Federal Policy Shifts Impact Tribal Funding Access and Environmental Restoration

For decades, federal grants have been crucial to tribal government operations, supporting healthcare, education, infrastructure, and natural resource management. Many Tribes depend on federal environmental funding to restore waterways, maintain sustainable fisheries, protect sacred lands, and respond to the impacts of climate change. 

In recent months, extensive changes in federal funding policies have placed Tribes in an increasingly precarious position. The initial funding freeze and federal reduction-in-force measures have had immediate repercussions. Beyond harming access to economic and social programs, these funding barriers threaten the continuation of current and future tribally-led environmental management and restoration projects. For many Tribes, land and water stewardship is not just a legal or economic issue—it is central to sovereignty, cultural preservation, and long-term sustainability of their homelands.

In addition to funding changes, agencies are now carrying out language restrictions; removing key terms from official communications will directly impact grant accessibility and hinder advocacy for tribal priorities. (New York Times, 2025) Federal funding opportunities require detailed proposals that align with federal priorities. However, with critical terminology now restricted, Tribes must articulate their environmental management needs without the language that has historically been recognized within the federal funding structure.

Without use of these widely accepted terms to describe Tribes themselves, ecological disparities, historical land dispossession, and tribally led conservation initiatives, Tribes face an uneven playing field. Grant applications may be penalized or discarded for failing to meet shifting expectations. Furthermore, vague or ambiguous program descriptions could weaken proposals, making it harder to justify the necessity of projects. If Tribes are unable to properly describe the ecological and cultural significance of these efforts due to restricted language, their access to funding and the environmental health of tribal lands will suffer.

Beyond grant accessibility, these language restrictions pose a broader threat to Tribally led initiatives. If federal agencies limit how Tribal communities describe environmental degradation, climate resilience, and restoration needs, as well as the historic status of their respective communities, it becomes significantly harder to find and fund solutions.The removal of these words also removed much of the resources, tools, and data that tribes rely on to make decisions on a daily basis. These constraints do not only affect funding—they undermine Tribes’ ability to adequately manage the land, water, and systems that sustain them and surrounding communities. It is also a direct affront to the federal trust responsibility. 

The federal government has a legal and moral obligation to federally recognized tribes. Under its trust responsibility, the federal government is required to act as a fiduciary, safeguarding tribal interests and ensuring the well-being of tribal communities. 

“Tribal rights to resource use extend far beyond reservation boundaries. In the treaties, tribes reserved the rights to hunt, fish, gather roots and berries, and pasture livestock on non-reservation lands. Many places where tribes possess these rights are on ceded lands on the millions of acres they gave to the United States in exchange for reservations and other rights and guarantees embodied in the treaties. The tribes also retained rights to fish at “all usual and accustomed places” that lie outside the ceded areas.”-CRITFC treaty rights webpage In other words, Tribes reserved rights, resources, and other guarantees to ensure Tribal well-being when they gave lands to the United States. The trust responsibility is the duty of the United States to uphold its end of the agreement.

History has shown that many of the federal government’s obligations remain unfulfilled. A 2024 report by the Government Accountability Office found that only a small fraction of funding intended for Tribes actually makes it to them. Many larger scale restoration projects require long-term planning and investment.  Previous restoration grants may have funded Tribal planning efforts, plans which Tribes are set to utilize to secure implementation funding. Will new restrictions make these planning documents useless because of political infighting?

These language bans reflect a fundamental failure of the federal government to uphold the trust responsibility–Tribal Nations should not be subject to the shifting preference of any given Administration whether in language or policy preferences in order to access funding necessary to serve Tribal nations and advance Tribal priorities. Under any administration, funding accessibility should never be weaponized to force Tribal Nations to adhere to non-Tribal priorities. The federal government’s trust responsibility is not optional, and it does not change with political leadership. 

Via consultation with Tribes, agencies should carefully consider the role these suggested language changes play in eroding their capacity to carry out the trust responsibility. Through meaningful consultation, federal agencies can hear directly from Tribes how the language restrictions would directly affect Tribes’ ability to convey their sovereign principles and fulfil their intended stewardship priorities. 

A cohesive, tribally led approach to advocacy is essential in this moment. Building awareness within Tribal communities—among Tribal leaders, grant writers, and program directors–-is critical to ensuring they are informed, prepared, and empowered to adapt and push back against restrictive federal language policies.

Equally important is the role of strategic, intertribal partnerships. By aligning with other Tribes, tribally focused environmental coalitions, and tribally led organizations, Indigenous advocates can amplify their collective voice in shaping land management funding and policy decisions. These partnerships can provide a unified front that reinforces the federal government’s obligation to uphold tribal sovereignty and stewardship rights. Historically, when consultation and government-to-government relations fail, Tribes have turned to the legal system to compel the United States to fulfill its trust responsibility. This long-standing strategy remains a powerful tool when diplomacy is disregarded.

 Tribes will continue to assert their right to protect, manage, and restore their lands, to define environmental priorities through their own knowledge systems, and to challenge any system that seeks to diminish their presence in federal decision-making processes. The path forward lies in unity, strategy, and unwavering commitment to sovereignty and self-determination.