Capitol Insights

Federal Indian Country Update – Spring 2026

June 15, 2026

What moved in Congress and the administration — May 1 to mid-June 2026

Prepared by Starzyk Associates LLC

Here’s where things stand across Indian Country after the last six weeks. The short version: the administration came into the year asking for deep cuts, and Congress has spent the spring pushing back. Most of the money tribes depend on is holding. A few fights are still live, and the courts handed down a couple of decisions worth keeping an eye on. Details below.

The budget fight is still the main event

This is where most of the energy has gone, and it’s largely good news. The bipartisan, bicameral “minibus” — bundling the Commerce-Justice-Science, Energy-Water, and Interior-Environment bills — rejected close to $1 billion in tribal cuts the administration had asked for. Health care, public safety, education, infrastructure, treaty obligations: appropriators held the line on essentially all of it.

That matters because the President’s request wasn’t subtle. It sought a $617 million cut to BIA self-governance and community programs — including zeroing out the Indian Guaranteed Loan and Land Consolidation programs — plus another $107 million off tribal law enforcement. Congress walked nearly all of that back. For now, the through-line is that the Hill is protecting Indian Country faster than the White House can cut it.

On IHS, it’s a more mixed picture. The package lands at $8.05 billion for FY2026, with $5.31 billion in advance appropriations for FY2027. That’s a slight dip year-over-year, and it’s a long way from the roughly $63 billion the National Tribal Budget Formulation Working Group says full funding actually requires. The win worth flagging: advance appropriations for FY2027 are back in. The administration had stripped that protection out for the first time since 2023, and losing it would have left tribal health care exposed during any shutdown.

Worth noting for planning purposes: the next cycle is already in motion. The FY2028 HHS tribal budget consultation happened in late April, and advocates are asking for full tribal-requested funding, mandatory (rather than discretionary) IHS appropriations, a sequestration carve-out for Indian Country, and a 100% FMAP fix for Medicaid at Urban Indian Organizations. None of that is settled, but it’s the agenda taking shape.

On the Hill

The June 9 hearing is the one to know about. The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs, under Chairman Jeff Hurd (R-CO), took testimony on three bills:

• H.R. 6917 would move about 3,156 acres of BLM land into trust for the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe in Nevada.

• H.R. 8473, the Veterinary Services to Improve Public Health in Rural Communities Act, lets IHS fund tribal public-health veterinary services and contract for them under self-determination authority.

• H.R. 8954, Hurd’s own Tribal Regulatory Reform Implementation Act, would shift certain tribal economic-development programs from Commerce over to Interior. NAFOA President Rodney Butler — chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation — testified. When a subcommittee chair sponsors a bill, it usually moves; this one is worth tracking.

MMIWG Day of Awareness (May 5) brought the expected bipartisan resolutions in both chambers — Leger Fernández and Newhouse in the House, Daines and Cantwell in the Senate (S.Res. 726). The recognition is meaningful, but tribal leaders kept making the same point they’ve made for years: the day is a gesture, and what’s still missing is real money for tribal law enforcement.

Also moving: the Don Young / Doug LaMalfa Indian Buffalo Management Act (H.R. 7954), which would direct Interior to back tribally-led buffalo restoration and hand over surplus federal buffalo to Indian lands.

Out of the administration

The Southern Ute energy agreement is the headline. On May 11, Interior approved the first tribal energy resource agreement in the country’s history, giving the Southern Ute Indian Tribe more authority to manage and develop energy on its own land with less federal red tape. The administration is framing this through its “energy dominance” lens, but for the tribe it’s a genuine expansion of self-determination.

The White House Council on Native American Affairs met June 11 at Interior, with the 10-year National Plan on Native Language Revitalization on the agenda. And on the administrative-but-important front: BIA’s self-certified tribal enrollment forms were due June 1 — tribes that didn’t file will have their funding levels set off prior-year data.

Stepping back, the pattern is consistent: the administration talks self-determination and energy development, while its budget asks for cuts that Congress keeps refusing. Both things are true at once, and it’s worth holding both when you read the messaging.

In the courts

The voting rights news is the one to watch. On May 18 the Supreme Court vacated the Eighth Circuit’s ruling in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe — the decision that had blocked private individuals and groups from suing under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — and sent it back for another look in light of Louisiana v. Callais. That’s a reprieve, not a resolution.

The backdrop is the late-April Callais decision, which struck Louisiana’s congressional map for leaning too heavily on race. Across Indian Country it’s read as making it easier for states to dilute Native voting power, and the Eighth Circuit’s handling of the remand will shape how much enforcement room is left heading into the 2026 elections.

Also in the pipeline: United States v. Hopson, a Major Crimes Act case out of Indian country, with a petition filed in March and a response that was due in mid-May.

What I’m watching next

• Final floor passage of the appropriations package — the numbers are good, but it still has to clear both chambers ahead of the shutdown deadline.

• The Special Diabetes Program for Indians. Congress has to reauthorize it (S. 2211 or equivalent) before December 31 or the program’s authority lapses.

• The Eighth Circuit on remand in Turtle Mountain — this is the one with the longest tail for Native voters.

• H.R. 8954’s path through committee, given the chairman is carrying it himself.

The Earmarks That Keep the Water Running

January 8, 2026

Members of Congress Know Their Districts Better Than Washington Bureaucrats

By Fred E. Starzyk

This week, some members of Congress are again playing a familiar game: voting for earmarks that benefit their constituents while publicly denouncing the practice as wasteful spending. It’s political theater designed to resonate with voters, but it obscures a fundamental truth that taxpayers deserve to understand: earmarks don’t cost you an additional dime.

Let me be clear about how this actually works. When Congress passes an appropriations bill, it sets a total spending amount. That money is going to be spent regardless of whether Congress directs specific projects or leaves the decisions to federal bureaucrats. Earmarks simply allow elected representatives—people who actually know their states and districts—to target already-budgeted funds toward specific community needs instead of leaving those decisions to unelected officials in Washington who have never set foot in most of the places affected by their choices.

I’ve spent nearly 25 years working in the federal government or in federal government relations, with much of my career dedicated to advocating for tribal nations and underserved communities. I’ve seen firsthand what earmarks can accomplish—and what happens when communities are left to compete for bureaucratic attention.

Consider a tribal client of mine in the Midwest. For six years, this community has been unable to drink their tap water due to contamination. Six years of relying on bottled water for everything—cooking, drinking, bathing children. The federal formula-driven grant programs that are supposed to address water infrastructure needs have failed them. But through the earmark process, they will receive almost $10 million towards the total cost of an almost $50 million fix. That’s not wasteful spending—that’s the tribe’s elected representatives doing their jobs by ensuring federal resources reach people who desperately need them.

Or take the work I’ve done securing funding for youth programs on Indian reservations, where dropout rates far exceed national averages and young people face disproportionately high rates of substance abuse and mental health challenges. A youth center might seem like a small thing to someone in Washington reviewing grant applications, but for a reservation community where young people have few positive outlets, it can be transformative. Earmarks allow members of Congress who understand these specific challenges to direct resources accordingly.

I’ve also helped secure funding for programs serving people with disabilities in the Midwest, creating opportunities for employment and independence that might otherwise not exist. And I’ve worked with fruit growers in New England and the Midwest to secure resources for clean water infrastructure and crop disease prevention—investments that protect both agricultural livelihoods and food security.

None of these projects would automatically rise to the top of a federal agency’s priority list. They don’t fit neatly into bureaucratic categories. They require someone who knows the community to say: this matters, and here’s why.

The critics will point to individual earmarks they find objectionable—that’s the nature of the game politicians play. One member’s essential community investment is another member’s outrage of the week. But let’s be honest about what the alternative looks like. When Congress eliminated earmarks for a period, federal spending didn’t decrease. It just shifted entirely to executive branch agencies that allocated funds through their own opaque processes, often favoring communities with sophisticated grant-writing operations and established relationships with federal officials. Rural communities, tribal nations, and smaller municipalities without armies of consultants found themselves at an even greater disadvantage.

The Senate’s current Interior-Environment bill contains over $700 million in earmarks, with substantial portions dedicated to drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. These are investments in fundamental public health—the kind of thing government is supposed to do. The fact that elected representatives rather than faceless bureaucrats are directing these funds to specific communities is a feature, not a bug. It’s democratic accountability in action.

Today’s earmark process includes transparency requirements that address legitimate concerns about abuse. Every request is publicly disclosed, including the requesting member, the recipient, and the project purpose. Members must certify they have no financial interest in the projects they request. This is a far cry from the earmark practices of decades past, and it ensures voters can hold their representatives accountable for the spending decisions they make.

So when you see a member of Congress theatrically denouncing earmarks while quietly benefiting from the same process for their own district, recognize it for what it is: political performance. The real question isn’t whether Congress should direct spending—it’s whether you trust your elected representative to understand your community’s needs better than a bureaucrat who has never heard of your town.

Dont Hesitate To Contact Us

Call us today!

Capitol Insights

Federal Indian Country Update – Spring 2026

The Earmarks That Keep the Water Running

Dont Hesitate To Contact Us

Quick Links

Other Pages

Newsletter