top of page
Search

Breaking the Cycle of Dependency a Decade at a Time

  • 4 days ago
  • 7 min read
Indian Self-Determination and Economic Self-Reliance
Indian Self-Determination and Economic Self-Reliance

by Shawn White Wolf


President Nixon’s Indian self-determination policy was one of the most important federal Indian policy turns of the 20th century. And here’s the plain truth: Nixon, of all presidents, helped move federal Indian policy away from **“Washington knows best”** and toward **“tribes should govern themselves.”** That did not fix everything. Not by a long shot. But it changed the operating system.


Nixon’s intention: self-government without abandonment


In his July 8, 1970 Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs, Nixon rejected the old federal pattern of forced assimilation, termination, and paternal control. His central idea was that American Indians should gain **more control over their governments, schools, programs, land, money, and future** without losing federal treaty responsibilities and support.


That distinction matters. Nixon was not saying, “You’re on your own.” He was saying tribes should become independent of federal **control**, not cut off from federal **concern and support**. In his words, the policy goal was to strengthen Indian autonomy without threatening tribal community, and to make clear that Indians could assume control of their own lives without being involuntarily separated from their tribes. ([American Presidency Project][1])


That was a direct break from the **termination era** of the 1950s, when federal policy aimed to end the federal-tribal relationship for selected tribes, remove trust protections, and push assimilation. The National Archives explains that termination ended federal recognition, federal aid and services, and trust status protections for affected tribes and reservations. ([National Archives][2])


So Nixon’s intention, in practical terms, was this:


**Tribes should run tribal affairs. The federal government should honor its obligations. Indian people should build economies from their own decisions, not from federal micromanagement.**


That is the heart of “self-determination and economic self-reliance.”


What it meant to American Indians then


At the time, this was more than a policy memo. It was a political rescue line.


For decades, federal Indian policy had swung from one bad theory to another: allotment, assimilation, boarding schools, reorganization, termination, relocation. The common thread was that Washington usually decided what was “good” for Indians. Nixon’s 1970 message helped legitimize the opposite: **Indian people and tribal governments should decide for themselves.**


The National Library of Medicine’s Native Voices timeline summarizes the shift well: Nixon denounced termination and announced a policy where “the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions.” ([National Library of Medicine][3])


That meant tribes could push for control over:


* schools and education programs;

* health services;

* housing programs;

* natural resources;

* tribal courts and law enforcement;

* economic development;

* federal contracts and program administration.


This became law in a major way through the **Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975**, which allowed tribes to contract with the federal government to administer programs that had previously been run for them by federal agencies. The Bureau of Indian Affairs describes the law as giving tribes greater autonomy and the opportunity to assume responsibility for programs and services administered on their behalf. ([Indian Affairs][4])


In common-sense language: tribes could begin moving from being managed like wards to operating like governments.


What it means now


Today, Nixon’s policy still matters because nearly every serious conversation about tribal sovereignty, tribal enterprise, Native entrepreneurship, and federal contracting lives under the roof he helped raise.


Modern self-determination means tribes are not merely cultural communities. They are governments, employers, regulators, land managers, business owners, lenders, school operators, health providers, and political actors. The law now expressly recognizes tribal self-government and supports tribal sovereignty and self-determination. ([U.S. Code][5])


But here’s the rub: self-determination without capital is like handing someone truck keys with no gas in the tank. You can call it freedom, but it will not move very far.


That is why economic self-reliance became the hard part. Tribes needed legal authority, but they also needed financing, infrastructure, roads, broadband, workforce training, business codes, courts, land-use systems, and access to markets. Nixon’s policy opened the door. Walking through that door has taken 50-plus years of tribal work.


How this changed Indian small business over the past 100 years


1. The allotment era damaged the business foundation


Over the last 100 years, Indian small business has been shaped by land policy as much as by business policy. The earlier **Dawes Act of 1887** broke up communally held reservation lands into individual allotments. The National Archives explains that the law authorized the President to divide reservation land held in common by tribal members into individual parcels. ([National Archives][6])


That policy damaged the land base needed for agriculture, ranching, timber, trade, and local business development. Fractionated land ownership, loss of land to non-Indians, and federal restrictions made it hard to use land as collateral or build intergenerational wealth. That problem still dogs Indian Country today. A small business needs capital, and land is usually the old-fashioned backbone of capital. When land title is tangled, business gets tangled too.


2. The Indian Reorganization Act began rebuilding tribal government, but not full economic power


The **Indian Reorganization Act of 1934** moved away from allotment and encouraged tribal governments. The National Archives notes that the IRA recognized tribal governments, encouraged U.S.-style constitutions and councils, set aside funds for Indian education, and created Indian hiring preference in the BIA. ([National Archives][7])


That helped rebuild governing structures, but it did not fully free Indian economies. Many tribes still faced federal oversight, limited private investment, poor infrastructure, and heavy dependence on BIA-controlled systems.


So, from the 1930s through the 1960s, Indian small business existed, but it often operated in spite of federal policy, not because of it.


3. Termination and relocation disrupted tribal economies


The 1950s termination era was a body blow. It removed recognition and protections from affected tribes and pushed many Native people toward cities under relocation programs. Termination was promoted as “freedom,” but in practice it often meant loss of services, loss of land protections, jurisdictional confusion, and economic instability. ([National Archives][2])


For small business, that meant weaker tribal markets, less stable governance, and fewer community institutions. You cannot build a strong Native business ecosystem while federal policy is trying to dissolve the political and land base underneath it. That dog won’t hunt.


4. Nixon’s self-determination policy changed the business mindset


Nixon’s policy changed the question.


Before self-determination, the question was often: **What will the federal government allow Indians to do?**


After self-determination, the better question became: **What can tribes build for themselves if they control their own programs, resources, and institutions?**


That shift affected small business in several ways:


First, tribes gained more power to run federally funded programs locally. That created administrative jobs, contracting opportunities, procurement systems, and local professional experience.


Second, tribal governments became stronger economic anchors. A functioning tribal government can pass business laws, create licensing systems, operate courts, build infrastructure, and support entrepreneurs.


Third, tribal enterprises grew. Some were government-owned businesses; others supported private Indian-owned businesses through jobs, purchasing, training, and local demand.


Fourth, Native entrepreneurs gained a stronger political argument: business development was not charity. It was part of sovereignty.


5. The 1970s added financing tools


The **Indian Financing Act of 1974** was part of this same era of economic self-reliance. The GAO describes it as intended to stimulate reservation economic development by increasing funds available for starting and expanding business enterprises. ([GAO][8])


The U.S. Code states the policy was to provide capital to help develop Indian resources so Indians could exercise responsibility over those resources and achieve a standard of living from their own productive efforts comparable to neighboring non-Indian communities. ([U.S. Code][9])


That language is important. It shows the federal government was beginning to recognize that sovereignty needed an economic engine.


6. Later federal law connected tribal sovereignty to Native business ownership


Over time, federal Indian business policy became more explicit. The Native American Business Development, Trade Promotion, and Tourism Act declares purposes including promoting private investment in tribal economies, long-range economic growth, intertribal and international trade, improved productivity, and economic self-sufficiency for tribes and Indian-owned businesses. ([U.S. Code][10])


That is the modern version of Nixon’s principle: not just tribal survival, but tribal and Native economic production.


7. Today, Native-owned business is real — but still underbuilt


Native-owned business has grown substantially, though the numbers vary depending on whether you count only employer firms or all firms, including non-employer businesses.


The Census Bureau reported that in 2021 there were an estimated **48,582 American Indian and Alaska Native-owned employer businesses**, with **$54.4 billion in receipts**, **307,933 employees**, and about **$12.9 billion in annual payroll**. ([Census.gov][11])


The SBA Office of Advocacy reported in 2024 that Native Americans owned **over 400,000 firms**, employing nearly **300,000 workers**, and represented about **1.2% of U.S. firms** in 2021. ([Office of Advocacy][12])


Those numbers show progress, but also the gap. Native entrepreneurship is alive and growing, but it still faces old barriers: access to capital, reservation infrastructure, land title issues, distance from markets, limited broadband in some areas, and federal program complexity.


The big meaning: sovereignty became economic


The best way to understand Nixon’s policy is this:


**Self-determination turned sovereignty from a legal argument into an operating model.**


Before Nixon, too much federal Indian policy treated tribes as problems to be managed. After Nixon, policy increasingly treated tribes as governments capable of managing programs, resources, and economies. That helped create the legal and political environment for Native entrepreneurs, tribal corporations, Native contractors, tourism businesses, agricultural enterprises, arts businesses, energy projects, professional services, and modern digital businesses.


But we should not romanticize it. Federal self-determination did not magically produce economic self-reliance. It created permission, structure, and leverage. Indian people still had to do the building.


Then and now, in one sentence


Then, Nixon’s policy meant: **stop terminating tribes and start trusting Indian people to govern themselves.**


Now, it means: **tribal sovereignty must include business ownership, capital access, local control, and Native-led economic development — or self-determination remains only half-finished.**


My opinion: Nixon’s Indian policy was one of the rare cases where Washington got the direction right. But the work is still unfinished because self-determination without serious economic tools becomes a fine speech with weak legs. The next chapter has to be Native-owned small business, tribal procurement, AI and digital enterprise, energy, land-based industries, tourism, agriculture, and local capital controlled by Native communities themselves. That is where the old promise finally becomes something you can take to the bank.


[1]: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-congress-indian-affairs "Special Message to the Congress on Indian Affairs."

[2]: https://www.archives.gov/research/native-americans/bia/termination "Bureau of Indian Affairs Records: Termination"

[3]: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/522.html "1970: Termination era ends - Tribes - Native Voices - NIH"

[7]: https://www.archives.gov/research/native-americans/indian-reorganization-act "Records Relating to the Indian Reorganization Act ..."

[8]: https://www.gao.gov/products/ced-78-50 "More Federal Efforts Needed To Improve Indians' Standard ..."

Comments

Commenting on this post isn't available anymore. Contact the site owner for more info.
bottom of page