- Details
- By Chez Oxendine
- Policy and Law
As the federal government grinds through another shutdown, the effects are being felt unevenly across the country. For most Americans, the pain is abstract — delayed permits, closed National Parks and bureaucratic bottlenecks. For tribal nations, it’s existential.
Federal shutdowns halt the flow of money and services that uphold the government’s oldest promises to Native people — commitments made through treaties and laws that form the basis of the United States’ trust responsibilities to tribes. Unlike states, tribes can’t levy broad taxes or tap rainy-day funds when federal dollars freeze. Each political standoff in Washington threatens essential tribal programs and weakens the governmment's legal and moral obligations.
A new analysis from the Brookings Institution shows just how fragile the system has become. Tribal Business News spoke with Robert Maxim, Liz Malerba and Glencora Haskins — three of the report’s authors — about what this shutdown means for tribes, how it exposes a broken funding structure and what Congress can do to finally fix it. This conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Robert, can you start by explaining why Brookings has been focused on federal funding in Indian Country, and how the shutdown highlights those issues?
MAXIM: Our team at Brookings has long been interested in how federal funding reaches different communities, with a particular research focus on Indian Country. One of the things we’ve been closely examining is the tension between trust and treaty obligations—obligations that serve tribal nations, citizens, and Native communities—and the actual process by which the federal government funds Indian Country. Too often, that process is inadequate, relying on competitive challenge grants and fluctuating depending on the administration’s priorities.
We tracked this issue at the end of the Biden administration, when historic levels of funding were coming into Indian Country, and into the beginning of the Trump administration, when Congress scaled back funding and the executive branch cut grants, staff support, and other resources. When the shutdown happened, it illustrated why these seemingly technical funding mechanisms matter. In moments like this, tribes and Native institutions that rely on appropriations are forced to halt operations, furlough workers, or continue without pay. Meanwhile, programs with advanced appropriations or mandatory funding, like parts of IHS, can continue functioning.
Layered on top of months of layoffs and funding cuts, the shutdown created a very difficult situation for tribal governance and Native well‑being. It felt like an acute inflection point for the issues we’ve been studying.
Liz, how do you see this moment for tribal nations?
MALERBA: I agree with Rob that this is an inflection point. Senator Murkowski even noted that during yesterday’s hearing. But in some ways, shutdowns are “business as usual” for tribal nations. Even without a shutdown, we face delays and instability through continuing resolutions and partisan gridlock. Importantly, shutdowns never happen because of federal Indian policy, yet tribal nations bear the consequences.
That’s why we believe the mechanics of honoring trust and treaty obligations must change. It’s not fitting for perpetual obligations to be so vulnerable within the discretionary appropriations process. The achievement of advanced appropriations for IHS has been huge—clinics aren’t facing closure right now—but most other funding streams are at risk. Our goal with this report is to push for culture change in Congress, the federal government, and the public, and to highlight the absurdity of delivering on these obligations in such a precarious way.
Beyond the shutdown, what are the broader funding challenges facing Indian Country?
MALERBA: Indian Country already operates at a deficit across education, health, and economic measures. Federal services like IHS and BIA are also chronically underfunded and understaffed. Even with historic funding increases in recent years, we’re still far from what’s needed to fully honor trust and treaty obligations.
For example, the IHS budget formulation work group estimates full funding at $73 billion annually. Current IHS funding is about $7 billion. That gap is enormous. And unlike states or local governments, tribal nations can’t rely on taxation or reserve funds to cushion these shortfalls. We’re still rebuilding from harmful past policies like termination and dispossession, which halted development and left us uniquely vulnerable.
Glencora, can you elaborate on how tribes’ governmental structures differ from states and local governments?
HASKINS: To Liz’s point, tribes and states are often treated as equivalent in federal funding eligibility, but they are fundamentally different. Tribes have a direct government‑to‑government relationship with the federal government, unlike states. States can hold budget reserves, levy taxes, and declare emergencies. Tribes generally cannot. That makes Indian Country far more vulnerable to shutdowns and funding disruptions.
What does this vulnerability mean in practice for tribal nations?
MALERBA: It means everything we do with federal dollars is subject to political whims—whether Congress approves, whether an administration supports it, or even whether a bureaucrat interprets our spending as intended. We’ve seen success with self‑governance policies, but ultimately, the federal government should deliver on its obligations financially and then step aside. In a perfect world, tribes would receive the payments they are due and decide how to use them.
Instead, we face new challenges. For example, a recent White House memo added “termination for convenience” clauses to federal grants, meaning funding can be pulled at any time. That makes it even harder to attract staff, maintain programs, or plan for the future. It compounds our instability.
Can you give examples of how advanced appropriations or lack of stable funding affect tribal institutions?
MAXIM: The contrast with the 2019 shutdown is clear. Back then, many IHS and tribal health facilities had to stop operating or cut services. With advanced appropriations, IHS has been able to continue functioning this time, which is a huge improvement.
But even outside shutdowns, unstable funding cycles prevent long‑term planning. IHS facilities couldn’t enter multi‑year contracts, recruit top medical staff, or invest in advanced care because they were funded on short continuing resolutions. The same applies to tribal colleges. Unlike public universities with state support or private universities with billion‑dollar endowments, tribal colleges rely heavily on federal funding. When that funding is disrupted, they have no fallback. Across Indian Country, when the federal government doesn’t meet its obligations, Native people and tribal governments bear the brunt.
This briefing features Liz Malerba, a citizen of the Mohegan Tribe and director of policy and legislative affairs for the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund; Robert Maxim, a citizen of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and fellow at the Brookings Institution; and Glencora Haskins, an associate researcher at Brookings.
