A Guide to Indian Country for Conservatives

Finding common ground

Let’s start with traditional conservative respect for the text of the U.S. Constitution. The word “Indian” is mentioned three times in this founding legal document and one of these is recognizing Indian Tribes as sovereign nations.¹ The first justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would later interpret this in a trilogy of foundation cases, that confirm Indian Nations are sovereign and are “domestic, dependent nations”. ²

The U.S. Supreme Court in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), interpreted the Constitutional text concerning Indians and Indian tribes to mean they were “domestic, dependent nations.” Therefore, they are not foreign nations, but they are also not subject to state jurisdiction and control. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court defined this relationship as a “ward to his guardian” which established the federal trust responsibility, recognizing Congressional plenary power over Indian Affairs.

The basis of property ownership in America is that Native American Tribes held a property interest in the land and the title could not be clear unless a purchase of that land was made, leaving or “reserving” the right of occupation, use, hunting, fishing, water, and other express property interests. Hence the name “reservation”. This is why reservation land is not “given” to Native American Tribes, but property interests are recognized. Land is held in trust for Native Americans by the federal government, ensuring the continuity of the land held in common for the governance of the Tribe. Once in the nation’s Indian policy, a misguided attempt to make Native Americans all farmers, resulted in cutting Indian country into small farms for individuals in the Tribes. The result was disastrous, with inheritance problems leaving postage size lots with descendants, and culturally forcing Native Americans to adapt to a farming lifestyle.

National Indian Policy from the Republican Presidents

Republican Presidents are responsible for a number of advances in Indian Country.

Calvin Coolidge, a Republican from Massachusetts, in the 1920s, claimed Native American ancestry and was actively involved in the administration of Native American policy including the reorganization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. He is also the President who signed the Native American Citizenship Act of 1924.³

Under President Nixon, the BIA budget increased by 225 percent, the budget for Indian health care doubled, and the Office of Indian Water Rights was established. Pres. Nixon was an advocate for Native Nations self-rule.

Pres. Gerald Ford continued to support Native Nations’ self-rule.

Pres. George H.W. Bush ensured that the Catawba Indian Nation received federal recognition by simply not objecting to the case that was proceeding to resolve land claims that would ultimately go toward settlement including federal recognition of the Catawba Indian Nation.

Pres. Donald Trump in his first term, initiated a program in the U.S. DOJ to increase efforts to address missing and murdered Indigenous women. Pres. Trump appointed Assoc. Justice Neil Gorsuch, the most pro-Native American justice in recent memory. He was responsible for impressively knowledgeable opinions in the Brackeen case, preserving the rights of Native America to raise their children; and negotiated for the return of Native American human remains held by Finland in a diplomatic meeting. Given that international law is weak in this area, it required diplomacy to effect the return of the human remains. Notably, he signed an Executive Order the first days of his second term to address the long injustice to the Lumbee Indian Tribe of North Carolina to finally find a pathway to federal recognition.⁴

Conservatives are more likely to focus on themes like tribal sovereignty, fiscal responsibility, and limited government intervention; whereas the more liberal or “progressive” approach might emphasize social programs and federal oversight and control. Environmental issues are a mixed set of policy choices. Native America is often divided on how to use the land, balancing pristine preservation with increasing economic prosperity by using the land for energy production or even waste disposal.

Conservation is in the name conservative, so it is true that conservatives support conservation of environmental resources, like supporting the environment where it is required and needed to grow hunting and fishing resources. Making these available commercially has been a win-win for conservation and economics. It is also here that states often want “in on” the income, and fight to have jurisdiction over selling hunting and fishing licenses. Conservatives who support self-governance and economic growth for Native America would support keeping hunting and fishing in the control of Native America on their own territories.

Looking at some of these issues:

1. Tribal Sovereignty and Self-Governance:

• Conservatives tend to emphasize individual liberty and self-governance, which aligns with the concept of tribal sovereignty.

• Conservatives would be consistent with conservative government to support policies that empower tribes to manage their own affairs, including education, land, and resources, with minimal federal interference.

• This could include advocating for greater autonomy for tribal courts and reduced federal oversight of tribal programs.

2. Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Development:

• Conservatives often prioritize fiscal responsibility and limited government spending.

• They might focus on promoting economic self-sufficiency in Indian Country through private sector initiatives and tribal-led economic development.

• This could involve supporting policies that encourage tribal enterprises and investment, while minimizing federal subsidies and programs.

3. Limited Government Intervention:

• Conservatives generally believe in less government intervention in both the economy and social life.

• They might advocate for deregulation and reduced federal oversight of tribal lands and resources. In the case of long-standing legal doctrine of the “federal trust responsibility”, that responsibility would extend to defending Tribes ownership of land, moving land into trust for the Tribes and defending Tribes interests against threats to the ownership and integrity of the land. This could mean reducing or eliminating the Secretary of Interior’s sign-off authority on agreements the Tribe might make with energy companies, for example, or other categories of economic development.

• This could also include advocating for policies that empower tribes to manage their own education, healthcare, and social welfare programs, with less reliance on federal funding. However, the treaties that were made are still the law of the land, and were made in exchange for massive amounts of real estate taken in one-sided deals made with Tribes often faced with the choice of complete defeat verses co-existence with a place to live with their land ownership changing to having certain limited “reserved” rights, like the right of occupancy. Conservatives if consistent with conservative principles would honor all of these treaties that require payment of funds to support education, health, government and essentials, in exchange for the land enjoyed, owned and developed by America, a real estate deal that Pres. Trump would be hard pressed to say was not the deal of the centuries.

4. Emphasis on Tradition and Cultural Preservation:

• Conservatives often value tradition and cultural preservation.

• Conservatives would rightly support policies that help preserve Native languages, cultural practices, and traditions, while minimizing federal influence.

• This could include advocating for greater tribal control over cultural resources and the preservation of sacred sites. Sacred sites have led to a misapplication of the Constitutional First Amendment, which means there has never been a Constitutional test that would protect sacred sites because this is the federal government entangling itself with religion. Protecting sacred sites on reservation lands is not the question, but rather can they be protected on publicly held lands, for example. The issue is currently under review in federal courts, but without a new legal approach, it is unlikely the old arguments, slightly tweaked, will prevail.

5. Reconciling with History:

• Conservatives are very proud of America, in particular, the military. This often contrasts with liberal “progressive” views that have dominated thinking for some time, with overt shows of shame for the national anthem and flag, for example.

• Conservatives might take a different approach to reconciliation with the history of U.S.-Indian relations. The Landback Movement is a proposal to transfer land that was once held by Native America back to the respective Tribes to the extent possible. Often private sector individuals have taken the lead in transferring privately held property. Some states have give tribes the first right of refusal to purchase land. Federal lands like parks (DOI) and forest management (USDA) have made co-management agreements with Tribes who know the land well and need and want to manage the lands’ resources. All of these efforts are conservative land management approaches that should be within a conservative’s philosophical scope.

• They could emphasize the need to move forward and focus on the future, rather than dwelling on past injustices. Native America has embraced this in taking pride in America in many ways, like serving in the military. Native Americans have a higher percent per capita of people serving in the military than any other ethnic group in America, by far.

• This could include advocating for policies that promote economic opportunity and self-determination in Indian Country, while acknowledging and addressing historical grievances.

Conservatives, Liberal/Progressives and Indian Country are not monolithic in their thinking and there are issues in Indian Country that divide. Examples of some of these Conservative Positions that are controversial are:

• Advocating for tribal control of casino gambling:

  Some conservatives might support allowing tribes to operate casinos on reservation lands as a way to generate revenue and promote economic self-sufficiency.⁵ However, there is a strong movement among Conservatives that tends to point to religion as their basis for opposition to gambling as a morally decadent activity that should not be supported by the government. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act⁶ however, allows states to negotiate with Native Nations in revenue sharing compacts and other types of cooperation, that benefit both Native Nations and states.

• Supporting policies that promote self-determination and the right to raise your children:

  Conservatives could advocate for greater tribal control over the right to raise their children. This tension was recently manifested in the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Haaland v. Brackeen (2023)⁷ case where the plaintiffs included conservative-led states, in a misguided argument that this was a state sovereignty issue. Whereas those conservatives who had a better grasp of the history of taking Native children from their parents (residential schools, forced adoptions by non-Native parents), recognized the law favoring Tribes’ families to raise their own children was the right thing and the moral thing for America to do.

• Opposing federal mandates and regulations on tribal lands:

  Conservatives might argue that federal regulations interfere with tribal sovereignty and economic development; while some are divided on favoring states over Tribal control where there is tension between state and Tribal control, on issues like criminal law enforcement, taxation and wildlife management. Conservatives differ on their opinions about state-Tribal relations, which requires not only a knowledge of federalism with states but also understanding Tribal sovereignty. When not in conflict with state sovereignty, conservatives mostly support Tribes having their own code for incorporating businesses and regulating them, as well as their own judicial system for resolving conflicts, for example.

Issues in Indian Country should be non-partisan, but in terms of positive action, each political party will ultimately focus on the issues that they hold most in common with Indian Country. One should find those issues and build on those common goals.

This "Conservative’s Guide to Indian Country" is a way of thinking about philosophical policy positions of importance that are of shared importance with Indian Country and Conservatives. This includes themes of tribal sovereignty, fiscal responsibility, limited government intervention, cultural preservation, and reconciliation, while emphasizing a perspective that prioritizes individual liberty, self-determination, and a focus on the future.

1. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript 1. Art. 1, Sec. 2; 2. Art. 1, Sec. 8, cl. 3; use the link on that page to the Amendments to find 3. 14th Amend., Sec. 2.

2. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/30/1/

3. https://www.whitehousehistory.org/calvin-coolidge-and-native-americans

4. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/01/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-directs-administration-to-advance-lumbee-tribe-recognition/

5. https://yochadehe.gov/2024/04/05/tribal-leader-roundtable-spotlight-on-gaming-and-legislation/

6. https://www.nigc.gov/general-counsel/indian-gaming-regulatory-act

7. 599 U.S. 255, 143 S. Ct. 1609 (2023) at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf