The Illusion of Inclusion: How Political Proclamations Erase Tribal Sovereignty

Introduction and Context

Native American Heritage Month serves as an annual reminder of the complex and often fraught relationship between the United States government and Indigenous nations. This November, two of America’s most politically divergent figures—California Governor Gavin Newsom and former President Donald Trump—issued statements recognizing this heritage month. While their tones differed significantly, both proclamations shared a critical flaw: they celebrated Native American endurance while completely ignoring the foundational principle of tribal sovereignty.

Governor Newsom’s proclamation employed language of empathy and inclusion, acknowledging historical injustices such as forced relocations, boarding schools, and assimilation policies. He praised cultural revival and persistence. Meanwhile, President Trump’s message framed Native contributions within a patriotic narrative of national unity, thanking Indigenous peoples for strengthening “our Nation’s greatness” as America approaches its 250th anniversary. Despite their rhetorical differences, both statements reduced Native nations to participants in the American project rather than recognizing them as sovereign governments predating the United States itself.

This erasure is not merely semantic; it reflects a persistent failure in American political discourse to engage with tribal nations as equal governmental partners. The article highlights how this oversight has practical consequences across California, where tribal governments manage forests, restore rivers, operate education and health systems, and lead climate adaptation projects that benefit all residents. When sovereignty is ignored, these partnerships are treated as charitable collaborations rather than government-to-government obligations.

The Historical and Constitutional Context

The United States Constitution explicitly recognizes tribal nations as distinct political entities through the Commerce Clause and treaty relationships. Historically, treaties between the federal government and tribal nations were nation-to-nation agreements that established boundaries, rights, and responsibilities. However, centuries of broken treaties, forced assimilation, and legal challenges have eroded this recognition in practice.

California’s history with its Indigenous peoples is particularly brutal. The state’s original Native nations faced genocide, land theft, and systematic cultural destruction during the Gold Rush and subsequent settlement periods. Today, California has more federally recognized tribes than any other state, yet many remain unrecognized, limiting their access to resources and legal standing. The state’s water rights, land management, and environmental policies continue to impact tribal nations without adequate consultation or consent.

Both Newsom and Trump’s proclamations exist within this historical context yet fail to address it meaningfully. By focusing on heritage rather than sovereignty, they perpetuate the myth that Native peoples are historical artifacts rather than contemporary political actors.

The Danger of Rhetorical Erasure

Political statements shape public understanding, and when leaders talk about “heritage” without mentioning “sovereignty,” they encourage citizens to view Native peoples as part of the past rather than as governments exercising authority today. This misunderstanding has tangible consequences. For example, when tribal nations lead forest management efforts to prevent wildfires—a critical issue in California—their expertise is often treated as supplementary rather than foundational. Similarly, tribal water rights are frequently contested in courts despite being established through treaties and historical use.

Governor Newsom’s proclamation, while more progressive than most, merges California’s original Native nations with those relocated from other states, blurring the critical distinction that California’s tribes are not guests the state has “embraced” but sovereign governments on their own land. This framing allows California to appear enlightened without addressing its continuing responsibilities toward unrecognized tribes, land rights, and water allocations.

President Trump’s approach was simpler but equally damaging: by folding Native Americans into a single patriotic narrative, he left no space for self-determination. His statement praised survival while reaffirming U.S. dominance—a familiar pattern of celebrating diversity while denying power.

Toward Meaningful Recognition

If Native American Heritage Month is to have substantive meaning, it must mark a shift from ceremony to accountability. True recognition requires honoring government-to-government relationships, respecting treaty obligations, and engaging tribal nations as equal partners in governance. California and the federal government must move beyond symbolic gestures and address ongoing issues such as:

• Federal recognition for unrecognized tribes
• Land return and co-management agreements
• Water rights settlements
• Protection of sacred sites
• Inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in climate policy

Tribal sovereignty is not a historical relic; it is a living reality that strengthens democracy by diversifying governance and incorporating millennia of ecological and cultural wisdom. When we ignore this sovereignty, we not only harm tribal nations but also undermine our own democratic principles of pluralism and self-governance.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

The parallel proclamations from Newsom and Trump reveal a bipartisan failure to engage with tribal sovereignty seriously. This failure is not merely rhetorical; it affects policy outcomes, resource allocation, and the very fabric of American democracy. As we reflect on Native American Heritage Month, we must demand that our leaders move beyond symbolic inclusion and toward substantive partnership.

Recognition without power is not reconciliation; it is continuity by another name. True honor requires action: ratifying treaties, returning lands, respecting jurisdiction, and listening to Indigenous leadership on issues from environmental management to education reform. Our democracy is strengthened when we recognize all governing authorities within our borders—especially those who were here long before the United States existed.

Let this heritage month be the last where political leaders offer empty words instead of meaningful engagement. The future of our shared governance depends on it.