logo
Many American Indians put their faith in RFK Jr. They're starting to lose it.

Many American Indians put their faith in RFK Jr. They're starting to lose it.

Politico17-07-2025
His apparent earnestness prompted the Coalition of Large Tribes, whose members include the Navajo and Blackfeet nations and the Oglala Sioux, to call him 'the most qualified nominee there has ever been, from any Administration, to carry that mantle of responsibility' three weeks before the Senate confirmed him to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.
But with each zealous statement from Kennedy, American Indians leaders have wondered when they'll hear a detailed plan, and they point to President Donald Trump's budget proposal as an example where the administration's actions haven't matched Kennedy's rhetoric.
'We're looking at the lives of real people, Indian people,' said Phyllis Davis, chair of the Great Lakes Area Tribal Health Board. 'I don't know if anybody really knows him well enough to understand what he wants to do, and I wish — for him — that he took more time to learn more about who we are.'
A spokesperson for Kennedy said Americans Indians needn't worry.
'HHS and Secretary Kennedy remain fully committed to supporting the Indian Health Service and its mission to provide high-quality, culturally competent care to American Indian and Alaska Native communities,' HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon told POLITICO in an email. 'The Department will continue working closely with Tribal Nations to protect health care access and to strengthen delivery systems across Indian Country.'
Congress committed to provide American Indians health care a century ago and created the Indian Health Service within HHS to manage it 70 years ago. By every important metric, it has failed. American Indians live, on average, around a decade less than other Americans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Kennedy has said he's sincere about changing that.
'It's been an issue that I've been committed to my whole life,' Kennedy told Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) at a recent House budget hearing, adding that he'd shielded the IHS from cuts led by Trump's so-called Department of Government Efficiency and offered jobs to some of those DOGE had targeted for termination at the IHS.
The agency, he said, was 'chronically understaffed' and needed the help.
But when Trump released his proposed budget for 2026, some Native leaders were disappointed. Unlike the deep cuts the budget called for at other health agencies, the IHS would get a $1 billion increase if Congress agrees, most of which would go toward reimbursing tribes for administrative and facility costs. Still, tribal health leaders told POLITICO that real improvement would take tens of billions more.
The budget proposal also did not include advance appropriations for the IHS — the government has, in recent years, provided the tribes access to their funds early — a provision tribal leaders say helps prevent disruptions to care during government shutdowns.
They also said other programs Republicans are cutting are likely to have a negative impact on their health. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act that Trump signed on the Fourth of July slashes more than $1 trillion over a decade in health care spending, mostly from Medicaid, the federal-state insurer of low-income people on which many American Indians rely.
'Tribes rely on these other agencies to fill the gaps where IHS cannot,' said Jerilyn Church, CEO of the Great Plains Tribal Leaders' Health Board, citing years of inadequate funding.
'In the spotlight'
Native people are more likely than others in the U.S. to die from a host of chronic conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, chronic lower respiratory disease, cirrhosis, stroke, pneumonia, kidney disease and hypertension.
During his 2024 presidential campaign, before he dropped out and endorsed Trump, Kennedy courted the tribes, spending time with Native people and listening to their concerns. He recalled his namesake father, who was a New York senator and attorney general, and uncle Edward, who served 47 years as a Massachusetts Democrat in the Senate, and their advocacy for American Indians. And he brought up his own involvement in the founding of the newspaper Indian Country Today.
During his Senate confirmation hearing in February, Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski said Kennedy had previously committed to ' immediately triple the budget to support tribes ' and asked for some details.
Kennedy didn't have many. But he said he wanted to designate a Native American as an assistant secretary and that he enjoyed traveling in Alaska. Last month, he swore in Mark Cruz — a citizen of the Klamath Tribes — as senior adviser to the secretary.
Some tribal leaders say, despite some concerns, they're happy with Kennedy so far. That includes OJ Semans Sr., executive director of the Coalition of Large Tribes that endorsed Kennedy's appointment as Health secretary in January.
'He put IHS in the spotlight nationally,' Semans told POLITICO. 'Sometimes we don't get as much and sometimes we get more, but it's having the discussion that counts.'
The IHS supports 21 hospitals, 53 health centers and 25 health stations, and provides care to about 2.8 million Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Some facilities are managed by the federal government, while some are overseen by tribes.
It has suffered from underfunding for years, and slight increases to its budget have not kept up with health care inflation over the past few decades, according to a peer-reviewed article published in the American Journal of Public Health.
The IHS is unable to fully fund some of its facilities and the care provided there, and the difference must be made up by billing Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers.
Cuts to Medicaid in the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act will likely deliver a blow to tribal health. A 2017 analysis by the health care think tank KFF found that Medicaid provides coverage to more than 1 in 4 nonelderly American Indian and Alaska Native adults and half of Native children.
Nixon told POLITICO that the package 'focuses on eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse to ensure Medicaid remains strong, sustainable, and effective for the people who rely on it, including Tribal communities.'
The president's budget proposes funding the IHS at $8.1 billion, a slight increase from the previous year. But the National Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup — a group of tribal representatives that provide budgetary guidance to the IHS — regularly requests more than five times that after considering how much money fully funding the IHS would require.
That's roughly what it would cost to 'for all tribes in the United States to receive 100 percent of what they need to provide care for their citizens that they serve,' said Davis, who has been part of the work group for more than 10 years representing the Bemidji, Minnesota, area.
'[Trump's budget request for IHS] is still an inadequate dollar amount that keeps programs running, but not in a way that can provide comprehensive and really robust programs and … consistently serve health care needs and eliminate disparities,' Davis said.
IHS transfers stall
At the start of April, HHS sent letters to officials at the CDC, National Institutes of Health, and Food and Drug Administration offering a 'voluntary' transfer to the IHS and putting them immediately on administrative leave.
Kennedy has said he aims to staff up the IHS and touted the transfers as a way to make that happen.
But three months later, four of those former officials told POLITICO that they are still on administrative leave — collecting their salaries — with no more information about their futures. The four were granted anonymity for fear of retribution from the administration.
The original offer listed several locations that the officials, mainly based around Washington or Atlanta, could relocate to, including Alaska and Montana. At the time, some public health officials speculated that the administration was using the offers as a way to prompt high-paid officials to quit.
'It's a mixture of incompetence and ill intent,' one of the four said recently about the offers.
Nixon pushed back on the idea that the offers were meant to push officials out.
'To address staffing needs and support the IHS in fulfilling its mission, HHS invited certain individuals to consider positions within the IHS,' he said.
While the IHS has suffered from understaffing for decades, the agency mainly needs more physicians and nurses, while many of the HHS officials who received offers were running divisions or centers within the agency — not working with patients.
Many of the officials who received the offer responded with questions about job description, salary and relocation — but most received no response, said the people, citing their own experiences and conversations with colleagues.
In May, some of the officials received an email or, in some cases, a letter requesting that they submit an updated resume so the department could consider where to place them in the IHS. But since submitting the resumes, they have not received any more information, they said.
In response to a question about the stalled transfers, Nixon noted that legal challenges have held up the HHS reorganization.
While the IHS would see a slight increase if Congress passes Trump's budget, other HHS programs that supported tribal health would be cut. That includes the CDC's Healthy Tribes program — which, through cooperative agreements, aims to help prevent chronic disease among American Indians and Alaska Natives.
In April, nearly all of the CDC staff working on the Healthy Tribes program were placed on administrative leave pending termination, two people who had worked on the program and were granted anonymity for fear of retribution said.
'[Healthy Tribes] was born out of input from tribal leaders and tribal public health advocates, and it was designed to strengthen cultural connections, prevent chronic disease, and improve overall health and wellness using a holistic approach,' said one of the people.
'Historical trauma has resulted in the deliberate erasure of cultural practices and Indigenous ways of knowing. This, culminated with current systemic and institutionalized inequities, continually perpetuate the non-medical factors that influence health, preventing people from living healthy lives.'
The program oversees two cooperative agreements that funnel millions of dollars to American Indian and Alaska Native communities to help them create programs to prevent chronic diseases — a blend of two topics Kennedy has said are top priorities:Native health and chronic illness.
That includes things like Indigenous community gardens to make produce and healthy foods more accessible.
The third cooperative agreement provides funding to help the IHS pay for Tribal Epidemiology Centers, which investigate diseases and respond to public health emergencies. The agreement provides roughly $6.8 million every year to the 12 centers.
None of the three cooperative agreements — which, combined, totaled more than $30 million yearly — are included in Trump's budget request, though the congressional justification for the Administration for a Healthy America, a new entity the administration plans to create to centralize 'health resources for low-income Americans,' sets aside $19 million 'for tribes, tribal organizations, urban Indian health organizations, and health service providers to tribes serving rural communities experiencing poor chronic disease and maternal health outcomes.'
The AHA congressional justification also proposes a new program to address mental health and substance abuse disorders in tribal communities — but provides little information about how it would operate.
'I know [Kennedy] and the Kennedy family — say they have a commitment — to tribal populations and American Indians, but it's not fully evident that that is the case,' said one of the CDC staffers who'd worked on the Healthy Tribes program. 'I get the impression that this administration says one thing, but is actually doing another.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class
5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class

Yahoo

time5 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class

President Donald Trump's latest trade deal with China may look like a diplomatic win, but for the American middle class, it comes with hidden costs. Trending Now: Find Out: While tariffs are being reduced in exchange for promises from Beijing, households could still face higher prices, disrupted supply chains and reduced job growth. Here are four reasons Trump's trade deal with China is bad news for the middle class and what families can do to protect their finances. Higher Consumer Prices Despite Tariff Relief Even as the U.S. and China approach an August trade deal deadline, prices on many consumer goods remain elevated, and middle-class households continue to feel the strain. Some experts argue that the new tariffs may not drastically shift average import prices. However, middle-class families are more likely to feel the impact in specific categories, such as electronics, tools and household goods. 'U.S. companies scrambled to import as many goods as possible to stockpile before new tariffs were fully implemented, mitigating the immediate impact of tariffs on prices,' said Bryan Riley, Director of the Free Trade Initiative at the National Taxpayers Union. Riley said that since imports from China account for just 13.2% of total U.S. imports, increases in the price of specific Chinese goods may not push up the overall import average. However, they can still significantly affect middle-class budgets for everyday items. Read More: Erosion of Real Incomes and Job Losses An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco warned that Trump's trade measures could cut national real income by around 0.4%, while losses in services and agriculture might offset job gains in manufacturing. 'What's pitched as economic growth is actually a slow bleed: Manufacturing jobs won't magically return, and small businesses relying on predictable import costs are about to face more whiplash,' said Patrice Williams Lindo, CEO of Career Nomad. 'Wages stay stagnant while everyday costs climb. And here's the kicker — there's no workforce investment baked into this deal. That means your job security, benefits and opportunities to grow could evaporate, especially if your industry leans heavily on exports or global sourcing.' Volatile Markets and Supply Chain Instability Although the China deal eased recession fears, experts said that uncertainty around ongoing tariffs still disrupts manufacturing and logistics. Businesses may hold back investment or retool supply chains, raising costs for middle-class consumers and slowing hiring. For example, uncertainty remains one of the most significant threats to economic momentum, particularly for businesses making long-term decisions. 'The real issue is that this deal doesn't create clarity. It reinforces an environment of 'wait and see,' Robert Khachatryan, CEO and founder of Freight Right. 'That's not how you build confidence in the economy.' Khachatryan added, 'You can't expect small and midsize businesses, who employ a huge portion of America's middle class, to plan for the future when they're stuck playing defense against the next round of tariffs.' Missed Middle-Class Priorities in the Deal While the latest Trump-China deal touts manufacturing wins, some economists warn it overlooks the broader economic trade-offs that directly affect the middle class. 'We have an experiment,' said Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a recent interview on Conversations with Jim Zirin. 'In 2018, President Trump imposed 25% tariffs on steel. Seven years later, we have 1,000 more steelworkers, but 75,000 fewer workers in manufacturing sectors that relied on steel, and a 30% drop in steel sector productivity.' This kind of trade-off may deliver political wins, but it overlooks how tariff-driven policies ripple into everyday life for the middle class. 'Over time, reduced job stability in trade-sensitive sectors and a slowdown in wage growth may exacerbate economic insecurity for families already stretched thin by inflation and debt servicing costs,' said Jean-Baptiste Wautier, a private equity CIO and World Economic Forum speaker. How To Protect Your Budget Middle-class families can shield themselves by using rewards or rebate programs and strategically stockpiling essentials before potential tariff increases. Julian Merrick, founder and CEO of Supertrader, a fintech firm focused on global markets, recommends starting with a small emergency fund, even setting aside $200 to $300, which can help families avoid debt when unexpected expenses arise. 'It also helps to cut back on spending in categories where prices are rising — things like tech, clothes or imported goods,' Merrick said. 'Families should avoid taking on new high-interest debt right now, especially for non-essentials. And for those with investments, make sure the money is spread out across different industries.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 6 Hybrid Vehicles To Stay Away From in Retirement This article originally appeared on 5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

3 things the pronatalist movement gets wrong about birth rates
3 things the pronatalist movement gets wrong about birth rates

Fast Company

time6 minutes ago

  • Fast Company

3 things the pronatalist movement gets wrong about birth rates

Pronatalism—the belief that low birth rates are a problem that must be reversed— is having a moment in the U.S. As birth rates decline in the U.S. and throughout the world, voices from Silicon Valley to the White House are raising concerns about what they say could be the calamitous effects of steep population decline on the economy. The Trump administration has said it is seeking ideas on how to encourage Americans to have more children as the U.S. experiences its lowest total fertility rate in history, down about 25% since 2007. As demographers who study fertility, family behaviors, and childbearing intentions, we can say with certainty that population decline is not imminent, inevitable or necessarily catastrophic. The population collapse narrative hinges on three key misunderstandings. First, it misrepresents what standard fertility measures tell us about childbearing and makes unrealistic assumptions that fertility rates will follow predictable patterns far into the future. Second, it overstates the impact of low birth rates on future population growth and size. Third, it ignores the role of economic policies and labor market shifts in assessing the impacts of low birth rates. Fertility fluctuations Demographers generally gauge births in a population with a measure called the total fertility rate. The total fertility rate for a given year is an estimate of the average number of children that women would have in their lifetime if they experienced current birth rates throughout their childbearing years. Fertility rates are not fixed—in fact, they have changed considerably over the past century. In the U.S., the total fertility rate rose from about 2 births per woman in the 1930s to a high of 3.7 births per woman around 1960. The rate then dipped below 2 births per woman in the late 1970s and 1980s before returning to 2 births in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since the Great Recession that lasted from late 2007 until mid-2009, the U.S. total fertility rate has declined almost every year, with the exception of very small post-COVID-19 pandemic increases in 2021 and 2022. In 2024, it hit a record low, falling to 1.6. This drop is primarily driven by declines in births to people in their teens and early 20s —births that are often unintended. But while the total fertility rate offers a snapshot of the fertility landscape, it is not a perfect indicator of how many children a woman will eventually have if fertility patterns are in flux—for example, if people are delaying having children. Picture a 20-year-old woman today, in 2025. The total fertility rate assumes she will have the same birth rate as today's 40-year-olds when she reaches 40. That's not likely to be the case, because birth rates 20 years from now for 40-year-olds will almost certainly be higher than they are today, as more births occur at older ages and more people are able to overcome infertility through medically assisted reproduction. A more nuanced picture of childbearing These problems with the total fertility rate are why demographers also measure how many total births women have had by the end of their reproductive years. In contrast to the total fertility rate, the average number of children ever born to women ages 40 to 44 has remained fairly stable over time, hovering around two. Americans continue to express favorable views toward childbearing. Ideal family size remains at two or more children, and 9 in 10 adults either have, or would like to have, children. However, many Americans are unable to reach their childbearing goals. This seems to be related to the high cost of raising children and growing uncertainty about the future. In other words, it doesn't seem to be the case that birth rates are low because people are uninterested in having children; rather, it's because they don't feel it's feasible for them to become parents or to have as many children as they would like. The challenge of predicting future population size Standard demographic projections do not support the idea that population size is set to shrink dramatically. One billion people lived on Earth 250 years ago. Today there are over 8 billion, and by 2100 the United Nations predicts there will be over 10 billion. That's 2 billion more, not fewer, people in the foreseeable future. Admittedly, that projection is plus or minus 4 billion. But this range highlights another key point: Population projections get more uncertain the further into the future they extend. Predicting the population level five years from now is far more reliable than 50 years from now—and beyond 100 years, forget about it. Most population scientists avoid making such long-term projections, for the simple reason that they are usually wrong. That's because fertility and mortality rates change over time in unpredictable ways. The U.S. population size is also not declining. Currently, despite fertility below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, there are still more births than deaths. The U.S. population is expected to grow by 22.6 million by 2050 and by 27.5 million by 2100, with immigration playing an important role. Will low fertility cause an economic crisis? A common rationale for concern about low fertility is that it leads to a host of economic and labor market problems. Specifically, pronatalists argue that there will be too few workers to sustain the economy and too many older people for those workers to support. However, that is not necessarily true—and even if it were, increasing birth rates wouldn't fix the problem. As fertility rates fall, the age structure of the population shifts. But a higher proportion of older adults does not necessarily mean the proportion of workers to nonworkers falls. For one thing, the proportion of children under age 18 in the population also declines, so the number of working-age adults—usually defined as ages 18 to 64—often changes relatively little. And as older adults stay healthier and more active, a growing number of them are contributing to the economy. Labor force participation among Americans ages 65 to 74 increased from 21.4% in 2003 to 26.9% in 2023 — and is expected to increase to 30.4% by 2033. Modest changes in the average age of retirement or in how Social Security is funded would further reduce strains on support programs for older adults. What's more, pronatalists' core argument that a higher birth rate would increase the size of the labor force overlooks some short-term consequences. More babies means more dependents, at least until those children become old enough to enter the labor force. Children not only require expensive services such as education, but also reduce labor force participation, particularly for women. As fertility rates have fallen, women's labor force participation rates have risen dramatically —from 34% in 1950 to 58% in 2024. Pronatalist policies that discourage women's employment are at odds with concerns about a diminishing number of workers. Research shows that economic policies and labor market conditions, not demographic age structures, play the most important role in determining economic growth in advanced economies. And with rapidly changing technologies like automation and artificial intelligence, it is unclear what demand there will be for workers in the future. Moreover, immigration is a powerful—and immediate—tool for addressing labor market needs and concerns over the proportion of workers. Overall, there's no evidence for Elon Musk's assertion that 'humanity is dying.' While the changes in population structure that accompany low birth rates are real, in our view the impact of these changes has been dramatically overstated. Strong investments in education and sensible economic policies can help countries successfully adapt to a new demographic reality.

Most support Trump immigration goal, but say approach goes too far: Survey
Most support Trump immigration goal, but say approach goes too far: Survey

The Hill

time6 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Most support Trump immigration goal, but say approach goes too far: Survey

Most Americans support President Trump's immigration goals, but they argued that the administration's approach is overreaching, according to a new survey. The Wall Street Journal poll, released Monday, found that 62 percent of U.S. adults said they are supportive of the administration's deportation of migrants who are in the country illegally. Despite the support, many respondents are against two approaches that administration has taken to facilitate Trump's robust crackdown on illegal immigration: Mass deportation without due process and deporting immigrants to jails in countries other than where they are from. Both approaches received 58 percent opposition, the survey shows. Close to 60 percent of independents said the White House has gone too far in deporting migrants without granting them a hearing or sending them back without evidence that they are in the U.S. illegally. GOP voters are strongly supportive of Trump's immigration policies, with 90 percent of them being fully on board. Just 11 percent of Republicans said the administration has gone too far, according to the poll. Around 75 percent of GOP voters also signaled support for deporting migrants without giving them a chance to appear before a judge or sit for a court hearing. Amongst all Americans, the support is at around 39 percent, the poll revealed. Nearly two-thirds of Americans, 62 percent, said the administration is deporting as many people as possible, regardless of whether they have a criminal background. Around a third of U.S. adults said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is mainly deporting migrants who are in the country illegally and have a criminal record, according to the poll. Earlier this month, a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found that 60 percent of voters support Trump's push to close the border. The survey showed that 75 percent of Americans are supportive of the administration's push to deport migrants who are in the country without authorization. The Wall Street Journal survey was conducted from July 16-20 among 1,500 registered voters. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store