All three branches of the United States federal government are charged with a trust respon­sibility to advance the interests of tribal nations and their citizens. The trust responsibility establishes a clear relationship between tribes and the federal government.

Among the federal government’s enduring trust and treaty obliga­tions is the responsibility to support the education of American Indians and Alaska Natives. This obligation is not time-limited, nor does it have an expiration date. The federal government has sought to fulfill its educational commitments through the enactment of laws such as the Snyder Act of 1921, the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, and the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978. Together, these statutes reflect a longstanding federal recognition that education is fundamental to advancing tribal self-determination.

NATION TO NATION

Tribal nations and their citizens have a unique trust relationship with the federal government, which is based on the political status of tribal nations. The unique political and legal relationship with the United States is rooted in our inherent sovereignty and recog­nized in the U.S. Constitution, through treaties, and is carried out in many federal laws and policies. American Indians and Alaska Natives have legal status as a political class rather than a suspect racial class. Suspect classification generally refers to a group of individuals who have historically been subject to discrimination, such as certain racial groups. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution imposes a restraint on the governmental use of suspect classification. Thus, when a law or policy is deemed to impact a suspect class, it must meet a strict scrutiny test, being narrowly tailored and demonstrating a com­pelling government interest. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently recognized and upheld the distinct legal and political status of tribal nations and their citizens, tribal programs are not subject to strict scrutiny.

This obligation is a fundamental aspect of tribal sovereignty. The federal trust responsibility ensures the protection of tribal sovereignty, fulfillment of treaty obligations, and support for self-determination through specific services such as education. Indeed, research conducted by Arizona State University’s American Indian Policy Institute has found that over 150 treaties include explicit provisions for educational support. In furtherance of these obligations, Congress passes laws and appropriates funding for American Indian and Alaska Native education; federal agencies implement regulations to carry out this array of programs, services, and support; and the president issues executive orders to determine federal policies and to further guide their implementation through federal agencies.

Nevertheless, the trust responsibility is often not met, as docu­mented in numerous government-commissioned reports that examine Indian administration and funding for tribal nations. For example, The Problem of Indian Administration (1928), often referred to as the Meriam Report, exposed the severe failures of federal Indian policy, detailing the devastating impacts of boarding schools, the lack of sufficient funding for tribal healthcare, and the systematic destruction of tribal economies due to the enactment of detrimental federal laws, such as the General Allotment Act of 1887.

In 2003, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) pub­lished A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country, which found that “significant disparities in federal funding exist between Native Americans and other groups in our nation, as well as the general population.” The USCCR recommended that federal agencies regularly assess programs that affect American Indians and Alaska Natives, concluding, “The federal government, through laws, treaties, and policies established over hundreds of years, is obligated to ensure that funding is adequate to meet [their] needs.”

In the 1942 Supreme Court case Seminole Tribe v. United States, Justice Frank Murphy opined that the United States had a moral obligation to tribes of “the highest responsibility and trust.”

In 2018, the USCCR issued a new, updated report titled, Broken Promises: Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans. In its letter of transmittal, the commission stated, “Since our nation’s founding, the United States and Native Americans have committed to and sustained a special trust relationship, which obligates the federal government to promote tribal self-government, support the general wellbeing of Native American tribes and villages, and to protect their lands and resources.” The report went on to conclude, “The United States expects all nations to live up to their treaty obligations; it should live up to its own. Congress should honor the federal government’s trust obligations and pass a spending package to fully address unmet needs, targeting the most critical needs for immediate investment.”

ACTS OF RESPONSIBILITY

A central component of the federal government’s trust responsibility is education, but the interpretation of that responsibility has changed over time. Since the early republic, the United States Congress has recognized its educational obligations to tribal nations through numerous acts but has also used education as a weapon of assimilation. It is only more recently that Congress has enacted laws which put tribal nations at the rightful center of the decision-making authority over the education of our own citizens. Indeed, the first tribal college, like all that followed, was estab­lished for two reasons: the near complete failure of the U.S. higher education system to address the needs of, or even include, American Indians and Alaska Natives; and the need to preserve our culture, lands, and sovereignty.

In 1819, the Civilization Fund Act authorized funding for organ­izations to run schools on American Indian reservations, funding which laid the groundwork for the lasting horrors of the boarding school era. A century later, the Snyder Act authorized the Bureau of Indian Affairs to spend federal funds on the welfare, education, and healthcare of American Indians and Alaska Natives. Although the Snyder Act has been amended many times, including to authorize funding for two federally operated TCUs—Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute—to this day, it still acts as the legislative backbone for many federal services.

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (ISDEAA) was a watershed moment for federal Indian law and policy, writ large. The ISDEAA affirms that the United States “provide the quantity and quality of education services and opportunities which will permit Indian children to compete and excel in the life areas of their choice, and to achieve the measure of self-determination essential to their social and economic well-being.” The ISDEEA is often described as a mechanism for tribes to take control of services that would otherwise be carried out by the federal government, including education. This concept of the federal government providing funding for tribal nations and tribally chartered organizations to carry out federal programs, services, functions, and activities in a manner that best reflects the priorities of their respective tribal communities has forever changed the trajectory of federal Indian law and policy.

This same spirit animated the funding mechanisms for TCUs. In 1968, the Navajo Nation established Navajo Community College, now Diné College, as the country’s first tribally chartered institution of higher education. Congress later authorized federal funding for the college through the Navajo Community College Act of 1971. With the establishment of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) two years later, tribal college leaders began working collectively on a mechanism to fund all TCUs. The result was the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act, now known as the TCU Act, which President Jimmy Carter signed into law in 1978.

The TCU Act requires that to be eligible for funding, tribal colleges must have a governing board of directors, the majority of whom are Indian, and have demonstrated adherence to stated goals, a philosophy, or a plan of operation which is directed to meet the needs of Indians. Funding eligibility also requires that a majority of a TCU’s students are members of a federally recog­nized tribe. Finally, TCUs must have attained accreditation or are making reasonable progress towards that goal. Most TCUs now receive funding for operations, facilities improvement and repair, endowment, and technical assistance from the Bureau of Indian Education authorized by the TCU Act.

In 1986, Congress enacted the American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Culture and Art Development Act to charter the Institute of American Indian Arts (IAIA). Today, IAIA remains the only national center of research, training, and scholarship for Native Americans devoted solely to American Indian and Alaska Native arts and culture, which Congress recognizes as America’s “only Native art form and cultural heritage.”

Another landmark piece of legislation for TCUs was the enact­ment of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994. This law accorded TCUs status as Land-Grant institutions and created a list, enumerated in statute, of eligible TCUs. This legislation took years of outreach to Congress, federal agencies, and national organizations that represented the already established Land-Grant sector. Receiving Land-Grant status has not only benefited the TCUs but also their chartering tribal nations, neighboring commu­nities, and wider regions through the education, extension, and research programs TCUs can offer, which are funded largely by U.S. Department of Agriculture grants.

The Higher Education Act of 1965, amended to include the Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities Program, provided yet another affirmation of the federal government’s trust and treaty obligations carried out through legislation that supports tribally chartered institutions. The program authorizes funding “to provide grants and related assistance to Tribal Colleges and Universities to enable such institutions to improve and expand their capacity to serve Indian students.” TCUs can receive this funding if they are eligible under the TCU Act, the Navajo Community College Act, or the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act.

President Bill Clinton, pictured here with Diné College administrators, signed into law the landmark Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994. He went on to issue three executive orders pertaining to TCUs and Indian education. Photo by Ed McCombs / Diné College

Taken together, these acts form the bulwark of educational opportunity for American Indian and Alaska Native students rooted in Native values and tribal sovereignty. Moreover, they illuminate Congress’s recognition of the federal government’s trust responsibility.

ORDERS AND OBLIGATIONS

While the legislative branch of the federal government is charged with making laws, the executive branch has the power to issue written directives that manage operations and actions taken by federal agencies. These directives, known as executive orders, are issued and signed by the president. They can be referenced by their assigned number or the scope of the document, which is pub­lished in the Federal Register. It is important to note that executive orders are not legislation; they do not require congressional approval, nor can Congress overturn them. However, Congress does have the power to propose legislation that may make it diffi­cult to carry out the actions of an executive order—but only the president of the United States can overturn and revoke an existing executive order by issuing a new one.

Second only to the enactment of key legislation, executive orders pertaining to TCUs stand out as one of AIHEC’s most significant successes. These executive orders are powerful directives that under­gird the trust responsibility, acknowledging that TCUs are extensions of the federally recognized tribal nations that charter them and confirming that the education of American Indians and Alaska Natives remains part of a larger national obligation, one that all leaders and policymakers have a responsibility to recognize and fulfill.

Pertaining to American Indian and Alaska Native education, President Bill Clinton issued the first executive order in 1996. Titled simply “Tribal Colleges and Universities,” Executive Order 13021 directed agencies to improve educational opportunities and expand federal support for TCUs. Further, it established a president’s advisory board on tribal colleges and required federal agencies to implement plans to increase TCU access to federal programs and funding.

In August of 1998, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13096, which took a broader approach by focusing on American Indian and Alaska Native education as it relates to elementary and secondary education. The directive called on federal agencies to work together to improve educational achievement and academic progress.

Near the end of his presidency, Clinton went on to issue Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. As its name implies, federal departments and agencies were directed to work with tribes when considering policies that impact tribal communities. While this mandate does not explicitly mention education priorities, it has greatly influenced tribal input in numerous education-related initiatives.

In 2002, President George W. Bush invited TCU leaders to the Oval Office where he signed Executive Order 13270, establishing the White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges and Universities.

President George W. Bush built upon Clinton’s directives on American Indian education and TCUs by issuing his own executive orders. In July 2002, Executive Order 13270 revoked and replaced the previous Tribal Colleges and Universities executive order from 1996. The new directive reaffirmed the federal government’s commitment to TCUs and established the President’s Board of Advisors on Tribal Colleges and Universities and the White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges and Universities to ensure coordinated federal support at the highest levels of government. Additionally, it directed federal agencies to strengthen TCUs by improving access to federal resources, enhancing institutional capacity, and supporting their role in providing educational opportunities, workforce development, and cultural preservation in tribal communities. Executive Order 13270 emphasized collaboration across federal agencies and encour­aged partnerships to help tribal colleges contribute to broader education reforms, including implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

As with 13270, Executive Order 13336: American Indian and Alaska Native Education revoked and replaced President Clinton’s order from 1998. Issued in 2004, the new directive aimed to improve educational outcomes for American Indian and Alaska Native students by helping them meet the academic standards established under the No Child Left Behind Act without impeding tribal sovereignty. Further, the order created an interagency working group on American Indian and Alaska Native education to formulate recom­mendations for collaboration with tribal governments. It instructed the secretary of education to partner with this group to support stu­dents in meeting the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Like his predecessors, President Barack Obama recognized the gravity of the federal government’s trust responsibility to tribal nations, as evidenced by his executive order, Improving American Indian and Alaska Native Educational Opportunities and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities. Photo by Dennis J. Neumann / UTTC

In December 2011, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13592: Improving American Indian and Alaska Native Educational Opportunities and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities that revoked and replaced Executive Orders 13270 and 13336, seeking to combine support for elementary and secondary education as well as for TCUs in one directive. The new executive order called on federal agencies to take a coordinated and comprehensive approach to improving educational outcomes for American Indian and Alaska Native students at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels. More specifically, it highlighted the importance of TCUs by calling for increased federal support, strengthened institutional capacity, and enhanced access to education and workforce training, while recognizing their role in preserving tribal cultures and preparing students for economic success.

President Joe Biden issued a similarly comprehensive executive order in 2021 that again combined the goals of American Indian and Alaska Native elementary and secondary education with those of TCUs. Executive Order 14049: White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Native Americans and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities revoked and replaced President Obama’s executive order from 2011, calling on federal agencies to strengthen support for students in public, Bureau of Indian Education-funded, and postsec­ondary institutions—including TCUs—while promoting tribal sovereignty and self-determination. The directive also emphasized the importance of rectifying longstanding educational inequities, supporting cultural preservation, and improving coordination across federal programs to better serve tribal communities through the creation of a White House initiative.

This executive order remained in effect until President Donald Trump revoked it with Executive Order 14148: Initial Recissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions, which revoked all executive orders and presidential actions deemed to be influenced by and embedded with the “illegal and radical practices” of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. It appears that Executive Order 14049 may have been revoked simply for having the word “equity” in the title. To this day, there has yet to be a new executive order issued regarding American Indian and Alaska Native education.

THE TRUST RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT A DEI INITIATIVE

During the second Trump administration, tribal nations—including tribal colleges and universities—have been concerned about being misclassified as diversity, equity, and inclusion or “DEI” initiatives. AIHEC joined other national Native organizations to create the Coalition for Tribal Sovereignty, which serves as a powerful unifying voice of intertribal, policy-oriented nonprofit organizations that engages with federal policymakers on critical issues affecting the sovereign interests, rights, and authorities of tribal nations and citizens across the United States.

Through the coalition’s targeted outreach and development of education materials, various federal agencies released statements that recognized the political status of American Indians and Alaska Natives, exempting tribal programs and funding from DEI cancellations or reprogramming. Following an inquiry by the National Indian Education Association, the Department of Education stated, “It is the position of the Department that American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian history is not classified as DEI or critical race theory. . . The United States has a unique political and legal relationship with federally recognized Indian Tribes, as set forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, executive orders, and court decisions.”

Similarly, Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3416 rec­ognized “the statutory authorities, treaty, and/or trust obligations of the Department and its Bureaus/Offices to Tribal Nations and the Native Hawaiian Community,” while a circular issued by the Department of Health and Human Services stated that Executive Order 14148 “does not apply to programs or activities of the Department of Health and Human Services that affect or serve American Indians and Alaska Natives . . . given that the Tribes are separate sovereigns.”

In perhaps the most expansive secretarial order on the federal government’s trust responsibility, the Department of Agriculture stated, “The Department’s unique government-to-government and political relationship with, federally recognized Indian Tribes, American Indian Tribal citizens and Alaska Natives, and the Native Hawai’ian Community are legally distinct from policy-based Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs such as those covered by these Executive Orders. . . . It is the policy of the Department of Agriculture to honor the United States’ trust relationship and Tribal treaty rights and to faithfully execute the laws of the United States as they relate to federally recognized Indian Tribes, American Indian Tribal citizens and Alaska Natives, and the Native Hawai’ian Community.”

While these orders and statements are reassuring, concerns remain. On December 2, 2025, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) published an opinion that considered the constitutionality of various federal education programs that predominantly serve students of color and American Indian and Alaska Native students. The opinion argues that strict scrutiny—the highest standard of constitutional review—applies to all programs that provide race-based preferences. The OLC also found that political preference for American Indians and Alaska Natives is only permissible when the preference is based on affiliation with a federally recognized tribe and involves “uniquely Indian interests.” The opinion concludes that no comparable political classification exists for Native Hawaiians.

The opinion has drawn significant attention within Indian Country because it addresses longstanding distinctions between race-based classifications and political classifications tied to tribal citizenship and the federal government’s unique legal relations with tribal nations. One of the many concerns raised by the OLC’s opinion is its reliance on the phrase “uniquely Indian interests,” which appears to have no legal basis and is not defined in statute or case law. As a result, AIHEC is concerned about how federal agencies may interpret and apply the concept in future policy decisions. Specifically, there are concerns that this unprecedented and artificially narrow interpretation of federal obligations could be used to negatively affect programs and services historically provided to tribal nations and tribal citizens as part of the federal government’s trust responsibility.

Given the potential implications for tribal programs, education, and self-determination, AIHEC and other intertribal organiza­tions, including the Native Americans Right Fund, are closely monitoring federal actions and legal developments in this area.

***

For TCUs, the trust responsibility is more than a legal abstraction. It shapes the policies, programs, and resources that support American Indian and Alaska Native student success, workforce development, language revitalization, research, and nation-build­ing. Understanding the historical and legal foundations of the federal trust responsibility is essential not only for policymakers, but also for tribal leaders, educators, and students.

As new legal interpretations emerge and federal policies continue to evolve, tribal nations and TCUs will remain engaged in ensuring that the federal government honors its trust responsibility and treaty obligations. The future of tribal higher education, like its past, will continue to be shaped by the enduring principles of tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and the nation-to-nation relation­ship between the United States and America’s federally recognized tribal nations.

Danelle Springer (Comanche) is the legislative associate for AIHEC’s government affairs team; Moriah O’Brien is AIHEC’s vice president for congressional and federal relations.