Federal investment in Native American communities remains dramatically below documented needs, according to a new report from the Brookings Institution and the American Indian College Fund. The analysis describes a persistent funding gap affecting healthcare, education, language preservation, economic development, environmental protection, and basic public services across Indian Country. Its findings arrive as recent federal spending reductions have further weakened programs that Tribal Nations and Native-serving institutions depend on, intensifying a long-standing problem that researchers say is rooted in both inadequate appropriations and the complex structure of the U.S.–Tribal relationship.
The report’s lead author, Robert Maxim, a fellow at Brookings, argues that the latest reductions conflict with the United States’ treaty and trust responsibilities. Those obligations developed through centuries of government-to-government agreements between the federal government and Native nations. During the 19th century, the United States ratified 370 treaties and negotiated additional agreements, many of which exchanged Tribal land for commitments involving healthcare, education, land protection, and other material benefits. These responsibilities are political and legal rather than racial, the report emphasizes, and they apply to more than 500 federally recognized Tribes.
The funding shortfall became particularly visible after the Covid-19 pandemic, when the Biden administration substantially increased federal support for Native communities and institutions. The subsequent rollback under the Trump administration has reduced direct outlays by more than $1 billion, while the full fiscal impact is still being calculated. A Brookings analysis estimates that Tribal communities may lose approximately $1.5 billion or more in future grant funding because of canceled or weakened federal programs. These losses are not limited to one agency: they affect health, education, climate resilience, infrastructure, research, and economic development.
A separate review of federal grants canceled during the first four months of the Trump administration found that nearly one-third contained the word “Tribal,” making it the most frequently flagged keyword in the analysis. The figure does not necessarily represent the total dollar value of every Native-serving grant, but it illustrates how extensively cancellations have reached programs involving Tribal governments and Native organizations. Federal layoffs have compounded the problem by reducing the number of agency employees available to process applications, administer grants, provide technical assistance, and maintain direct communication with Tribal governments. In practical terms, even available funding can become harder to access when administrative capacity disappears.
The administration’s effort to reduce federal spending and eliminate or consolidate agencies has also affected programs designed specifically for Native communities. Grants and contracts to Tribes and Native-serving organizations have been canceled, while initiatives associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion have faced broad cuts. Among the affected programs is the Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions designation, which supported colleges and universities serving significant Native student populations. Clean-energy investments have also been reduced, limiting resources for Tribal communities pursuing solar power, energy efficiency, climate adaptation, and other infrastructure projects that can lower long-term operating costs while increasing local energy sovereignty.
Determining the precise amount the federal government should invest is difficult because Tribal obligations are distributed across numerous programs and agencies. In fiscal year 2024, inflation-adjusted federal funding connected to Indian Country totaled approximately $48 billion, but that figure includes a wide range of services and does not establish whether treaty responsibilities were fully met. More specific comparisons reveal the scale of the gap. The federal government invested $41.5 million in Native American language revitalization in 2024, less than 3 percent of the government’s estimated annual need of $1.5 billion. Language programs require long-term immersion schools, teacher training, curriculum development, archival work, and digital tools, making short-term grants poorly suited to the scientific and cultural task of reversing language loss.
Healthcare shows an even wider disparity. The National Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup estimates that the Indian Health Service requires approximately $73 billion annually to meet healthcare needs, more than ten times the agency’s fiscal year 2024 budget of $7.1 billion. The difference affects staffing, facilities, preventive care, behavioral health, emergency services, and access to specialists. Because many Native communities are located in rural or remote areas, healthcare costs are often increased by transportation barriers, limited broadband connectivity, workforce shortages, and aging clinical infrastructure. Underfunding therefore produces measurable effects in delayed treatment, preventable disease, and reduced continuity of care.
The report also identifies Native investment as an economic strategy rather than simply a cost. Research on Tribal colleges and universities indicates that every dollar invested in these institutions generates approximately $1.60 in tax revenue and public-sector savings. These returns can arise through higher employment, increased earnings, reduced reliance on public assistance, and the development of skilled workers in regions where colleges are often major employers. Similar benefits have been documented for early-childhood education and small-business financing. Investments in those areas can improve educational outcomes, expand local tax bases, support entrepreneurship, and strengthen community resilience over time.
Private philanthropy has not compensated for the federal shortfall. Less than 1 percent of foundation and corporate philanthropic giving in the United States goes to Native-serving causes or organizations, according to the report. Researchers attribute this imbalance partly to limited institutional knowledge and misconceptions about Tribal economies, including the belief that most Tribes receive substantial casino profits. In reality, gaming revenues vary widely, are often restricted by law or distributed among large populations, and do not replace federal healthcare, education, infrastructure, or treaty-based responsibilities. The authors call for philanthropic organizations to establish stronger relationships with Tribal leaders, provide more flexible multiyear funding, and allow Native communities to define their own priorities.
The report recommends making a larger share of federal Native funding mandatory rather than discretionary. Discretionary programs must be approved through the annual congressional appropriations process and are therefore more vulnerable to political changes and budget cuts. Mandatory funding is generally more stable once authorized, allowing Tribal governments and institutions to plan projects over several years. The authors also call for improved public data on federal investment, arguing that fragmented reporting makes it difficult to measure disparities or determine whether programs are reaching their intended recipients. Finally, they urge policymakers and foundations to protect investments in historically under-resourced communities from legal and political pressures that have created a chilling effect on nonprofit funding. Without sustained, transparent, and adequately scaled investment, the report concludes, the United States will continue to fall short of obligations that are both legally established and economically consequential.
Subject of Research: People
Web References: Brookings Institution analysis on federal cuts affecting Native Americans; Brookings Institution and American Indian College Fund report; Bureau of Indian Affairs treaty information; National Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup budget book; Indian Health Service FY2024 budget documents; analysis of canceled federal grants; Stateline report on federal layoffs and Tribal programs; U.S. Department of Education information on Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions; American Council on Education analysis of Tribal colleges and universities; Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis research on economic development in Indian Country; U.S. Small Business Administration information on Native community financing.
References: Brookings Institution; American Indian College Fund; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Indian Health Service; National Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup; Stateline; U.S. Department of Education; American Council on Education; Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis; U.S. Small Business Administration.
Keywords: Native American communities, Tribal Nations, federal funding, treaty obligations, Indian Country, healthcare, Indian Health Service, Tribal colleges, language revitalization, philanthropy, economic development, social inequality, government policy, public investment, climate investment
