Putting Tribal Sovereignty
WASHINGTON – As Congress reviews the President’s proposed FY27 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget, one line item that deserves particular attention in Indian Country is the proposed 83% reduction to State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG). While the President’s proposal is non-binding, the potential impacts of such a large cut would be harmful for Tribal Nations, whose treaty-protected foods, waters, and lifeways remain closely tied to environmental health.
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) represent the primary funding source through which EPA supports Tribal environmental programs. Cuts to the program would have significant impacts on access to and protection of healthy, culturally significant foods, such as fish and wild rice (manoomin). These food sources are already under strain from pollution and water quality degradation. Without adequate STAG support, Tribes may lack the funding and technical staff capacity to protect these foods, defend environmental standards, or challenge upstream activities that threaten their lands. The result is a regulatory gap where traditional and culturally significant foods become increasingly vulnerable.
These grants help Tribes develop and enforce water quality standards, monitor pollution, respond to contamination, and participate in federal permitting processes. For Tribes, this work is not optional. It is directly linked to the continued meaningful exercise of negotiated treaty rights and the federal government’s trust responsibility to all Tribes. Many treaties explicitly contain the right to fish, hunt, gather, and access clean waters on ancestral lands. When water or ecosystems are degraded, those treaty rights are effectively undermined, even if they remain legally intact.
During a budget hearing with the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin highlighted discrete investments and enforcement actions that the agency has taken benefiting Tribes and farmers, but many members of the Subcommittee argued these do not compensate for deep, systemic funding reductions.
The President’s Budget Request is a non-binding proposal, and as Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-ID) pointed out, Congress “routinely rejects or reverses” proposed cuts to Tribal and state assistance programs. While it is likely that the House Appropriations Committee will not cut STAG by the proposed amount, the repeated proposals to slash STAG funding create uncertainty for Tribes that threaten to disrupt long-term cultural food restoration and environmental protection efforts in Indian Country.
STAG funding protects Tribal foods, fisheries, and waters—and more broadly, it upholds the federal trust responsibility, effectuates the exercise of treaty rights, and supports Tribal agricultural economies. As the appropriations process moves forward, we will continue to monitor the status of STAG funding and assess any changes impacting Tribal Nations or the United States’ longstanding commitments to Tribal Nations through trust obligations and treaties.