Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Understanding the Debate on Reparations for Native Americans

Understanding the Debate on Reparations for Native Americans

Native American reparations are designed to remedy the U.S. government’s historical treatment of indigenous tribes, ranging from monetary compensation to land redistribution and recognition of cultural rights.

Getty Images, anilakkus

Native American reparations are designed to remedy the U.S. government’s historical treatment of indigenous tribes, ranging from monetary compensation to land redistribution and recognition of cultural rights.

Hallmarks of Support for Reparations for Indigenous Peoples


  1. Human rights: The U.S.’s treatment of indigenous tribes not only violates civil rights but also international human rights. Even prospective development of reparations requires creating protections against the systems that enabled the US’s atrocities against indigenous peoples, informed by international law.
  1. American values: America’s founding legitimacy rests on popular sovereignty and liberal values—values that the US’s territorial expansion and conquest of indigenous tribes violated. Reparations reflect the U.S.’s commitment to secure these values once again.
  1. Compensation for Boarding School Policies: The policy of indigenous child separation constituted a cultural genocide. Many records from the boarding schools are still not public. In order to help heal those targeted by the boarding school policies, reparations entail truth commissions like the Truth and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policy Act, which release these records and potentially provide monetary assistance.
  1. Land rights: Monetary reparations for land expropriation have historically acted as bribes to prevent indigenous tribes from pressing for redistribution. Land reparations help return indigenous lands of cultural, historic, and economic significance to indigenous tribes.

The legislative inertia that helped pass federal reparations has dwindled in the last ten years, with the last settlement over the management of federal indigenous lands occurring in 2012. Since then, the Truth and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policy Act has failed to pass in Congress. However, the Department of the Interior did renew the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, which provides a systematic process for repatriating cultural burial objects. Recent reparations programs have concentrated on the state and local level. In California, legislators created a statewide reparations fund to help indigenous tribes in 2022, in addition to a land reparations bank in Oakland.

Resistance to Reparations

Opponents of reparations have centered their resistance on the economic or legal feasibility of maintaining or transferring land.

  1. Concerns about Qualifications: Some fear that capitulating to demands for indigenous reparations would spur other disadvantaged groups. New claims from different groups would raise questions of qualifications for reparations and the risk of exacerbating intragroup inequality with redistribution. Supporters of reparations argue that they do not necessarily have to focus on remedying past historical injustices, which is a complex issue, but on focusing on the needs of tribes today and one-time returns of land.
  1. Concerns for the Practicality of Land Reparations in National Parks: Opponents of returning National Park ownership to indigenous tribes question their capacity to maintain parks relative to the federal government’s fiscal and administrative capacity. By contrast, many indigenous scholars, such as historian David Treuer, contend that tribal nations’ experiences managing their land and negotiating with the federal government create a unique capability to manage national parks.
  1. Violating the Statute of Limitations: Some legal scholars contend that raising indigenous land claims in American courts may conflict with the statute of limitations, making their claims non-justiciable. However, legally classifying the federal government’s treatment of indigenous peoples as genocide would refute this argument. Genocide has no statute of limitations under federal law.

The slack in federal support for reparations will likely continue under the current administration; however, state and local reparations efforts have continued to gather and expand support. Nevertheless, the issue still swings between the type of reparations that should be used and their effectiveness.

Understanding the Debate on Reparations for Native Americans was originally published by The Alliance for Citizen Engagement.

Read More

Guarding What? The Moral Cost of Militarizing Our Cities

Protestors in Chicago, August 2025

Credit: Angeles Ponpa

Guarding What? The Moral Cost of Militarizing Our Cities

A federal judge recently blocked plans to deploy the National Guard to Chicago. But the battle over militarizing American streets is far from over. On Monday, a federal appeals court lifted a temporary restraining order and ruled that the National Guard can be deployed to Portland, Oregon, amid ongoing protests at the Macadam ICE Facility.

Every time political leaders propose sending troops into cities or float invoking the Insurrection Act, they test a fragile boundary that keeps democracy in check.

Keep ReadingShow less
Joe Manchin on Taxpayer-Funded Primaries: 'They're Locking Us Out!'

Joe Manchin

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Joe Manchin on Taxpayer-Funded Primaries: 'They're Locking Us Out!'

While appearing on CNN host Michael Smerconish’s show, former Democratic U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, now a registered independent, told Smerconish that “we have to have open primaries” in order to get candidates who prioritize representation to run and have a chance to win.

“We have to change the primary,” he added. “They are locking us out.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

President Donald Trump speaks at a White House press briefing on Jan. 30, 2025.

Credit: Jonah Elkowitz/Medill News Service

Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

WASHINGTON — Paul Ingrassia withdrew his nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel on Tuesday night after facing Republican pushback over past controversial statements.

While Ingrassia joins a growing list of President Donald Trump’s nominees who have withdrawn from consideration, many who have aired controversial beliefs or lack requisite qualifications have still been appointed or are still in the nomination process.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making
low light photography of armchairs in front of desk

A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making

The dysfunction of today’s federal government is not simply the product of political division or individual leaders; it is rooted in the internal rules of Congress itself. The Founders, in one of their few major oversights, granted Congress the authority to make its own procedural rules (Article I, Section 5) without establishing any framework for how it should operate. Over time, this blank check has produced a legislative process built to serve partisan power, not public representation.

The result is a Congress that often rewards obstruction and gridlock over compromise and action. The Founders imagined representatives closely tied to their constituents—one member for every 30,000 to 50,000 citizens. Today, that ratio has ballooned to one for every 765,000 in the House, and in the Senate, each member can represent tens of millions (e.g., California). As the population has grown, representation has become distant and impersonal, while procedural rules have tightened the grip of party leadership. Major issues can no longer reach the floor unless the majority party permits it. The link between citizens and decisions has nearly vanished.

Keep ReadingShow less