Dr. Hugh Burnam and Dr. Lori V. Quigley
The United States has a special federal trust responsibility derived from the fiduciary relationship with tribal nations. The U.S. government and all executive agencies have historically dealt with U.S. tribes not as special-interest groups or individuals, but as governments. Tribal nations were sovereign (i.e., self-governing) long before colonial powers arrived in the Americas—since time immemorial. Despite political discourse on “race-based education,” tribal nations maintain that sovereignty today.
To us, as the authors (Lori and Hugh) we consider this promise locally among our nations. The United States promises the Haudenosaunee Nations (Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca, and Tuscarora) the right to an education. In Article 15 of the Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838 (The Second Buffalo Creek Treaty), provisions include “to encourage and assist [Six Nations Indians] in education.” The promise of an education is implied in the Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794 (also known as “the Pickering Treaty” or “the Canandaigua Treaty”), in which the U.S. agrees to “promote the future welfare” of the Haudenosaunee, which includes education, provided through New York State from federal funding.
Dr. Hugh Burnam (Courtesy photo)
From Assimilation, Toward Sovereignty in Education
Despite these promises made, the Indian Civilization Act (1819) created a legal platform that allowed our children to be taken from families and communities in residential boarding schools. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries the federal government and state governments attempted to annihilate and assimilate tribal nation children where their goal was the “Kill the Indian and Save the man in him.” This was not the “education” that would promote the welfare of Tribal nation citizens, as promised in treaties. The voices of our children who never made it home remain a haunting reminder of this history.
Legislation was eventually passed that included the Johnson-O’Malley Act (1934) creating federal-state contracts to provide educational, social, health, and agricultural needs to Native peoples. The 1960’s-1970’s saw Tribal Nations regain sovereignty and control over their educational rights; they define their own curricula, pedagogy, and educational goals from Acts passed including: Indian Education Act (1972), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (1975), Indian Child Welfare Act (1978). These acts provide tribal nations with the resources needed to regain sovereignty and control over their unique and specific educational goals of each nation. It is important to note that the federal government has control over many funding mechanisms, and those mechanisms are impacted by political opinion. The aforementioned Johnson-O’Malley funding was once zeroed out under the Bush administration in 2008, funding needed for Native students across the nation. Bush’s administration revealed once again that Native rights have always been political.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) “Slip Opinion”
Recently on December 2, 2025, the Department of Justice issued an opinion (“Slip Opinion”) stating that race-based Department of Education programming is unconstitutional. Despite the Slip Opinion, describing tribal nations as “especially nuanced” and taking (too much) time distinguish between “Indian ethnicity” and “membership”, “citizenship” the DOJ eventually reiterates that tribal nation citizens are not a racial category but a political one— implying that the United States will still uphold its trust responsibilities to tribal nations (American Indians/ Alaska Natives). However, other programs that that the DOJ and the President of the United States interpret as “race-based,” by will be cut.
The Department of Justice writes, “Funds appropriated for these unconstitutional programs may be repurposed or reprogrammed in certain circumstances (p. 49)” and the programs that are deemed unconstitutionally race-based include: Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions (ANNHSIs), Native American-Serving Non-Tribal Institutions (NASNTIs), and Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education (NHCTE).
In effect, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) “Slip Opinion” holds that many Native-serving programs are deemed unconstitutional under “race-based programs” and will be cut under the current Trump Administration, undermining American Indian law.
The Trump Administration Fails to Consult with Tribal Nations
On Tuesday, February 10, 2026, the United States held a “Tribal Consultation” only after sweeping changes to inter-agency agreements were already in motion to transfer important programs and funds for Native education to other departments within the United States Government.
After gutting the Department of Education over the past several months, the U.S. government will transfer Title VI funding and possibly staff from the Office of Indian Education (OIE), to three different agencies, including: the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and the Department of Labor (DOL) without input from tribal nation governments.
These sweeping changes are being affected without consultation with Tribal nation governments and do not reflect actual Tribal consultation—a legal mandate, nor do they reflect the US government upholding its federal trust responsibility to U.S. Tribal Nations, Native Hawaiians, and Alaska Natives.
Strength In Unity: The Time is Now
While political extremism and division grow in the United States, now more than ever is the time when Native people must come together to exercise their civil rights in advocating for our children and generations to come.
Across our Haudenosaunee communities, our elders use reclamation to maintain rights over language, sovereignty, and way of being. As our communities heal from the residual effects of multigenerational trauma, our education programs provide resources to ensure our children are not only educated but taught what it means to be indigenous, thus strengthening the whole child and our communities.
With that, each year we join our partners in education to advocate on the Hill in D.C. for the inherent rights of our children. We urge congressional representatives to support federal legislation that ensures the federal government upholds its trust responsibility to our people. We also meet with appropriations committees composed of congressional staffers who decide on funding programs. Without their support and understanding, these critical pieces of legislation become unfunded mandates—similar to the zeroing out of the Johnson O’Malley programs under the Bush administration.
There is strength in unity. Our voices need to be heard. Recently, a speaker at the National Indian Education Association said, “A promise made to our nations is a promise made to our children.”
About the authors: Dr. Hugh Burnam is an enrolled citizen of the Akwesasne Mohawk Nation (Haudenosaunee), Wolf Clan. Dr. Burnam is an Assistant Professor at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Dr. Lori V. Quigley is an enrolled citizen of the Seneca Nation, Wolf Clan (Haudenosaunee). Dr. Quigley is a Professor at Niagara University.
This opinion-editorial essay does not reflect the views of ICT; voices in our opinion section represent a variety of reader points of view. If you would like to contribute an essay to ICT, submit your op-ed here.
The post “A promise made to our nations is a promise made to our children” appeared first on ICT.
From ICT via This RSS Feed.