Native Americans, Federal Power, and Broken Obligations

When Government Fails Those It Claims to Protect
For decades, the federal government has positioned itself as the overseer of tribal affairs. With that authority came legal and contractual obligations.

In 2015, after a lawsuit spanning over two decades, the United States agreed to pay nearly $940 million to 645 Native American tribes.
The reason:
Failure to meet federal financial commitments.

The Settlement
According to reports, the settlement stemmed from claims that the federal government failed to properly fund and reimburse contracts involving:

• Housing
• Education
• Law enforcement
• Healthcare
• Infrastructure support programs

The lawsuit, filed in 1990, alleged systematic underpayment between 1994 and 2013.
After years of litigation, the Department of Justice agreed to a historic payout.
Nearly one billion dollars.

The Real Issue: Centralized Control
This is not just a story about compensation. It is a story about structure.
When the federal government assumes control over:

• Funding
• Administration
• Social programs
• Contract management

It centralizes authority.
And when centralized authority fails, the consequences are massive.
Local communities suffer.
Promises are broken.
Dependence deepens.

A Pattern of Bureaucratic Failure
This case illustrates a broader pattern: Large centralized systems:

• Expand their authority
• Increase complexity
• Reduce accountability
• Delay justice

When obligations go unmet, citizens — or, in this case, tribes — must fight for decades to recover what is owed.
The same federal structure that claims to protect often becomes the source of dysfunction.

Treaty Obligations and Constitutional Responsibility
The Constitution recognizes treaties as the supreme law of the land. When the federal government enters into agreements, it is bound to honor them. Failure to do so is not just administrative incompetence. It is a constitutional failure.

The Larger Lesson
The issue is not whether Native American communities deserve support. The issue is whether centralized federal bureaucracy is capable of fulfilling its obligations responsibly.
When power is concentrated in Washington:

• Distance increases
• Accountability weakens
• Bureaucracy grows
• Enforcement slows

The result is delays, litigation, and eventual settlements funded by taxpayers—not by the individuals responsible for the failure.

Consider:

• Why did it take 25 years to resolve?
• Why were obligations not met initially?
• What structural incentives allow federal agencies to underperform without immediate consequence?

Structural Conclusion
This case is not about race. It is about power. When the government expands its role, it expands its capacity to fail.
And when it fails, it rarely pays immediately.
Citizens pay later.

The lesson is consistent:
Centralized authority must be limited.
Obligations must be enforceable.
Power must remain accountable.