nor do we disturb the dead. Second, your culture does not lie in this land, it lies across that ocean. You go over there and practice your grave robbing if you want and I won’t bother you. Otherwise I’ll fight you until there is no damn breath left within me to see that this does not occur again in my land.”³ 

I especially love the story about how Maria was being prepared for an operation the day after she met the Governor for the first time. As she was being prepared for the surgery, she could see a reporter in the hallway through the glass in the hospital room door. So, she said in a voice loud enough for the reporter to hear, “I want to see my lawyer!” Her doctor was shocked. He said, “You are going into surgery, Maria. What do you need a lawyer for?” Maria said, “Well, you could kill me in surgery. I could die. And I want to will my bones to the State of Iowa: that way the state archaeologist won’t have to dig me up and in so doing cause mental trauma to my children and grandchildren. You can give my bones to the state archaeologist since he likes Indian bones so well.” 

Just as she’d planned, she brought a huge spotlight to the issue of repatriation when the Des Moines newspaper ran the next day with the following headline: *“Running Moccasins Wills Her Bones to the State of Iowa.”*⁴ Maria created a stage for her advocacy in her characteristically powerful and humorous way. Here, she used it to teach the general public that her grave could be defiled by the state simply because she was Native. 

Maria was unrelenting in her pursuit of peace and justice for Native Peoples and our Ancestors. Through my work with Maria, I learned many stories of her inspired leadership with legislators, archaeologists, anthropologists, physical anthropologists, and with other Native Peoples. I learned about how her work started in the early 1970s. That is why she worked closely with the then-Governor of Iowa, Robert D. Ray, on the Iowa Burials Protection Act of 1976, Iowa Code, Ch. 263B.7–9 & 716.5 (Iowa Act). The Iowa Act was the first legislative act in the U.S. to specifically protect Native graves and provide for the repatriation of remains.⁵ Emboldened by her success, Maria would come to play a key role in lobbying national leaders and being one of the catalysts in creating the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act. Maria was also featured in the 1995 BBC documentary Bones of Contention.⁶ 

While drafting the Iowa Act, the initial plans were to rebury Native Ancestors held by museums in two graves, one on the east side of Iowa and one on the west. After the first set of negotiations, Maria realized they needed two more graves to represent the four cardinal directions. So, she went back and told the Governor that they needed to have four gravesites rather than just two. In this way, Maria secured four gravesites for reburial in Iowa, starting with the Native girl originally dug up in the Glenwood Incident. She made sure the sites were closed to the public so the graves could never be disturbed again.⁷ 

Maria’s international repatriation legacy 
To Maria, fighting for repatriation meant not only the return of Ancestral remains and sacred items here in the U.S. but opposing genocide all around the world. I remember fondly Maria recounting her visit to the Middle East where, she told me, she was so delighted to have her achievements recognized by the handsome, mustached Arab men for her work to protect the dead of the world’s oppressed peoples. Maria was also recognized and honored by the Māori of New Zealand who adopted her into their Nation for her work securing dignity and respect for Indigenous dead around the world. 

The issue of repatriation was fundamentally an issue of peace for Maria. She understood the will of our Ancestors to be two-fold, in my opinion. First, the Ancestors needed to rest where they were meant to. Second, there needed to be peace among the living. Maria dedicated her life to fighting the desecration of Native graves. 

Ningaban Maria, gi-zaagi’in giin 
After I nominated Maria for the Nobel Peace Prize, she took me under her wing and began mentoring me spiritually and as an activist. I appreciated the many lessons she taught me, especially that you must choose your battles wisely. She taught me many other things, but they are too personal for me to relate publicly. So, I will refrain from doing so. 
We used to have gatherings for the Native community in Ames at our house, which Maria would attend, of course. We always had a rollicking good time having simultaneous cribbage tournaments and Scrabble tournaments. My son, Ken, has given me permission to relate the following story. Ken was in high school at the time, and he would play Maria in cribbage. The two would simply razz each other. 

At one such gathering, Maria turned to her friend and said, “I’m thinking about adopting him the next ceremonial season.” My jaw metaphorically hit the floor. I knew that when the Oceti Sakowin people adopt you, that relationship is closer than one’s blood relations because they chose you to be a relative. I also knew when they adopt someone, they are adopting that person’s entire family in turn. Maria probably would have adopted Ken as her grandson. That would have made me Maria’s son and I would have had to have treated Maria better than my own biological mother. Sadly, that never came to pass because Maria started her own spirit journey before the next ceremonial season. 

Even still, I think of her as my mother and include her in my daily morning prayers as my mother, along with my two other mothers, my biological mother, Cecelia Gross (née Beaulieu), and my academic mother, Inés Talamantez. I consider myself blessed to have had such three wonderful mothers. My son Ken still talks about Maria, and I still think about her on a regular basis. I always include her story in my Introduction to Native American Studies course and other courses as I can fit it in. Maria was a good friend, a good mentor, and most importantly of all, a good relative. I thank her for all her good work on behalf of Indigenous Peoples worldwide and for being so good to me and my family. 

So, I will end with some words for Maria in my people’s language of Anishinaabemowin: 
​
Ningaban Maria, miigwech! 
(My late mother Maria, thank you!) 
Ningaban Maria, gi-zaagi’in giin. 
(My late mother Maria, I love you) 

​
Sources 
1 Pearson, Maria D. “Give Me Back My People’s Bones: Repatriation and Reburial of American Indian Skeletal Remains in Iowa,” in The Worlds between Two Rivers: Perspectives on American Indians in Iowa, ed. Gretchen M. Bataille, David Mayer Gradwohl, and Charles P. Silet (University of Iowa Press, 2000): 133. 
2 The Meskwaki are also known as the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa. 
3 Pearson, “Give Me Back My People’s Bones,” 138–39. 
4 Id., 137–38. 
5 Ames History Museum, Maria Pearson collection. 
6 Bones of Contention, BBC Documentary (1995). 
7 Pearson, “Give Me Back My People’s Bones,” 140. 


Read more about Maria Pearson’s life and advocacy here: 

About Maria’s Residency at the Ames Museum:
https://ameshistory.org/content/maria-pearson 

Maria has been memorialized at Iowa State Universities Plaza of Heroines: 
https://plaza.las.iastate.edu/directory/maria-pearson/ 

Substack article “Maria Pearson, Running Moccasins, Banned Histories of Race in America” 
https://samuelj.substack.com/p/maria-pearson-running-moccasins
]]><![CDATA[The Gwich’in: Caribou People]]>Wed, 14 Jan 2026 16:20:57 GMThttps://www.indian-affairs.org/blog/the-gwichin-caribou-people
This article, “The Gwich’in: Caribou People,” was originally published in the Winter & Spring of 2002, Issue 150 of Indian Affairs. Minor edits have been made to correct certain terms. 

In 2002, the Gwich’in Nation was speaking out against oil development in the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou Herd within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, naming what was at stake for their culture, their food system, and their responsibility to the next generations. 
 
In the nearly quarter-century since its publication, the landscape surrounding the Porcupine River Caribou Herd — and the federal policies that govern its use — have continued to change. In 2025, federal land management policy shifted again toward expanded oil and gas development in Alaska(1). Large portions of the Alaska Coastal Plain were reopened to leasing, and regulatory protections that had previously limited industrial activity in this region were rolled back. Additional decisions approved expanded development across much of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, further increasing pressure on northern ecosystems(2). 
These policy decisions directly affect the same lands described in this article as the sacred place where life begins. Reopening calving and post-calving grounds to industrial activity alters the ecological conditions that sustain the Porcupine Caribou Herd and, in turn, the lifeways of the Gwich’in People who depend on it(3). Decisions about land use and stewardship continue to be made without fully recognizing the authority of Alaska Native Peoples, as they were when this article was first written. 

We are sharing “The Gwich’in: Caribou People” again because it remains clear in its purpose and grounded in responsibility. We have only made minor edits to update terminology. The Gwich’in did not frame this struggle as a political dispute, but as a matter of relationship and kinship — to the land, to the caribou, and to generations yet to come. For readers today, this article is not a historical record alone, but a living statement of what continues to be at stake. 

What follows is not a look back, but a reminder of what we must have for our healthy futures. ​

The People 
We Gwich’in are an Alaska Native Nation who live in Northeast Alaska and Northwest Canada. We are an Athabascan Tribe. There are more than 7,000 Gwich’in. We live in fifteen isolated villages in our traditional homelands. 
We Gwich’in are Caribou People. From caribou we get food, clothing, handicrafts, shelter, medicines, and tools. We tell caribou stories, sing caribou songs, and dance caribou dances. Caribou bring our people together. We Gwich’in are among the most traditional of surviving Native cultures. 

Our relationship with the caribou is like the relationship of the Plains Indians to the buffalo—before the buffalo vanished. Now we fear that the Porcupine River Caribou Herd will go the way of the buffalo. Our future is dependent on the future of the Porcupine River Caribou Herd. 

Most of our villages are hundreds of miles from the nearest road. We live off the land. Places like Arctic Village have no salmon and few moose. Arctic Village depends on the caribou. 

When caribou are first seen near a village, we celebrate. In Arctic Village, an Elder watches for the caribou from the village, and each day the young people ask, “Where are they?” Once the caribou are seen, the news spreads quickly, and the people begin to prepare for the annual fall hunt. 

The first bunch of the herd are allowed to pass without being disturbed, for they are the scouts and leaders of the herd. If the scouts sense danger, the herd may turn a different direction and the whole hunt could be lost. 

Once the scouts pass, the people then begin to move up to the mountain. The mountain will be covered with campsites for the fall hunt. Once the caribou are taken, we give thanks to the Creator for allowing a successful hunt again. There is a ritual for the hunt that is centuries old. 

The meat is taken to camp, and once brought there, the women begin to dry meat. Every part of the caribou is used. The meat that is not dried is taken to the village and stored in the community freezer, which is run on solar energy. 

The Elders are always provided for first and are given the choicest parts. Gwich’in Elders prefer traditional foods. The caribou taken in the fall hunt provides meat throughout the winter. 

Hunters teach young boys the skills needed to provide for the people. Women teach young girls the skills of tanning skins to make clothing, preparing traditional foods, and fashioning tools from bones. Young people are taught survival skills throughout their youth. This is the way of the Gwich’in. 

Caribou are a gift. Villages with caribou meat share with other Gwich’in villages, who may share moose or Yukon River salmon in return. Caribou bind village to village. We have little money, but we have strength from the land. We treat the earth with respect, as taught by our Elders, and we pass these ways to our children. Caribou also bind generation to generation. 
 
The Circle of Life 
To understand our way, you must stop for a moment and feel the rhythm of the land, for we are a part of it. 

As winter gives way to spring, pregnant cows of the Porcupine Caribou Herd leave their wintering grounds, breaking trail through the snow and heading to the place where every Porcupine Caribou begins life. From Alaska, they travel east along the south side of the Brooks Range before turning north, joining caribou migrating from Canada. 

Traveling as much as four hundred miles, tens of thousands of cows stream onto the coastal plain to give birth. This place of birth is sacred. In our language, we call it “Gwihil’ee dehk’in niji’ gwandaii goodlit”—the sacred place where life begins. 

Here, early plants grow where wind has kept snow thin. There are fewer large predators, and the coastal plain provides escape from clouds of mosquitoes that hatch shortly after calves are born. Every Porcupine Caribou gets its start in life on this narrow strip of land. 

After giving birth, cows graze steadily on lichens to maintain their milk supply. Calves must gain strength quickly to keep up with the herd. A bond forms between cow and calf; a calf that cannot keep up will die. 
Soon bulls and yearlings arrive, birds hatch their young, and the coastal plain fills with life. Not since the buffalo roamed the Great Plains has North America witnessed anything like it. 

By late July, the herd breaks into smaller groups and moves east and south into the mountains or into the Yukon. Fall migration traditionally brings the caribou near our villages, many of which were established near old hunting sites along migration routes. Ancient caribou fences still mark these paths today. 

When winter comes, caribou wander less, and their wintering grounds vary year to year as food becomes harder to find. When snow melts, the cycle begins again. A cycle centuries old. 
 
The Problem 
Our Gwich’in culture and the ecosystem it depends on are threatened by oil development in the birthplace of the Porcupine Caribou Herd—the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

We are taught that a birthplace is sacred and should never be disturbed. We believe that if people understand what is at stake, they will not allow the calving grounds to be destroyed. 

Oil companies, however, continue to push for development. There have been repeated efforts by the Alaskan Congressional Delegation to open the Refuge, including attempts to insert provisions into federal budget bills to avoid public debate. These efforts failed due to public outcry and a presidential veto, but the threat continues. 

Just as the caribou has ensured the survival of the Gwich’in, we must ensure the survival of the caribou. Our future generations are at stake. 

In 1988, the Gwich’in Nation came together for the first time in a hundred years. Elders, youth, and leaders from across our regions gathered and took a united position opposing development in the calving and post-calving grounds. 

From this gathering came the Gwich’in Steering Committee, with representatives from each region. Its mandate is to educate the public about our way of life and the threat oil development poses to the caribou—and to do so in a good way. 

Since then, we have gained support from over 200 Native Nations, environmental groups, church organizations, human rights organizations, and international allies. 
​
For we all live on this earth, and we must ensure a healthy environment for future generations. 
 
– Hai’ Shàa Nii (With thanks, all my relations) 
 
Sources 
  1. Bureau of Land Management. Progress on Public Lands: BLM 2025 Trump Administration Accomplishments | January 20 – December 31 2025. January 6, 2026. Bureau of Land Management blog. https://www.blm.gov/blog/2026-01-06/progress-public-lands-blm-2025-trump-administration-accomplishments-jan-20-Dec-31-2025  
  2. Drew McConville. A Historically Bad Year for Public Lands Under President Trump. December 11, 2025. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/a-historically-bad-year-for-public-lands-under-president-trump 
  3. Nicole Segnini. Alaska’s Iconic and Vital Lands Are Under Attack. October 30, 2025. The Wilderness Society. https://www.wilderness.org/articles/blog/Alaska-iconic-and-vital-lands-are-under-attack  
]]><![CDATA[Allyship as Responsibility: Dr. David Cummins on Reciprocity and Supporting Native Sovereignty]]>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 05:00:00 GMThttps://www.indian-affairs.org/blog/allyship-as-responsibility-dr-david-cummins-on-reciprocity-and-supporting-native-sovereignty
By Trista Vaughn, citizen of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma and a descendant of the Hualapai and Chickasaw Nations and Communications Associate.

​One of the Association’s newest supporters, Dr. David Cummins, is a psychologist and long-time Idaho resident whose personal journey led him to rethink privilege, accountability, and what it means to stand with Native Nations. His story offers a window into the kind of allyship the Association on American Indian Affairs hopes to inspire: grounded in accountability, shaped by relationships, and committed to strengthening Native sovereignty, self-determination, and healing.

He didn’t set out to “support a cause.” His shift began the moment he recognized that the world rewarded him for things he didn’t earn, and that this privilege came with responsibility. That realization, shaped by years of friendships with Native clinicians, time spent at Standing Rock, and witnessing global inequities firsthand, pushed him toward a different kind of relationship with Native Peoples rooted in listening, recognition, and long-term commitment.
Dr. Cummins’ Native allyship began with the people he cared about. Although Boise is not a culturally diverse city, two Native mental health clinicians, Cedric and Mike, became important colleagues and teachers in his life. Through their friendship and cultural knowledge, he was invited into certain ceremonies and cultural practices that he described as grounding, healing, and deeply meaningful. Being invited into these cultural practices helped him understand how ceremony supports wellness and identity for Native Peoples, even as they continue healing from generations of imposed policies and displacement. That connection made the realities of intergenerational trauma and ongoing harm far more tangible to him.

These experiences became the foundation for why he chose to support the Association as a Native-led organization and why he believes Native sovereignty matters. A trip to Nepal first opened his eyes to what responsibility should look like. Witnessing extreme poverty and global inequity reshaped how he viewed privilege and circumstance. He reflected on his own position as a white male working within systems that reward race and gender, often without anyone recognizing it. This awareness deepened his belief that responsibility requires action, not just acknowledgment.

His understanding deepened further in 2016, when he traveled to support the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe during the movement to protect water and sovereignty. He spent a week bringing supplies and standing alongside the water protectors. It was an act of solidarity and an acknowledgment of what Native Nations continue to face.

Native Peoples have been protecting their diverse cultures, land, and water since time immemorial, and their leadership and wisdom benefits everyone. For Dr. Cummins, standing with Native Nations means understanding that we are all connected and related, and that when Native Peoples defend their homelands, they are also protecting the wellbeing of the planet and the future for all of us. As he began giving more of his time and income to causes that aligned with his values, he focused on supporting Native Peoples on Turtle Island, who he believes have experienced some of the deepest impacts of historical and ongoing injustice.

When he decided to donate to a Native-led organization, Dr. Cummins turned to Google, which led him to the Association on American Indian Affairs. He researched the Association carefully, looking at financial responsibility, programs of work, and its history as the oldest Native-led national nonprofit in the country. What stood out to him was the Association’s direct work with Native Nations and its focus on protecting Native children, families, and Nations. He also appreciated that resources go directly to Native-led programs aligned with his values to defend sovereignty, protect cultural heritage, strengthen Native families, and advance truth and healing.

Dr. Cummins emphasized that Native Nations know what their citizens need and that those closest to the issues should lead the work. “I trust the Association a lot more than I trust my own insight,” he shared. “My role is to support what Native Peoples are already leading. You know the people and the situations on a whole different level.” His approach is a powerful example of allyship grounded in responsibility rather than rhetoric. It reflects a commitment to repairing harm and uplifting Native Nation sovereignty in meaningful ways.

The Association extends its heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Cummins for his generosity, honesty, and commitment to supporting Native Nation-led work. His recent contribution supports the Association’s mission to protect sovereignty, preserve culture, educate youth, and build capacity for Native Nations and their citizens.

Dr. Cummins’ example shows how meaningful allyship can take shape. Supporting Native-led organizations strengthens sovereignty and fuels lasting change. Anyone can stand alongside Native Nations as they protect our shared lands, diverse cultures, and collective futures. Philanthropic foundations have contributed only 0.4% of their total giving to Native Country, and even less to Native-led organizations like the Association. When we leverage our shared commitment for stronger communities, healthy ecosystems, and collective human rights, we can foster intergenerational healing and support the next generations.
]]><![CDATA[Allyship Lessons from Braiding Sweetgrass for Ethical Indigenous Advocacy]]>Fri, 14 Nov 2025 22:57:26 GMThttps://www.indian-affairs.org/blog/allyship-lessons-from-braiding-sweetgrass-for-ethical-indigenous-advocacy
By Kailash Muthukumar*

My experience reading Robin Wall Kimmerer's Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants felt less like reading a book and more like receiving an education in reciprocity. As a high school senior and a non-Indigenous ally deeply involved in policy and advocacy with organizations like the Association on American Indian Affairs (the Association) and the Institute for American Indian Studies (IAIS), this book did not just introduce me to Indigenous knowledge systems, it provided the essential ethical framework needed to approach federal Indian law, Native Nation sovereignty, and intergenerational  justice with the required humility. 
Kimmerer’s gentle yet powerful writing clearly articulated a worldview that my policy work had already begun to reveal: true knowledge is not purely about accumulation, but about relationship, reciprocity, and deep responsibility to the living world. This article explores how Kimmerer's transformative themes clarify and strengthen my commitment to an advocacy role rooted in listening and repair, demonstrating how these ancient teachings offer a roadmap for effective solidarity overall. 
 
The Doctrine of Original Instruction: Reciprocity as the First Law 
Kimmerer establishes the concept of reciprocity as the foundational ethic of human existence by beginning with the Potawatomi Creation Story of Skywoman Falling. In this narrative, the animals and plants self-sacrifice to create a stable world where Skywoman can land and thrive. Kimmerer explains that this initial gift of creation installs the Original Instruction: life is freely given by non-human beings, and therefore, human beings are obligated to respond with continual active care. This is the difference between a worldview based on gifts versus one based on taking and commodifying “resources.” If the Earth is a gift, our duty is gratitude and maintenance; if it is a commodity, our duty is profit and extraction. 
 
This Indigenous teaching about reciprocity radically upends the Western policy paradigm, which largely defines land as property. Kimmerer demonstrates that the colonial mindset divorces humans from their relationship with the land and their ecological responsibilities. As I assist with repatriation exhibits, helping to facilitate the return of cultural items, I see this philosophy affirmed: what matters is not the legal document transferring ownership, but the present-day living connection, the realization that land is kin, not merely a resource to be debated or owned. Kimmerer gives us the vocabulary to understand policy as a tool for relational repair, rather than a weapon of logical, but often sterile, legal precedent. 
 
The Liturgy of Gratitude: An Allegiance to the Living World 
In her chapter, “Allegiance to Gratitude,” Kimmerer introduces the Haudenosaunee Thanksgiving Address (Ohen:ton Karihwatehkwen) as a stark cultural counterpoint to the language of bureaucracy and scarcity. This Address is a traditional liturgy where thanks is offered to every element of Creation, from the water and fish to the thunderers and Great Spirit before any community business is conducted. Kimmerer reveals this practice as a constant, collective ethical check that enforces humility and reminds us of our dependence on the vast, interconnected ecological system. 
 
The contrast between the sacred language of kinship and the cold, transactional language of government, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs documents I've looked into, is startling. Where one builds connection, the other carves out erasure. Kimmerer illuminates that advocacy must move beyond merely quoting historical treaties or court decisions; it must ensure the resulting policies affirm life and relationship. This lesson solidified my resolve: true allyship means infusing the language of gratitude and relationality into the rigid structures of the law, ensuring that policy does not erase the spiritual and ecological context it seeks to protect. 
 
The Grammar of Animacy: Listening as the Highest Scholarship 
Kimmerer’s analysis of the Potawatomi Grammar of Animacy offers a powerful critique of the colonial, anthropocentric worldview. In Potawatomi, languages classify nouns as either animate or inanimate. Crucially, things the English language typically refers to as "it," like water, mountains, and trees, are classified as "who." This linguistic structure forces the speaker to acknowledge that the world is alive, possessing its own intelligence and agency, and demands a relationship with a living being rather than a static object. 
 
This perspective is crucial for all forms of research and scholarship. It moved me beyond asking the extractive question, "What knowledge can I acquire?" and towards the reciprocal question: "What stories want to be told by this living, remembering world?" Kimmerer provides the critical framework to understand moments of Indigenous wisdom. This is not a metaphor; it is the practice of relationality embedded in the very language. For those of us documenting oral histories or co-creating youth history curriculum, this means that deep listening must honor the knowledge stored in the silence and the land, as well as the traditions that have been suppressed by the dominant culture. 
 
Decolonizing Economics: The Honorable Harvest and the Economy of Enough 
Kimmerer’s insights into economics are delivered through the principles of the Honorable Harvest, an ancient code of ecological ethics for sustainable gathering. These principles include never taking the first, taking only what you need, and using everything taken and sharing the rest. The Honorable Harvest creates an economy based on "enough," an economy where prosperity is measured by the collective well-being of the human community and the non-human world, rather than by infinite individual accumulation. 
 
Kimmerer’s work clarifies that the dominant Western economic system, which prioritizes endless growth and extraction, is built upon a fundamental misplacement of value. This system divorces capital from relational ethics, leading directly to the racial wealth gaps and systemic discrimination I have researched. Her analysis confirms that truly addressing economic injustice is not simply about redistributing existing capital—it requires redefining the measure of wealth. My community service teaching financial literacy now focuses less on transactional success and more on cultivating economic systems rooted in these reciprocal, sustainable relationships, replacing the extractive mindset with the ethical framework of the Honorable Harvest. 
 
Final Reflections: Ink, Earth, and Inheritance 
Robin Wall Kimmerer taught me that the Earth is not a backdrop, but a teacher and a relative. That wisdom isn’t exclusively housed in Google Scholar or JSTOR but is also housed in the smell of sweetgrass and the memory of soil. By challenging the colonial lens that documents dispossession, transforming sacred land into mere "assets," she compels allies and advocates broadly to move beyond simply acknowledging past harms. 
 
Kimmerer asks the pivotal question: “How do we turn these broken promises into something better?” As a student of policy and law, I believe this means realizing that we must trace not just the ink of legal briefs, but also the living fingerprints around the margins. As I move through academic and advocacy spaces, Kimmerer’s words are a compass, reminding me that I must carry evidence titled “Legal Precedents,” alongside another, equally mighty evidence titled “Living Documents.” 
 
Reading Braiding Sweetgrass felt like a ceremony. It asked me to lay down my highlighter and pick up a planting stick. To realize that policy, when braided with story and a profound commitment to reciprocity, becomes something more than law…it becomes love. And that, I think, is the essential thread meant to be carried forward in all Indigenous advocacy work. 
 
​
*Kailash Muthukumar is a current high school senior at Alpharetta High School in Georgia. Kailash competes in Policy Debate, plays soccer, does economics research while interning under professors, and is involved in the Future Business Leaders of America, among other interests. Kailash says, "I am glad to intern at the Association on American Indian Affairs. I hope to bring about positive change for Native Nations while acquiring a broader perspective on Indigenous rights and policies to build on my diverse skill set to further help empower Native Peoples’ socioeconomic and geopolitical standing. I am eager to learn more about Native regional economies as well as the interaction between culture and sovereignty during my time as an intern." 
]]>