Frederica Freyberg:
The 11 tribal nations in Wisconsin have dozens of federal grant programs, including nearly $3 billion for tribal health, $14 million for broadband, and more than $10 million connected to tribal colleges. Just how vulnerable is this funding, and how might treaty rights be violated, not to mention the services provided, if it gets wiped away? We turn to Tehassi Hill, chairman of the Oneida Nation, for his take. And chairman, thanks very much for being here.

Tehassi Hill:
Yes, thank you for the invitation.

Frederica Freyberg:
For the Onedia, what would be potential impacts of any federal funding freeze?

Tehassi Hill:
Yeah, it could be — it could be quite large, depending on how they’re rolled out and the particulars. So at Oneida, a very large portion of our budget actually comes from federal and state grants. So if it’s just wiped clear, that would be very detrimental to our community and for [?] levels and for families and all that we take care of here in Oneida.

Frederica Freyberg:
When you got word that there was this pause or freeze on these grant and loan programs, what was your reaction?

Tehassi Hill:
Well, you know, at first it was well, it’s — let’s hope it’s not as bad as it’s being made out to be. Obviously, as it comes to tribal nations and how we’re affected by the federal dollar and government shutdowns and freezes like this, this is a little bit different per se, just depending on what those lines that are frozen and how they impact to the nation. And so, you know, it’s definitely okay, let’s, let’s see what happens with this. How these different departments are handling this presidential order and see what exactly those effects are on us.

Frederica Freyberg:
What about the piece that are binding commitments in sovereign tribal nations based on treaty and trust obligations from land exchanged hundreds of years ago?

Tehassi Hill:
Yeah, that’s always the worry. You know, obviously tribal nations have ceded, you know, upwards of 2 billion acres of land to the birth of the United States. And in exchange for that land was, you know, promises that we battle every day to hold the United States accountable to the promises they made to our ancestors for that transaction. And so that’s a, that’s an everyday battle, no matter who the president is or who’s in Congress. Tribes stand up together to fight, fight those battles and do that education where necessary to be able to bring to light those issues when it comes to funding for tribal nations.

Frederica Freyberg:
Does this move seem somehow different or setting an alarming precedent in your mind?

Tehassi Hill:
I think it is alarming to a certain extent. Just because a lot of the presidential orders are pretty broad and so they’re not specific enough for us to be able to analyze and be like, okay, this is how it’s going to affect us, because a lot of it is just left up to the discretion of either political appointees or long term employees who don’t necessarily have the authority to make the decisions that they normally would during these transition periods. So it’s really, you know, kind of like a wait and see at this point how those decisions are made and they trickle down through the system to have the effect on tribal nations.

Frederica Freyberg:
As to executive orders coming out of Washington, we’ve seen reported that some tribal members have been detained in immigration sweeps. Is that something that you’re aware of in the Oneida or across the state?

Tehassi Hill:
I haven’t been able to verify any Oneida tribal members being detained or even checked at this point. I know another tribe in the state that they had some of their tribal members checked, but not detained, just verifying their identification and let, you know, continue on their way to where they were heading. But for us, we haven’t had any verified accounts of anyone actually being detained.

Frederica Freyberg:
Is it perversely in question that all Native Americans born in the U.S. are citizens as to this birthright citizen issue?

Tehassi Hill:
Yeah. You know, the Snyder Act passed in 1924, so it’s 100-year-old law. And so I don’t think that’s really in question. It would obviously take an act of Congress to reverse that decision, or the Supreme Court to change these types of things. And so those are kind of long processes that would probably see legal battle and the entire way, you know, along the way, it’s processed to the Supreme Court. And so I think that’s just a long-standing law that I don’t think is in any question right now. But it is in the backs of some people’s minds as a threat to tribal sovereignty. But I think at this point, it’s a long ways off.

Frederica Freyberg:
That’s good news. Chairman Tehassi Hill, thanks very much.

Tehassi Hill:
All right. Thank you.