Native Voice One

Native American Radio Network

ICT next / Trahant Reports

By

A year ago Indian Country Today was dark. And folks were wondering if the “paper” would ever revive.

This is Trahant Reports.

But the digital daily has new life — and it’s about to launch a new innovation. Indian Country Today is now a mobile-focused publication and it’s building a significant readership, roughly 400,000 viewers each month.

And even better: Indian Country Today’s readership is young. Our number one demographic by age is 25 to 34; just about 25 percent of our readership. And our readership is more female than male — 57 percent to 43 percent.

Indian Country Today is a Limited Liability Company, owned by the National Congress of American Indians. The editorial process for Indian Country Today is independent of that ownership. The digital news organzation is designed as public media; so there are no subscriptions and all of the content can be freely used by other publications, especially tribal media.

We have already set the bar high with our election coverage — our reporters wrote tens-of- thousands of words and produced Indian Country’s first ever national broadcast with live election returns.

A record number of Native Americans candidates for offices ranging from state legislatures to governor. A record number of Native American women, including millennial women, ran and won. And the first two Native American women elected to the Congress. As in ever.

But not many would have known about any of this without Indian Country Today. Our research was cited by The New York Times, National Public Radio, the Economist, and dozens of other news organizations. In a record year, this was the go-to place to get the information because it had never been collected before.

That’s all a prelude.

Indian Country Today is about to expand and will soon open a newsroom on the campus of Arizona State University in downtown Phoenix.

Our audacious goal is to create a national weekly TV news program (in addition to our digital platform).

I think a lot about the perception of American Indians and Alaska Natives in the media. We all know about the stereotypes and narratives that come out of Hollywood or Washington, but a news program, one that reaches millions of people via public television, has the chance to change the story, showing the beauty, intelligence and aspirations of Native people.

Study after study says the same thing: one of Indian Country’s greatest challenges is our invisibility. Sure, some people can tell you about a conflict. Or a casino. But ask about our success stories or our heroes — and you will get a blank stare.

We need to change the story. We need to make sure that more voices — voices from Indian Country — are included in the nation’s discourse.

I am Mark Trahant.

Mueller Report

By

The two-year investigation of the president by the special counsel has been completed and the report finally released to the public. Well, at least a redacted version. We know that the President Donald J. Trump lied to the country. He lied to Congress. (And he likely would have lied to the special counsel, had he answered the questions.)

This is Trahant Reports.

When a “source” tells a reporter something we do our best to corroborate that information elsewhere. Special Counsel Robert Mueller did that, too. Only he did one better: His witnesses talked under oath. In other words: If they lied, and were caught, they would go to jail. So witness after witness told the special counsel a different story than the one the public was told.

President Trump says the report clears him. He tweeted last week: “As I have been saying all along, NO COLLUSION – NO OBSTRUCTION!”

But the report says something else. “If we had confidence” that a thorough investigation of the facts, “that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”

The president called this investigation an outrage and said no other president should be subject to such acts. But the report resulted in dozens of criminal prosecutions and convictions and some 14 criminal pending cases.

Now the problem in Congress is that Republicans and Democrats are reading the report quite differently. House Democrats say they will subpoena the entire document and will hold public hearings. On CNN, the House’s majority leader, Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland said impeachment would not be “worthwhile.”  However other Democrats say the Constitution requires Congress to go forward.

Rep. Tom Cole, a Chickasaw, R-Oklahoma, said the report “doesn’t change the prior conclusions of the 22-month investigation. Redacted or not,” he said, “the report confirms that there was no collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump’s campaign, nor was there sufficient evidence to justify indictment for obstruction of justice.” He said the thorough investigation is over. The results are clearly in. Now it’s time for Democrats to also conclude with their politically motivated investigations and their dubious charges against the president.

So, given the divide between Democrats and Republicans, impeachment is unlikely.

But what about official acts of lying?

There is now documented evidence that the White House press office, including the current occupant, Sarah Sanders, made up stories to protect the president. The report documents at least seven instances of Trump’s press secretaries lying in their official capacity.

Sanders, the president, some government officials, and many Trump supporters, are quick to chant “fake news” when they disagree with the reporting in any news story. The fake news is what the White House was creating.

I am Mark Trahant.

Passing on a Senate race while laying groundwork for the long game

By

The next national election is still more than a year away. But this is the time when many candidates make the decision to run for president, for the U.S. Senate, and for Congress.

This is Trahant Reports.

The next national election is still more than a year away. But this is the time when many candidates make the decision to run for president, for the U.S. Senate, and for Congress.

This is Trahant Reports.

In this season Indian Country’s first big political news is that Deb Haaland is passed on a Senate race.

She told supporters Wednesday via Twitter: Since Sen. Tom Udall’s “announcement that he would not run for re-election, I have been overwhelmed by the daily encouragement of family, friends, supporters, and New Mexicans across the state to run for the open seat.”

She said “after much thought and conversation, I have decided to continue serving the people of New Mexico’s First Congressional district, fighting for a Green New Deal, protecting our public lands, pushing for Medicare for All, and reforming housing for our military personnel.”

An open Senate seat is a rare opportunity. And a Native American woman has never been elected to that office.

Yet there are lots of reasons why this decision makes so much sense. Haaland has already shown extraordinary leadership in the House and she is well-regarded by the majority party Democrats. And, by seeking re-election instead of a Senate race, she could be setting out on the path toward House leadership.

Of course Haaland, Laguna Pueblo, and Rep. Sharice Davids, Ho Chunk, are the first two Native American women ever elected to the Congress.

It’s early yet in this election cycle and there are still many routes that could place a Native woman in the Senate. Remember a third of that body will be up for election, including states where there is a significant Native vote such as in Alaska.

There is also an open Senate race in Kansas because of the retirement of Sen. Pat Roberts. Rep. Sharice Davids could opt for a statewide run — a tough climb in such red state — or like Haaland run for re-election.

One interesting tidbit: The second election that is considered the most important one for politicians who want to serve enough time to get something done. Once a candidate wins that race it’s much less likely they will be defeated, in fact, the other party is less likely to even spend money on an attempt. So for Haaland and Davids this election represents that long game.

The Kansas City Star recently profiled Davids and said “while her personal biography is barrier-breaking, Davids’ approach to her first 100 days in office has been exceedingly traditional, marked by deference to leadership and studious attention to the details of legislating … Davids has quietly been laying the groundwork for a longer game.”

And it’s that long game that makes a difference.

 

I am Mark Trahant.

Native members play key roles in House debate over Violence Against Women Act

By

What difference does it make to have Native Americans in the Congress? The debate last week about the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act provided a textbook answer.

This is Trahant Reports

I can’t think of another issue where Indian Country was more front and center than the debate in the House over the Violence against Women Act.

Rep. Sharice Davids, Ho Chunk, a Democrat from Kansas, sat in the speaker’s and presided over the debate. Rep. Deb Haaland, Laguna Pueblo,a Democrat from New Mexico, introduced amendments that could make the law more effective in Indian Country, and Rep. Tom Cole, Chickasaw, a Republican from Oklahoma, made the bipartisan case telling Republicans about the big picture significance of the bill while urging Democrats to find a compromise that will ensure the bill becomes law. The fourth tribal citizen in Congress: Rep. Markwayne Mullin, Cherokee Nation, also a Republican from Oklahoma, continued his long opposition to this legislation.

The House passed this expanded version of the Violence Against Women Act, including the renewal of the tribal provisions, as well as new measures to improve the collection of data and provide resources to American Indians and Alaska Natives living in cities. And amendment by Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, would give five Alaska Native villages new authority to prosecute sexual crimes in a pilot program.

Congress voted 263 to 158 in favor of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019. Thirty-three Republicans joined the majority Democrats in favor, but the legislative path through the Senate is complicated by the sharp divisions.

Haaland said: “I belong to a community where women are 10 times more likely to be murdered than the national average – and the silent crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women is linked to violence.”

The legislation now moves to the Senate where many of the House priorities could come to an end. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell decides which legislation will even come up for a vote in that body. While there is bipartisan support for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, there is also significant opposition because of the expansion of transgender rights and a provision that strips gun rights from people convicted of misdemeanor crimes for abuse or stalking. The law currently applies only to felony convictions.

That is one of the provisions that some Republicans in the Senate hope to remove. Leader McConnell has called for a clean extension of the act without the new provisions. And Senators Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, and Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, are working on another version of the legislation.

I am Mark Trahant.

Trump’s war on healthcare

By

President Donald J. Trump told the world he has been exonerated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and the whole probe was a waste of time. (And, of course, the news media is to blame as the official enemy of the people.)

Since that story is old, “no collusion,” the White House has started a new one, an all out attack on the Affordable Care Act, including the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. And the chaos is back.

This is Trahant Reports.

Let’s start at the beginning. The Mueller Report was delivered to the Department of Justice under an official protocol. The president after reading a summary tweeted: “Total EXONERATION.”

The issue is now defined so when parts, or even all, of the Mueller report surfaces, it will be the attorney general’s interpretation, not the actual report itself, that reflects the story. Even that letter goes beyond the presidential tweet. Attorney General William Barr wrote … “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

But that was enough for the president and he moved on to new issues.

The Justice Department wrote a letter to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said it would file a brief supporting a district court decision to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act. U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that since Congress eliminated the individual insurance mandate penalty, the entire law is invalid.

No matter how the appeals court rules, this matter is likely to be before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Striking down the Affordable Care Act would have immediate impact for more than 20 million Americans who are covered by insurance through Medicaid Expansion or insurance exchanges. The law includes the Indian Health Care Improvement Act — and that would be included in a rollback of the legislation.

It’s hard to understate the significance of a judicial repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Medicaid, for example, is now a significant source of funding for the Indian Health system especially for facilities managed by tribes and non-profit organizations. More than one out of every four Native patients in the Indian health system are covered by Medicaid.

A study in 2017 by the Kaiser Family Foundation said Medicaid provisions in the Affordable Care Act Medicaid led to an increase in coverage coverage gains among American Indians and Alaska Natives and and increased revenue to IHS- and tribally-operated facilities.

In addition to the revenue, health systems have modeled the procedures and funding on the 2010 law. If it were struck down there would be nothing to replace the revenue or the health care procedures until Congress enacted a new one.

That would mean a law that is as acceptable to the Republicans in the Senate, the Democrats in the House, and President Trump.

An impossible hurdle.

I am Mark Trahant.

The electoral college

By

Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren called for getting rid of the Electoral College.

What would that mean for American Indian and Alaska Native representation?

This is Trahant Reports.

American Indians and Alaska Natives are about two percent of the population. Yet in Congress, even after historic wins, there are only four Native Americans in Congress, a total of two-thirds of one percent.

And it’s not just the Electoral College. It’s the Senate. It’s the districting system in the U.S. House of Representatives (and for that matter, in most state legislatures). The fact, yes, the fact is that real structure of this democracy does not ensure a reflection of the country.

A vote from Indian Country, at least measured by representation, equals only one-third of one percent. And that is even less so in the Electoral College  because the ballots are cast state by state and are not awarded by congressional district (except in Maine and Nebraska).

Then, as bad as the Electoral College is, the Senate is worse. A voter in Wyoming has 70 more say about the country’s future than a citizen of California. When you think of the diversity in a country of 325 million, what kind of democracy allows states that are nearly all white to have far more power than those states that are more reflective of the entire country?

The Warren debate about the Electoral College so far has been an either, or discussion.

Either presidents are elected by Electoral College or by popular vote.

But the rest of the world already uses other systems of governance, Recently many have been struck by the leadership of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern as she and her government responded to an act of terror. But it’s also worth considering the structure of her government.

Maori have guaranteed representation in Parliament. That started in 1867.  In addition, that country switched from a district based system like the U.S. House to one that has mixed member proportional representation. This increases the number of broad representation in Parliament.

Since the mixed member proportional system began “Maori representation in Parliament has remained at least proportional to the Maori share of the national population,” writes Dominic O’Sullivan, an associate professor at Charles Sturt University in Australia. “The Maori Party advocated for greater tribal authority while in government. Maori voters will expect that advocacy to continue … in short, Maori people and policy influence New Zealand politics in ways that First Nations in Canada do not.” And it’s the same could be said in the United States.

What would proportional representation look like? Amber Ebarb of the National Congress of American Indians has run the numbers. It would mean two Native Americans in the Senate and seven members in the U.S. House of Representatives.

 

That is a representative democracy.

 

I am Mark Trahant.

Good, Bad & The Ugly

By

The big picture: The White House budget has no chance of becoming law, but the federal government is on track for more chaos.

This is Trahant Reports.

President Donald J. Trump has outlined his budget for fiscal year 2020. It would slash funding for virtually every domestic program, add money to the military budget, and of course, build a border wall. The document is titled: “A Budget for a Better America: Promises Kept. Taxpayers First.” The president’s budget would “save” nearly $2.7 trillion, more budget cuts proposed than any administration in history.

Only Congress, not the president, decides how money will be spent in the federal system. At best the administration writes a budget that initiates a conversation. The real work of the budget occurs in the Senate and House appropriations committees.

Not that presidential budgets are totally worthless. As the White House said a year ago the budget is a “messaging document.” Last year’s budget, for example, assumed Congress would repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with a block grant. As I wrote a year ago: “The votes are not there for that. It’s fantasy.”

And that was when Republicans controlled Congress. The House is now under Democratic Party control turning the dial even more toward government.

So it’s not useful to get excited about the numbers in this White House budget (probably any presidential budget for that matter) and instead focus on the larger issues.

One big picture issue is that Congress and the president must reach a deal on spending under the Budget Control Act or there will be budget cuts of more than 11 percent on the existing budget figures (Defense and Domestic programs are cut about the same under the sequester … an idea to make it easier to reach a deal).

This is the economic version of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. A three-way gunfight, or a truel. The players: Those who hate government, especially domestic programs, that also want money for the military. Those who would like to significantly spend less on the military, but spend more on domestic federal programs. And then the President of the United States is a wild card. (At least in the movie the wild card character fought without actually having a loaded gun.)

Congress knows this chaos is expensive and bad management. There might be enough votes around to fix the process, particularly for programs involving American Indians and Alaska Natives. Congress could appropriate funds for key programs, such as those that provide services in Indian Country, at least a year in advance.

This is already happening for many education programs and there is growing support for Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs advance funding from members of both Democrats and Republicans..

Given the increasing budget uncertainty … this might be the year to make it so.

 

I am Mark Trahant.

Oh Canada

By

Indigenous values, the rule of law, and a crisis for the Trudeau government.

This is Trahant Reports.

The chapter about Canada’s Justin Trudeau and the governing Liberal Party new era of reconciliation is over. It’s been replaced by a debate about the rule of law — and Indigenous values.

The story began more than three years ago when Trudeau— as the new prime minister—boasted of a new kind of democratic participation that included First Nations. The new cabinet was representative of gender, region, and included Aboriginal people.

When asked “why?” Trudeau replied, “because it’s 2015.” The chief of the Assembly of Nations even called it a “new era of reconciliation.”

One proof of that relationship was the appointment of Jody Wilson-Raybould, Kwakiutl, as Canada’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

The relationship between the Liberals and First Nations was better than it had been under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, but it’s been far from perfect. First Nations leaders have complained about Indigenous rights being ignored. Several First Nations issued objections to pipelines saying that tribal lands were duly noted and ignored. While the First Nations that supported the development were highlighted by the government. A familiar story, right?

It took another corruption scandal though — one that did not involve First Nations —  to change the story.

Canada’s national newspaper, the Globe and Mail, reported a month ago that the prime minister had pressured Wilson-Raybould to intervene in a case involving SNC-Lavalin so that prosecutors would not pursue the case. The Globe reported that she declined.

This answered the question about why Wilson-Raybould had been demoted from her post as attorney general. A few days after the story broke, Wilson-Raybould resigned from the government. And then nother cabinet member, Jane Philpott, joined her and resigned because of the “serious concerns” raised in the case.

Raybould added Indigenous values into a national conversation.

She told Parliament: “The history of Crown-Indigenous relations in this country includes a history of the rule of law not being respected.”

Wilson-Raybould said she came “from a long line of matriarchs, and I’m a truth teller in accordance with the laws and traditions of our Big House. This is who I am, and this is who I always will be.”

The story is not over. Wilson-Raybould has already said she will run for another term in parliament as a Liberal member from Vancouver-Granville in the coming elections. But if she wins, she may not be welcome in the caucus.

One thing is certain: This will be an interesting election year in Canada. I am Mark Trahant.

The End of Coal

By

Donald J. Trump had a consistent theme during his 2016 election campaign: He dug coal. Coal would create jobs. Coal would launch a new economic bonanza, especially in rural states. And coal would power the United States.

There was a catch: Coal markets have all but collapsed. There are fewer buyers for coal and for even less for coal-powered energy. To be sure coal is not going away, anytime soon. But last year was the lowest consumption of coal in nearly 40 years.

This is Trahant Reports.

Tribes control nearly a third of coal reserves west of the Mississippi. Coal has provided a huge boost to tribal budgets and created high paying jobs for the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, and the Crow Nation. Some 25 tribes have significant coal reserves either with production or with the potential for additional development.

But coal is a dirty fossil fuel. The production of electricity accounts for more 28.4 percent of the greenhouse gases that trap heat and make the planet warmer. More than two-thirds of that electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, and that’s mostly coal.

A report by the Brookings Institute says the decline of the U.S. coal industry is the result of market forces, not a policy or a ‘war on coal.’ And that’s not likely to change. So the better alternative is to come up with strategies to replace those jobs lost by coal.

Last week the operator of the Navajo Generating Station announced that it had reached an impasse in its negotiations with the Navajo Nation to transfer ownership of a coal-fired electricity plant.

There is one fundamental reason for that impasse: liability. Both the Salt River Project partners and the Navajo Nation are keen to limit cleanup costs which could reach hundreds of millions of dollars.

“There’s no path forward on prolonging coal, period,” said Percy Deal, a Navajo, who is now retired and a former Navajo County and tribal official. “There’s no believable business plan you can write when the market signals that something like coal is simply no longer economically viable. Today, our nation should be talking with SRP, but about renewable energy, not coal.”

Most people understand that renewable energy is the future. And there is growing data to back that up.

The economics of coal and other fossil fuels are not getting any stronger and renewable energy continues to get cheaper.

Still, this is a tough moment for the tribe — and there are no easy choices. How does a government help make a huge economic transition to renewable fuels? And, at the same time, how do you preserve really good paying jobs in a brand new industry?

I am Mark Trahant.

Indian Country primary election would raise visibility in presidential campaign

By

Most of the candidates running for president are already on the campaign trail. They’re visiting Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, California and the Deep South.

There is a ogic: Iowa and New Hampshire have always gone first. That’s it, the tyranny of “we have always done it that way.”

But the United States is changing fast and Indian Country is left out of important conversations.

This is Trahant Reports.

The first time I saw a presidential candidate campaign in Indian Country was Jesse Jackson in 1984. He took the time to meet and speak with the Navajo Nation Council as well as campaign events in Window Rock and Shiprock. He did this because it was the right thing to do. But imagine if the Navajo Nation had a primary? What if early in the process, Jackson won those delegates and the conversation about his viability was matched with delegates that included Indian Country?

Presidential campaigns have already changed candidates. As I wrote in The Last Great Battle of the Indian Wars, Washington Sen. Henry Jackson went from being a longtime supporter of termination to a champion for self-determination and a primary sponsor of legislation to make that so. He did this about the same time he ran for president.

George McGovern wasn’t a strident supporter of tribes before he ran for president. But he was sure was after.

Indian Country should have a voice – and a primary that includes tribal voters would be an ideal forum.

Indian Country has an advantage that the United States needs, a young population. This is a perfect moment for education innovation — and that takes resources. The median age in the United States is 37.9 years and getting older with smaller family sizes. Indian Country’s median age is 31.2 years. There are 2.1 million American Indians and Alaska Natives under the age of 24. That is a constituency deserving a voice in picking the next president. (New Hampshire’s population is 1.3 million.)

There is really no reason for a candidate to spend much time on tribal issues in Iowa or New Hampshire. The problem is not the candidates; it’s the process itself. In the small meetings in small states these issues are just not likely to surface.

But that would change if there was an Indian Country primary.

How would this primary work? Every tribe has an election process of some kind. The Democratic and Republican parties could work with the tribes that choose to participate to come up with a voter list (imagine how potent that data would be) and then to manage how the results are calculated.

What a great statement a primary election could be. This would be the America of its own aspirations.

I am Mark Trahant.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use our site, we will assume you have given your consent. Click here to opt-out.