Tribes say the U.S. misappropriated funds to pay for Native American boarding schools
In the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Wichita Tribe and the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California said that by the U.S. government's own admission, the schools were funded using money raised by forcing tribal nations into treaties to cede their lands. That money was to be held in trust for the collective benefit of tribes.
'The United States Government, the trustee over Native children's education and these funds, has never accounted for the funds that it took, or detailed how, or even whether, those funds were ultimately expended. It has failed to identify any funds that remain,' according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed against Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education. A spokesperson for the Interior declined to comment on pending litigation.
In 2022, the U.S. Department of the Interior, under the direction of Secretary Deb Haaland, the first Native American to run the agency, released a scathing report on the legacy of the boarding school era, in which Native children were stolen from their homes, forced to assimilate, and in many cases physically, sexually and mentally abused. Countless children died at the schools, many of whom were buried in unmarked graves at the institutions.
That report detailed the U.S. government's intentions of using the boarding schools as a way to both strip Native children of their culture and dispossess their tribal nations of land.
The tribes are asking the court to make the U.S. account for the estimated $23.3 billion it appropriated for the boarding school program, detail how that money was invested, and list the remaining funds that were taken by U.S. and allocated for the education of Native children.
Last year, President Joe Biden issued a formal apology for the government's boarding school policy, calling it 'a sin on our soul' and 'one of the most horrific chapters' in American history. But in April, the administration of President Donald Trump cut $1.6 million from projects meant to capture and digitize stories of boarding school survivors.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump gets tariffs; Americans get price hikes
By David Gaffen and Marleen Kaesebier (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump is getting his tariffs. Companies are making it clear how they intend to deal with it - passing them on to American consumers. Throughout the spring, big retailers and consumer product makers warned that levies on imported goods would squeeze their operations, forcing them to choose between lower earnings and passing on higher costs to customers. In the case of Procter & Gamble and others, it is both of those things. On Tuesday, the packaging giant, which makes household basics spanning from Bounty paper towel to Tide detergent, issued a sour outlook for 2025 and sent a message to big retailers like Walmart that it would have to raise prices on some U.S. goods from next week. This challenge facing companies in coming quarters will likely feed through to everyday consumers. P&G said it would raise prices on about a quarter of its products in the U.S. to help offset the cost of new tariffs. Price hikes are in the mid-single digits across categories, a spokesperson for the company said. While U.S. stock indexes have soared to record highs this year, built on massive investment in technology shares, many consumer bellwethers have struggled. Since Trump's April 2 "Liberation Day" tariff announcements, P&G shares have declined 19%; Nestle is down 20%; Kimberly-Clark has lost 11%, and PepsiCo is off nearly 7%, while the benchmark S&P 500 stock index has gained more than 13%. Consumer goods, food and drink companies have struggled with lackluster sales since the pandemic, as shoppers have balked at increasingly expensive name-brand packaged food. Nestle said last week that consumers in North America remained wary of paying more at the cash register. More price hikes will deepen investor worries about how big brands are navigating the combined challenge of thrifty consumers and hefty costs created by Trump's trade war. "You're going to see companies like Walmart, Amazon, and Best Buy forced to pass price increases to consumers," said Bill George, former chairman and CEO of Medtronic and executive education fellow at Harvard Business School. "Main Street has yet to see the fallout from increased tariffs - and they're going to go higher." Between July 16 and 25, companies in the Reuters global tariff tracker said they expected to lose a combined $7.1 billion to $8.3 billion for the full year. GM, Ford and other carmakers have absorbed the cost of tariffs - totaling billions of dollars - so far. Many companies shipped more goods and raw materials into the U.S. before tariffs hit. Economists and analysts reckon that hoarding has helped some delay hiking prices until later in the year and explains why tariffs have not yet shown up in U.S. inflation data. Andrew Wilson, International Chamber of Commerce deputy secretary general, estimates inflation will be felt once companies have run down inventory, but that might not be until the fourth quarter or first quarter of next year. Others like Ray Ban-maker EssilorLuxottica have already hiked prices. Swiss watch and jewelry maker Swatch increased prices by about 5% after Trump announced tariffs in April with "zero impact" on sales, CEO Nick Hayek told Reuters recently. High-end brands like Tissot watches are less price sensitive to increases. Customers wanting to splash out on an expensive watch might also buy abroad when travelling where taxes are lower, he said. "You cannot do this with cars. You cannot do this with machines. But you can do this with watches. So it's not so problematic for us," he said. Sign in to access your portfolio
Fast Company
16 minutes ago
- Fast Company
EPA seeks to repeal ‘holy grail' finding for climate regulation
IMPACT The 'endangerment finding' is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants, and more pollution sources. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin attends a Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission Event in the East Room of the White House, Thursday, May 22, 2025, in Washington. [Photo: AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File] BY Associated Press Listen to this Article More info 0:00 / 0:00 President Donald Trump 's administration on Tuesday proposed revoking a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change. The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule would rescind a 2009 declaration that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The 'endangerment finding' is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the proposed rule change on a podcast ahead of an official announcement set for Tuesday in Indiana. Subscribe to the Daily Company's trending stories delivered to you every day Privacy Policy | Fast Company Newsletters Repealing the endangerment finding 'will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America,' Zeldin said on the Ruthless podcast. 'There are people who, in the name of climate change, are willing to bankrupt the country,' Zeldin said. 'They created this endangerment finding and then they are able to put all these regulations on vehicles, on airplanes, on stationary sources, to basically regulate out of existence, in many cases, a lot of segments of our economy. And it cost Americans a lot of money.' The EPA proposal must go though a lengthy review process, including public comment, before it is finalized, likely next year. Environmental groups are likely to challenge the rule change in court. Zeldin called for a rewrite of the endangerment finding in March as part of a series of environmental rollbacks announced at the same time in what he said was 'the greatest day of deregulation in American history.' A total of 31 key environmental rules on topics from clean air to clean water and climate change would be rolled back or repealed under Zeldin's plan. He singled out the endangerment finding as 'the Holy Grail of the climate change religion' and said he was thrilled to end it 'as the EPA does its part to usher in the Golden Age of American success.' Tailpipe emission limits also targeted The EPA also is expected to call for rescinding limits on tailpipe emissions that were designed to encourage automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Environmental groups said Zeldin's action denies reality as weather disasters exacerbated by climate change continue in the U.S. and around the world. 'As Americans reel from deadly floods and heat waves, the Trump administration is trying to argue that the emissions turbocharging these disasters are not a threat,' said Christy Goldfuss, executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'It boggles the mind and endangers the nation's safety and welfare.' Under Zeldin and Trump, 'the EPA wants to shirk its responsibility to protect us from climate pollution, but science and the law say otherwise,' she added. 'If EPA finalizes this illegal and cynical approach, we will see them in court.' advertisement Three former EPA leaders have also criticized Zeldin, saying his March announcement targeting the endangerment finding and other rules imperiled the lives of millions of Americans and abandoned the agency's dual mission to protect the environment and human health. 'If there's an endangerment finding to be found anywhere, it should be found on this administration because what they're doing is so contrary to what the Environmental Protection Agency is about,' Christine Todd Whitman, who led EPA under Republican President George W. Bush, said after Zeldin's plan was made public. The EPA proposal follows an executive order from Trump that directed the agency to submit a report 'on the legality and continuing applicability' of the endangerment finding. Conservatives and some congressional Republicans hailed the initial plan, calling it a way to undo economically damaging rules to regulate greenhouse gases. But environmental groups, legal experts and Democrats said any attempt to repeal or roll back the endangerment finding would be an uphill task with slim chance of success. The finding came two years after a 2007 Supreme Court ruling holding that the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Passing court muster could be an issue David Doniger, a climate expert at the NRDC, accused Trump's Republican administration of using potential repeal of the endangerment finding as a 'kill shot'' that would allow him to make all climate regulations invalid. If finalized, repeal of the endangerment finding would erase current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants and other sources and could prevent future administrations from proposing rules to tackle climate change. 'The Endangerment Finding is the legal foundation that underpins vital protections for millions of people from the severe threats of climate change, and the Clean Car and Truck Standards are among the most important and effective protections to address the largest U.S. source of climate-causing pollution,' said Peter Zalzal, associate vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund. 'Attacking these safeguards is manifestly inconsistent with EPA's responsibility to protect Americans' health and well-being,' he said. 'It is callous, dangerous and a breach of our government's responsibility to protect the American people from this devastating pollution.' Conrad Schneider, a senior director at the Clean Air Task Force, said the Trump administration 'is using pollution regulations as a scapegoat in its flawed approach to energy affordability' and reliability. He and other advocates 'are dismayed that an administration that claims it cares about cleaner, healthier and safer air is seeking to dismantle the very protections that are required for those conditions,' Schneider said. —Matthew Daly, Associated Press The early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is Friday, September 5, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today. Explore Topics Climate change Donald Trump EPA global warming greenhouse gas emissions pollution
Axios
16 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump's plan to boost U.S. automakers is squeezing them instead
A consequence of President Trump's new trade deals with Japan and the European Union is that they could entice foreign automakers to import even more cars to the U.S., rather than grow their American operations. Why it matters: Trump's effort to reshape global commerce assumes that punishing tariffs on imports will force foreign manufacturers to set up factories in America, strengthening the U.S. economy. But his trade policy conflicts in many ways with those industrial policy goals, for now at least, by making it cheaper to import cars than to build them in North America. The big picture: That's probably not the case forever. Trump's penchant for one-off trade deals with individual countries means some will have agreements before others. But neither U.S. automakers nor the United Auto Workers are happy about the advantages their competitors have at the moment. Where it stands: Tariffs on cars imported from Japan or Europe will face a 15% tariff, starting Aug. 1, in lieu of a 25% tax hike the U.S. imposed on all imported vehicles and car parts earlier this year. It might seem like a reprieve, but it's still sharply higher than the 2.5% they had been paying before Trump took office. U.S.-built cars, by contrast, are taxed 25% on imported parts (except for those that comply with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement signed by Trump in his first term). That applies not just to the Detroit 3 carmakers, but also to foreign automakers with U.S. plants. Plus, they're subject to 50% tariffs on imported steel, aluminum and soon, copper. Cars built in Canada and Mexico, already taxed at 25%, face even higher tariffs beginning Aug. 1. For Canada, the new rate would be 35%; for Mexico, 30%. Many companies build vehicles in Canada or Mexico and ship them to the U.S. Winners and losers: For now, the winners of Trump's head-spinning trade policies are Japan, the UK and the EU, James Schmidt, vice president-autos for the Oliver Wyman consultancy, tells Axios. At least those countries can move forward with their strategies for serving the U.S. market, he said. Losers are the countries still negotiating, like South Korea, Mexico and Canada, as well as U.S. automakers that produce vehicles in those countries. Trump has said tariffs will go up on Aug. 1 if no deal is reached. "It's a big jigsaw puzzle right now," says Schmidt. "The rest of the pieces still have to fall into place." In the short term, he said, Japanese and European carmakers may be enticed to import more cars to the U.S., even with the 15% tariff, to avoid other levies. What they're saying:"U.S. trade policy should push automakers to build in America, with skilled, union labor. A flat 15% tariff doesn't accomplish that," the UAW, which previously backed Trump's tough talk on tariffs, said in a statement. "In fact, when left unchecked, companies often respond by shifting final assembly and supply chains to even lower-cost countries—making the situation for workers far worse. American workers deserve more than empty promises. They deserve a trade policy that delivers real jobs and a real future." The other side:"No president has taken a greater interest in restoring American auto industry dominance than President Trump, and the Administration is in constant touch with the auto industry to meet this objective," White House spokesperson Kush Desai told Axios. He pointed to trade deals that open up market access in Japan and Europe for American brands, as well as efforts to expand domestic metals production. The bottom line: It's difficult to predict the future, but U.S. trade policy is starting to become clearer, David Steinert, a partner in the automotive and industrial practice at the consulting firm AlixPartners, tells Axios via email.
