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
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has been getting his way on trade, strong-arming the European Union, Japan and other partners to accept once unthinkably high taxes on their exports to the United States. But his radical overhaul of American trade policy, in which he's bypassed Congress to slam big tariffs on most of the world's economies, has not gone unchallenged. He's facing at least seven lawsuits charging that he's overstepped his authority. The plaintiffs want his biggest, boldest tariffs thrown out. And they won Round One. In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes — tariffs — on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case. Now it goes on to Round Two. On Thursday, the 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty — involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad — that the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to impose taxes — including tariffs — to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the U.S. border to slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Then on April 2 — 'Liberation Day,'' Trump called it — he invoked IEEPA to announce 'reciprocal'' tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10% 'baseline'' tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorize the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an 'unusual and extraordinary'' threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's Liberation Day tariffs 'exceed any authority granted to the President'' under the emergency powers law. 'The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,'' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they 'deal with'' the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.
Winnipeg Free Press
3 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Islamic State and al-Qaida threat is intense in Africa, with growing risks in Syria, UN experts say
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The threat from Islamic State and al-Qaida extremists and their affiliates is most intense in parts of Africa, and risks are growing in Syria, which both groups view as a 'a strategic base for external operations,' U.N. experts said in a new report. Their report to the U.N. Security Council circulated Wednesday said West Africa's al-Qaida-linked Jama'at Nasr al-Islam wal-Muslimin group, known as JNIM, and East Africa's al-Qaida-linked al-Shabab have continued to increase the territory under their control. The experts monitoring sanctions against the two groups said 'the organization's pivot towards parts of Africa continued' partly because of Islamic State losses in the Middle East due to counterterrorism pressures. There are also 'increasing concerns about foreign terrorist fighters returning to Central Asia and Afghanistan, aiming to undermine regional security,' they said. The Islamic State also continues to represent 'the most significant threat' to Europe and the Americas, the experts said, often by individuals radicalized via social media and encrypted messaging platforms by its Afghanistan-based Khorasan group. In the United States, the experts said several alleged terrorist attack plots were 'largely motivated by the Gaza and Israel conflict,' or by individuals radicalized by IS, also known as ISIL. They pointed to an American who pledged support to IS and drove into a crowd in New Orleans on Jan. 1, killing 14 people in the deadliest attack by al-Qaida or the Islamic State in the U.S. since 2016. In addition, they said, 'Authorities disrupted attacks, including an ISIL-inspired plot to conduct a mass shooting at a military base in Michigan,' and the IS Khorasan affiliate issued warnings of plots targeting Americans. In Africa's Sahel region, the experts said, JNIM expanded its area of operations, operating 'with relative freedom' in northern Mali and most of Burkina Faso. There was also a resurgence of activity by the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara, 'particularly along the Niger and Nigeria border, where the group was seeking to entrench itself.' 'JNIM reached a new level of operational capability to conduct complex attacks with drones, improvised explosive devices and large numbers of fighters against well-defended barracks,' the experts said. In East Africa, they said, 'al-Shabab maintained its resilience, intensifying operations in southern and central Somalia' and continuing its ties with Yemen's Houthi rebels. The two groups have reportedly exchanged weapons and the Houthis have trained al-Shabab fighters, they said. Syria, the experts said, remains 'in a volatile and precarious phase,' six months after the ouster of President Bashar Assad, with unnamed countries warning of growing risks posed by both IS and al-Qaida. 'Member states estimated that more than 5,000 foreign terrorist fighters were involved in the military operation in which Damascus was taken on Dec. 8,' the experts' 27-page report said. Syria's new interim President Ahmad Al-Sharaa led the rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, once an al-Qaida affiliate that later split from it. He has promised that the country will transition to a system that includes Syria's mosaic of religious and ethnic groups under fair elections, but skeptics question whether that will actually happen. The experts expressed concern at the Syrian military's announcement of several senior appointments including 'prominent Syrian armed faction leaders' and six positions for foreigners — three with the rank of brigadier general and three with the rank of colonel. 'The ideological affiliation of many of these individuals was unknown, although several were likely to hold violent extremist views and external ambitions,' the report said. As for financing, the experts said the HTS takeover in Syria was considered to pose financial problems for the Islamic State and likely to lead to a decline in its revenues. Salaries for Islamic State fighters were reduced to $50-$70 per month and $35 per family, 'lower than ever, and not paid regularly, suggesting financial difficulties,' said the experts, who did not give previous salaries or family payments. They said both al-Qaida and the Islamic State vary methods to obtain money according to locations and their ability to exploit resources, tax local communities, kidnap for ransom and exploit businesses. While the extremist groups predominantly move money through cash transfers and informal money transfer systems known as hawalas, the experts said the Islamic State has increasingly used female couriers and hawala systems where data is stored in the cloud to avoid detection, and 'safe drop boxes' where money is deposited at exchange offices and can only be retrieved with a password or code.
Japan Forward
5 hours ago
- Japan Forward
New US Electric Vehicle Rules Put Japan's Auto Industry in the Fast Lane
The United States remains the most important export market for Japan's core industry, the automobile sector. In a welcome development, the recently concluded Japan–US tariff negotiations saw tariffs on cars and auto parts reduced from 27.5%, a rate imposed by Donald Trump's administration earlier this spring, down to 15%. This comes as a relief for Japanese automakers, whose profits had been under pressure. Beyond tariffs, shifts in electric vehicle (EV) policy are also working in their favor. On July 4, US Independence Day, President Trump signed into law a sweeping legislative package he dubbed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." With that legislation, he reversed the decarbonization policies championed by the Joe Biden administration's "Green Transformation (GX)," under which Biden had promoted EVs with the slogan "the future of the American auto industry is electric." In contrast, Trump remained steadfastly critical of EVs throughout his campaign. He often argued that electric vehicles might be enjoyable at first but soon raise practical concerns, such as where to charge them. Trump characterized EV subsidies as policies that benefit the wealthy and warned that a full shift to electric cars would make the US auto industry dependent on China, putting American jobs at risk. Upon taking office, Trump quickly acted on his campaign promises. He signed an executive order opposing EV mandates and withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change. On June 12, he stripped states like California of their authority to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035. This effectively abolished the Zero Emission Vehicle regulations. Currently, about 7% of new car sales in the US are EVs, and nearly 70% of those are Teslas. These are mainly purchased in affluent, environmentally conscious areas like California. A Tesla electric vehicle (EV) and the company's logo. June 2023, Colorado, USA (©AP/Kyodo) Then came the new One Big Beautiful Bill, which will eliminate EV tax credits, $7,500 for new electric vehicles and $4,000 for used ones, starting September 30. In addition, federal registration taxes will impose an annual fee of $250 for electric vehicles and $100 for hybrids. On the other hand, Americans buying domestically produced cars will now be able to deduct part of their auto loan interest from their income taxes. One of the most notable aspects of the new bill is the removal of penalties under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Under the previous administration, the standards grew stricter every year, penalizing automakers for selling more gasoline vehicles. If manufacturers didn't want to pay the fines, they had to purchase carbon credits from EV companies like Tesla. However, over 90% of American consumers still prefer internal combustion engine vehicles. As a result, both the US Big Three (Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler) and Japanese automakers faced mounting penalties as their sales of gasoline-powered cars increased. Some rushed EV investments to avoid these fines, but their late-to-market EVs struggled to sell. By contrast, companies like Tesla benefited greatly from this system. In fiscal 2024, Tesla earned $2.76 billion in carbon credit revenue, accounting for about 39% of its net profit. Now, that revenue source is set to disappear. As the saying goes, when it rains, it pours. On July 2, Tesla announced that global vehicle deliveries for the April–June 2025 quarter fell 13.5% year-on-year to 384,122 units. This represented a double-digit decline. Sales are stagnating, and EV tax credits are ending. Furthermore, subsidies for charging infrastructure and residential solar battery storage are all being phased out. With carbon credit income now uncertain, the business model that had relied on decarbonization incentives is rapidly collapsing. Trump has made revitalizing the economy through manufacturing a top priority. He has also introduced tariff hikes to bring back the auto industry, along with a return to fossil fuel–based energy, both key promises from his campaign. For EV manufacturers who relied on subsidies and carbon credit revenue amid flagging demand, this is a disaster. In contrast, the new policy offers tailwinds for Japanese automakers, who have strengths in internal combustion engines. Back in 2020, the Japanese government also set a national target of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 and promoted EVs. However, companies like Toyota stayed grounded in market realities. Had they yielded to political pressure and rushed headlong into full EV adoption, they might now be grappling with sunk investments, significant losses, and widespread job insecurity. Despite being branded by the media as "behind the curve" on EVs, Japanese automakers stuck to their comprehensive, all-weather strategy — and it's now paying off. Sales of Japan's signature hybrid vehicles remain strong, with Japanese brands now commanding 40% of new car sales in the North American market. As the politically driven EV push falters, the future of mobility under the Trump administration is being shaped not by mandates but by consumer choice. Despite the weight of additional tariffs, Japanese automakers are expected to further strengthen their foothold in the region. (Read the article in Japanese .) Author: Koko Kato
