15-05-2025
A new era of political disenfranchisement: soft disenrollment?
Phoenix JohnsonTłingit & Haida In the heart of Southeast Alaska, a quiet storm brews within the Alaskan Native tribal nation of the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes, exposing fractures in governance, identity, and power that mirror some of the most dangerous political undercurrents shaping national policy today under Trump. This is not just a story of internal conflict, it's a warning for Indian tribe's executive council quietly rammed through a controversial constitutional rewrite while appearing to sideline valid parliamentary motions that gutted delegations. In the 90th annual tribal assembly that took place April 16-18, an already reduced Seattle delegation of 25 was the sacrificial symbol in a larger campaign of political reaping, sweeping in Anchorage and San Francisco delegations as additional victims. Seattle's initial reduction from 32 seats to represent its 9,000 tribal citizens — despite 1:200 apportionment per the constitution prior to disenfranchisement efforts — drew a sharp comparison to the 1787 U.S. Constitutional Convention that counted Black Americans as three-fifths a person. Now only 4 seats remain in Seattle and other urban delegations with the exception of the Juneau based faction, now disproportionately claiming 20 seats, framing constitutional change as a matter of some territorial leaders and sympathizers dismiss disenfranchisement concerns with comments like, "It's not like you're being disenrolled," it reflects a misunderstanding of a subtle yet equally damaging process of "soft disenrollment" for urban descendants and their children who were displaced from Alaska through federal relocation programs, the boarding school era, Sealaska Corporation funded educational incentives, or the long pursuit of survival. Delegates subject to the cut exclaimed it 'felt like the Termination Era.' While the changes were framed as budgetary, the implications are far deeper: a community who has traversed the Pacific Northwest pre-dating colonial borders was subjected to political erasure. For a people without reservation lands, the question of 'Who counts? Who is Native enough?' tribes have been publicly scrutinized for their own mass disenrollments or erosion of civil rights, often targeting the urban-dwelling population majority, while maintaining official enrollment numbers to safeguard federal funding. Based in a red state, the tribe's leadership has increasingly abandoned democratic transparency and subtly shifted toward policies that echo conservative authoritarianism. The recent assertion in local media by the tribe's president that 'DEI is over,' alongside procedural irregularities and concentrated decision-making, reflects a broader pattern of internal colonization. This is particularly insidious within Indigenous contexts because it turns the tools of survival such as self-governance, cultural identity, and sovereignty, against our own. Under the guise of efficiency, delegates drew quick parallels to being 'DOGE'd' and asked if this was not just a response to a potential threat of the current administration as claimed but, rather, an exploited opportunity. The troubling pattern of tribal leaders aligning with conservative political ideologies emerging across Indian Country leaves delegates from Anchorage voicing concern about an undercurrent mentality of viewing urban Indians as 'crazy liberals.'
Within this internal struggle is the rising bias against urban constituents; once unchecked, now codified into law. Reports are mounting of key figures openly expressing disdain for Seattle-based citizens. This raises a critical concern for how fundamental services such as court rulings, placement of children under the Indian Child Welfare Act, funding essential needs, and access to cultural education have been impacted to date — setting a dangerous precedent for the future of families. Self-reliance has long guided Indigenous communities, exemplified by Seattle's delegation founding a nonprofit and building pathways to secure space through grants. Quizzically, the tribe opened a nearby office around the same time, co-occurring with disenfranchisement efforts. The glaring absence of full services not afforded to urban citizens with now diminished political power raises a critical question: is this office truly a hub for support, or is it a symbolic outpost? As delegation-led cultural and social events face uncertainty, a deeper fear stirs rooted in the Northwest Coast's own history of internal subjugation of their own people through slavery. If this trend continues, it could lead to a reality where people are expected to provide services without holding any power. Like our non-recognized relatives, we're made caretakers without the resources, representation, or the recognition our status warrants in this precarious position. It calls forth the conversations surrounding DEI, also known as diversity, equity and inclusion. Government-to-government tribal relationships with the U.S. are based on political sovereignty as distinct legal and political entities rooted in treaties, land, lineage, and community — unlike DEI frameworks focused on addressing racial inequities in education, healthcare, and economic opportunities. One could assess DEI as a human-centered methodology that is more closely aligned with the original indigenous value systems that we should be naturally implementing within our protected class of sovereignty. Navigating both sovereign governance and systemic oppression cultivates an unparalleled strength and adaptability, positioning some of us as capable candidates for alternative, just solutions – a foundational argument for the inclusion and reverence of more Indigenous leadership to steer the United States to higher grounds. Divisions within Indian Country prevent us from seizing critical opportunities to unite and advocate at a time it's needed Tlingit and Haida tribe's political divisions are a microcosm of the broader challenges facing Indian Country. These challenges are not only about who gets to govern but also about how identity, legitimacy, and power are defined. The internal struggle over the representation of urban versus rural populations, inculcation of Christianity in official business, and rejection of DEI is a reflection of deeper systemic issues that have long plagued Indigenous communities. We must all strive to create governance systems that reflect diverse identities, shared history of resilience, and collective desire for self-determination for all tribal members, regardless of where they live or how they express their Indigenous identity. This is about preserving our integrity, our sovereignty, and our Johnson is a political educator, systems strategist, and is serving as an elected official in both the Democratic Party and the Tlingit & Haida tribe. Her work centers on analysis, advocacy, and education to challenge injustice and build accountable governance across diverse communities, with expertise in diversity, equity and inclusion, indigenous governance, and systemic reform, focusing on power structures. She is also a US Air Force veteran and mother.
This opinion-editorial essay does not reflect the views of ICT; voices in our opinion section represent a variety of reader points of view. If you would like to contribute an essay to ICT, email opinion@ information about our guidelines: .
