Consultation process deliberately minimizes tribal input

RAPID CITY—A Google search targeting tribal consultation reveals a predictable parade of press releases and bureaucratic updates—but few, if any, reflections from the tribal nations directly affected by two President Trump Executive Orders 14210 and 14156. Page after page, tribal leaders, activists, and advocates are missing. The absence is telling: a reflection of a policy whose consultation process isn’t just broken— but painstakingly crafted over two centuries to maintain a one sided consultation process, that side designed to achieve government interest only.

The Department of the Interior, and all of its Indian affairs related sub-departments, have launched a consultation blitz. Per official memos, input is sought on sweeping workforce cuts under EO 14210, a sweeping reorganization of Indian Affairs, and accelerated permitting tied to EO 14156. But public-facing documents offer no transcripts of tribal testimony, no tribal-authored FAQs, no tribal media coverage.

On June 12, 2025, Frank Star Comes Out, president of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, delivered a blunt verdict at a consultation session in Bismarck: “This is not true consultation. It seems more like a formality.” He lamented that decisions— including massive staffing reductions—were already being enacted before tribes were even engaged. His critique was deeply rooted in legally binding treaties dating back to 1825 and 1868, and countless statutes reaffirming federal trust responsibilities.

Star Comes Out—and others— warned that streamlining environmental reviews under NEPA, NHPA, and ESA would further marginalize tribal input. The proposed 14 day EA reviews and 7 day Section 106 consultations, he said, are insufficient for meaningful engagement.

These complaints reverberate from no reservation echo chamber— they are the long held beliefs and oft voiced complaints of tribal nations, and they reverberate in court. Last month, a federal appeals court ruled that the 9th Circuit had wrongly dismissed a lawsuit by the Tohono O’odham Nation. Plaintiffs successfully argued that the U.S. Interior Department failed to properly consult tribes on the historical and cultural import of a high voltage transmission line across the San Pedro Valley. The court’s reinstatement of the lawsuit shines a spotlight on a recurring issue: treaty obligations too often sidelined for administrative convenience.

Tribal nations—including the Pueblo of Isleta, Prairie Band Potawatomi, and Cheyenne and Arapaho—filed suit after massive staff cuts were instituted under EO 14210 without meaningful consultation. Chairman Zeke Rupnick of Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation accused the Bureau of Indian Education of “failure to consult … in clear violation of the law,” while General Counsel for the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Hershel Gorham, warned that faculty layoffs undermined treaty mandated educational services.

Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviews reinforce these claims. A GAO study uncovered systemic failures in tribal outreach: agencies often engage too late in project development, leave out critical tribal voices, and don’t report back how input shaped decisions. One GAO recommendation could solve much of this problem: create a centralized contact system and require agencies to document each stage of consultation.

These are hardly obscure observations. They’ve been reiterated in legal findings, by tribal media, and through court decisions. Yet, internet searches don’t surface them prominently. Instead, what rises are press releases and boilerplate, detailing the government take on consultation, and strategically limiting the tribal perspective regarding same.

This is no accident—it represents a deliberate choice. Tribal perspectives, when logged and indexed, remain buried in PDFs and meeting transcripts, rarely prioritized in search engines or press cycles. Tribal voices can write on tribal consultation—but their opinions aren’t showing up. Thousands of pages note “tribal engagement” but ignore voices like Star Comes Out or Rupnick.

Consultation isn’t a checkbox— it’s a treaty obligation, a trust responsibility anchored in sovereignty as historically interpreted— and upheld by law. When tribal perspectives are relegated to appendices—or omitted entirely— the process is hollowed.

The consequences are real:

• Rush to decision tactics undermine the foundational concept of government to government dialogue.

• Pre decision implementation erodes public and intergovernmental trust.

• Unchecked systemic bias prioritizes institutional convenience over tribal sovereignty.

Voices from Indian Country call for:

1. Authentic timelines: Consultation must precede decisions— not follow them.

2. Local staffing and capacity: No more cookie cutter cutbacks; BIE, BIA, BTFA must fully support on reservationstructures and staffing.

3. Transparent feedback loops: Tribal input must shape policy— and that influence must be documented, visible and accessible online.

4. Modern, enforceable policies: EO 13175 frameworks must evolve beyond aspirational memos to binding rule making with clear enforcement mechanisms.

5. Respect for cultural processes: Environmental and sacred site reviews must allow adequate time and respect for tribal decision making; faster timelines cannot override treaty duties.

Page after page of search engine government spin drowns out these voices. There’s no tribal link on the Interior Department’s consultation page—the first 10 search results don’t include tribal councils or advocacy statements.

Instead, tribal testimony is confined to PDFs, slide decks, or tribal specific media. This invisibility isn’t by accident—it’s symptomatic of the same consultation failures these new EO’s purport to fix. If tribal voices don’t populate the web, are they really being heard?

True consultation is not lip service. It’s engagement, before policy, in real time, with reciprocal influence. Tribes should be co designers—not afterthoughts—in decisions about staff reductions, permitting timelines, and structural consolidation.

Even if every cut the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) advised was legitimate, that would not include Indian related agencies. These agencies are treaty obligated, and their missions at present, and in the past, fall far short of the agreement between the original treaty signatories. Nor have these treaty agreements, when it comes to consultation, been reduced, or eliminated per Congressional plenary power. The government has consistently failed to honor its consultation obligations to tribes without any consequence. Three EO’s from three presidents, Clinton, Obama, and Biden, directly promising better consultation, have failed to improve the flawed consultation process one iota.

(James Giago Davies is an enrolled member of OST. Contact him at skindiesel@msn.com)

The post Consultation process deliberately minimizes tribal input first appeared on Native Sun News Today.

Visit Original Source