Federal Alerts

WHAT WE'RE TRACKING

FY 2027 Tribal Budget and Appropriations

Congressional consideration of the President’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget request and appropriations affecting Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service, Tribal housing, Tribal education, Native CDFIs, public safety, natural resources, and other programs serving Tribal Nations. Final funding levels will depend on congressional appropriations, continuing resolutions, or other funding legislation 

Timeline: 

  • President’s FY 2027 budget request released April 2026 
  • Congressional budget and appropriations process ongoing through spring and summer 2026 
  • FY 2027 begins October 1, 2026 

Key Tribal Impact Area(s): 

  • Federal funding in Indian Country (broad impact) 

Description: 

  • The President’s FY 2027 budget request proposes a broad reduction in non-defense spending and significant restructuring or elimination of programs across several agencies that serve Tribal Nations and Native communities. The proposal includes reductions affecting Native housing, Native economic development, education, health programs, environmental and climate-related programs, and other domestic programs that Tribes and Native organizations rely on. 
  • The request also proposes to redirect CDFI Fund awards toward rural communities while reducing the CDFI Fund by $204.5 million. Because Native CDFIs often rely on federal CDFI Fund and Native American CDFI Assistance support to provide lending and technical assistance in Native communities, this proposal should be watched closely. 
  • The budget request is not final law. Congress controls appropriations, and federal funding may change through appropriations bills, continuing resolutions, rescissions, or negotiated funding packages. Still, the President’s request shows the Administration’s priorities and may shape agency planning and congressional negotiations. 

Why This Matters: 

  • Federal appropriations represent significant sources of funding for Indian Country. Cuts, delayed awards, continuing resolutions, or agency restructuring can affect Tribal governments’ ability to hire staff, operate courts and police departments, provide education and health services, support families, maintain infrastructure, and manage natural resources. California Tribes and Native-serving organizations should track both national appropriations and agency-specific program changes. 

Links: 

Federal Re‑Engineering of the 340B Drug Pricing Program

Update as of 7/27: 

  • HRSA has not yet issued a new final 340B rebate pilot after the prior rebate-model effort was blocked and remanded, but the agency continues to review public input submitted through its 340B rebate-model Request for Information. The issue therefore remains active even though no new final rebate system is currently in place. 
  • For Tribal and Urban Indian health providers, the core concern remains the same: a rebate model would shift financial risk from manufacturers to providers by requiring covered entities to pay higher prices upfront and wait for reimbursement. Even temporary cash-flow disruption could affect pharmacy access, contract pharmacy operations, and patient care. 

Event: 

  • HHS efforts to replace point‑of‑sale 340B discounts with a post‑purchase rebate model. 

Timeline: 

  • Pilot announced in 2025 
  • Program blocked by federal court in 2026 
  • HRSA restarted the process through a Request for Information, which closed April 2026 

Key Tribal Impact Area(s): 

  • Tribal and Urban Indian health clinics 
  • Pharmacy operations and cash flow 
  • Access to medication 

Description: 

  • The proposed 340B rebate model would require eligible providers—including Tribal and Urban Indian health organizations—to pay full drug prices upfront and seek reimbursement later. Tribal health providers warned this would shift financial risk from manufacturers to clinics that often lack reserve capital, potentially delaying or limiting patient access to essential drugs. 
  • The pilot has been halted, but HRSA has made clear it is actively reconsidering rebate models. National Native health organizations have formally requested exemptions, citing immediate risks to Native patient care. 

Why This Matters: 

  • California Tribal clinics already face reimbursement delays tied to Medi‑Cal, contract pharmacy restrictions, and workforce shortages. A rebate structure would compound these pressures. If a new rebate program is proposed, CILS will prepare for advocacy. 

Links: 

Changes for Federal Grants 

Major Update: 

  • As of 7/27, the federal grants issue has expanded beyond SAM registration. 
  • On May 29, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed broad revisions to Title of the Code of Federal Regulations (2 CFR 200, "Uniform Guidance”) which govern federal grants, cooperative agreements, pass-through awards, and other forms of federal financial assistance. The proposed rule is scheduled to go into effect October 1st.  
  • The rule would impose new restrictions and compliance obligations across the federal grant lifecycle, broadening agency discretion to terminate awards and adding pre-award political-appointee review, prohibitions tied to DEI and “gender ideology,” and additional subrecipient-monitoring obligations and other compliance burdens.  
  • The rule is likely to impact Tribal governments, agencies, non-profits, and other entities who have received and plan to apply for discretionary awards from the federal government. These proposed changes will not impact any statutory awards, such as 638 contracts with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Indian Health Service (IHS), or Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Native American Housing Assistance Self-Determination Act (NHASDA) funding, or other congressionally-mandated programs.  OMB has acknowledged Tribal concerns and states that it will initiate formal Tribal consultation before issuing a final rule. (OMB’s proposed regulations and recommendations for Tribal entities are discussed in more detail below.)  
  • Meanwhile, litigation over related anti-DEI contract requirements is ongoing. In April, organizations representing university faculty, diversity officers, and minority contractors sued to block the federal contractor DEI executive order, arguing that it violates free speech rights and unlawfully treats DEI-related expression as discrimination. On June 4, that coalition moved for a preliminary injunction and stay. On June 10, a coalition of 19 states and Washington, D.C. filed a separate lawsuit challenging federal agencies’ implementation of anti-DEI contract terms, and have since moved for summary judgement.  
  • For Tribes and Tribal organizations, the concern is not simply “DEI.” The concern is that vague federal restrictions could be applied without clearly distinguishing Tribal political status, Tribal sovereignty, Indian preference, Native language and culture programs, treaty and trust obligations, and ISDEAA funding from ordinary discretionary DEI programming. Tribes and Tribal organizations may need to submit comments before the July 13 deadline to preserve objections and build the administrative record. 

Event: 

  • GSA and OMB proposals to revise requirements for federal grants and contracts under Executive Orders 14173 (Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit‑Based Opportunity) and 14332 (Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking)  

Timeline: 

  • Executive Orders issued January 2025 
  • SAM certification changes proposed February 2026, final rule expected later in 2026 
  • OMB changes proposed May 2026, final rule expected October 1st 
  • Comments submitted by the California Tribal Chairpersons Association (CTCA) on July 13th (the deadline for comments)  

Key Tribal Impact Area(s): 

  • Tribal governments, agencies, non-profits, and enterprises 
  • Organizations and sub-contractors serving Indian Country  

Description: 

SAM Certification

  • The General Services Administration (GSA) is moving to incorporate new anti-discrimination certifications into the System for Award Management (SAM). These certifications are tied to enforcement mechanisms—including the False Claims Act—and would apply to most federal grant recipients. 
  • The Executive Orders that these changes come from are largely focused on “DEI” issues. While some agencies (e.g., USDA) have clarified that Tribal political status is distinct from DEI programs, those protections are not automatic government‑wide. Absent explicit exemptions, Tribes may face increased compliance risk simply to access routine funding. 

Discretionary Grant Changes

  • The Office of Management of Budget (OMB) proposed rule would broaden federal agency discretion when awarding, reviewing, suspending and terminating discretionary federal awards based on alignment with the administration’s public policy initiatives. The changes are likely to impact recipients and sub-recipients of federal grants, including Tribal governments, agencies, non-profits, and other entities applying and receiving federal funding.   
  • Discretionary (competitive) awards give agencies the ability to determine which entities receive federal funding, typically through a competitive application process, such as a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). Examples of discretionary programs include:  
      • Coordinated Tribal Assistance Services (CTAS), administered by the Department of  Justice (DOJ)  
      • Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), administered by the CA Department of Community Services  
      • Tribal Energy Projects, administered by the Department of Energy (DOE) 
      • Native American Language Preservation and Maintenance program, administered by the Administration for Native Americans (ANA) 
  • Statutory (formula-based) awards are established by statute and distributed to entities that meet certain eligibility criteria. Statutory awards will NOT be impacted by the proposed changes. Examples of funding mandated by statute includes:  
      • 638 Contracts under ISDEAA, administered by the BIA, IHS, or Burera of Indian Education (BIE) 
      • Indian Housing Block Grants, administered by HUD 
      • Indian Child Welfare Act funding, administered by the BIA 
  • Major Changes and Impacts: 
      • Regulation, not Guidance: Currently, OMB regulations found at CFR 200, commonly referred to as “Uniform Guidance,” informs federal agencies when developing their own rules around the  allocation of federal funds. The OMB’s proposed rule would re-characterize CFR 200 from guidance to a binding regulation carrying the “force of law,” likely resulting in stricter requirements across federal award programs.     
      • Pre-Issuance Review by Political Appointees: Currently, peer review and other forms of subject matter expert review are an important part of the grant application review process. While peer review remains advisory, the proposed changes would add mandatory pre-issuance review by “political appointees” to ensure recipients would be in alignment with the agency and administration’s policy priorities, as well as the “national interest.” The proposed rule also includes an explicit preference for lower indirect cost rates. See §§ 200.205-06. 
      • Discretionary Suspension and/or Termination: Federal agencies can suspend or terminate awards when recipients or subrecipients are in non-compliance with award conditions, subject to an appeal process. The proposed rule would allow agencies to suspend or terminate discretionary awards if they no longer support program goals*, agency priorities, or the “national interest.” The proposed rule provides no administrative appeal remedy for discretionary terminations. See §§ 200.340-42. However, a recent decision from a Massachusetts federal district court declared that the "Termination Clause" in the current CFR 200 does not allow terminations of awards based on new program goals or agency priorities that an agency identifies after granting the award. It remains to be seen whether the proposed OMB rule changes will reflect this decision.   
      • New Binding Award Conditions: The proposed rule would codify the administration’s policy priorities, increasing scrutiny on Tribal language, cultural, education, and climate program narratives and use of funds. See § 200.300(b). 
          • Programs and policies that are mis-characterized as “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) may be at risk of suspension or termination. Both the Supreme Court and Congress have recognized that the federal relationship with Tribes is not based on race or ethnicity, but rather on a distinct political status. See Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974). Therefore, while tribal-specific grants are not subject to consideration as DEI, an unwitting “political appointee” may not know this distinction.    
          • Other mandatory award prohibitions include programs or the use of funds to promote “gender ideology,” gender transition, or “disparate impact liability,” as well as those that discriminate against faith-based organizations.    
          • Lobbying restrictions would be expanded to include the use of funds to support voter registration campaigns or the promotion of political messaging that is not directly aligned with the statutory objectives or performance of the award. See § 200.450. 
      • Increased Compliance Burdens:   
          • Increased cybersecurity requirements, including for “confidential business information.”   
          • Increased sub-recipient requirements, including requirements that awardees treat both external and internal “affiliates, subsidiaries, and other related entities that are separate legal persons" as sub-awardees or contractors. Fixed amount sub-awards would no longer be permitted. See §§ 200.331(c), 200.332, 200.340(a).    
          • Mandatory E-Verify for all employees and contractors   
          • Mandatory “credible evidence” disclosures within 10 days to the U.S. Attorney’s Office   

Recommendations from the Native American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA):  

      • To prepare for the possible upcoming regulation changes, Tribal governments, agencies, non-profits, and other entities receiving discretionary funding from the federal government should: 
      • (1) Identify and organize grants by discretionary (competitive) awards and statutory (formula-based) awards. 
      • (2) Prioritize programs most dependent on discretionary funding and multi-year grants 
      • (3) Ensure that all grant application and program language are connected to a specific statutory authority, grant goal, or agency priority to prepare for possible agency review. 
          • Recast program language in political-status terms. For example, instead of “Diversity program for underrepresented Native Americans,” use “Tribal education program fulfilling federal trust and treaty obligations.” 
          • Cite the legal or statutory basis for payment justifications. Reference treaties, Title 25, Mancari, and agency opinions. 
      • (4) Strengthen internal controls and documentation policies. 

Why This Matters: 

  • Many California Tribes rely heavily on federal grants to support housing, health, education, and environmental programs. Additional certification risk or uncertainty tied to program requirements can put funding at risk or deter participation. 

Links: 

Rewriting Public History on Federal Lands (EO 14253) 

Major Update:  

  • On June 12, 2026, a federal district court in Massachusetts ordered the National Park Service to restore historical, scientific, and interpretive materials removed from national parks and barred further removals while litigation proceeds. 
  • However, on July 2, 2026, the First Circuit Court of Appeals paused that restoration order while the federal government’s appeal proceeds. The appeals court did not finally decide whether the removals are lawful, but its order means NPS does not currently have to restore all removed materials by the district court’s July deadline. 
  • The issue therefore remains active and unresolved. Reports indicate that dozens of signs and exhibits have been removed or altered at national park sites, including materials addressing Indigenous history, slavery, civil rights, immigration, Japanese American incarceration, and climate change. 

Event: 

  • Implementation of Executive Order 14253 (Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History), directing changes to historical interpretation at federally managed sites. 

Timeline: 

  • Executive Order signed: March 2025 
  • Agency implementation ongoing through 2026 

Key Tribal Impact Area(s): 

  • Tribal consultation and co‑management 
  • Interpretation of Native American History 

Description: 

  • EO 14253 directs agencies, including the National Park Service, to remove or revise interpretive materials deemed to “disparage” U.S. history. Reports indicate that Native‑focused exhibits addressing forced removal and boarding schools have already been edited or removed at some park sites. 
  • Members of Congress and various advocacy groups across the country have raised alarms that these actions undermine Tribal consultation obligations and threaten accurate public understanding of Indigenous history. 

Why This Matters: 

  • California contains more national park units than any other state, many located on or adjacent to Tribal ancestral lands. The implementation of this Order will affect Tribal visibility, education, and may merit legal action. 

Links: 

Federal Freeze of Child Care and Family Assistance Funding 

Update 

  • We did not identify a major new development in the TANF/CCDF/SSBG funding-freeze litigation after the earlier preliminary injunction. Funds remain subject to the earlier court-ordered protection while the case proceeds. 
  • However, the related childcare issue has expanded because HHS’s new CCDF final rule takes effect July 13, 2026. The rule rescinds several 2024 requirements, including the 7% cap on family copayments, prospective provider payment requirements, enrollment-based payment requirements, and requirements related to direct services through grants or contracts. 
  • HHS describes the changes as restoring flexibility to States, Territories, and Tribal Lead Agencies. Childcare advocates may view the practical result differently: if states reduce affordability or provider-stability protections, families and providers may experience less predictable support. 

Event: 

  • HHS freeze of TANF, CCDF, and SSBG funds to California and other states. 

Timeline: 

  • Freeze announced in January 2026 
  • Lawsuit filed by California and four states 
  • Preliminary injunction granted in February 2026 

Key Tribal Impact Area(s): 

  • Tribal TANF and social services 
  • Childcare providers 

Description: 

  • The Trump Administration froze billions in congressionally appropriated social services funding, citing unsubstantiated fraud concerns. California sued, and a federal court blocked the freeze. While funds are flowing again, litigation continues and future disruptions remain possible. 
  • Tribal programs often rely on state pass‑through funding, making them especially vulnerable to federal‑state disputes. 

Why This Matters: 

  • Tribal TANF and child care programs operate on narrow margins. Even short interruptions threaten staffing, contracts, and family assistance continuity. 

Links: 

Offshore Wind Development on the North Coast (Humboldt)

Major Update: 

  • According to a press release by Attorney General Bonta, June 15, 2026, the Trump Administration is abandoning its efforts to indefinitely pause the Federal Government’s leasing and permitting of Wind Projects. 
  • The Trump Administration ended its attempt to pause all federal permitting for wind projects under a “Day One” Presidential Wind Memorandum. California and a multistate coalition sued in May 2025, arguing the Memorandum was unlawful. In December 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in the states’ favor and vacated the challenged portion of the memorandum. 
  • The Administration initially appealed the ruling but later asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to dismiss its appeal. The court granted that request, leaving the district court’s decision intact and fully resolving the case in favor of the multistate coalition. 
  • The Memorandum had halted all federal approvals for wind projects, threatening progress on California’s five offshore wind leases, two off Humboldt County and three off Morro Bay, which are expected to supply enough clean energy to power more than 1.6 million homes. The states argued the directive jeopardized clean energy development, increased energy costs, and threatened major investments in wind infrastructure, workforce development, and union jobs. 

Event: 

  • Status and direction of offshore wind and port infrastructure development in Humboldt Bay (Wigi). 

Timeline: 

  • Federal leases executed in 2023 
  • Project planning slowed following federal policy shifts 
  • Environmental review and port planning extend into late 2020s 

Key Tribal Impact Area(s): 

  • Coastal and fishing Tribes 
  • Cultural marine resources 
  • Local economic participation  

Description: 

  • Humboldt remains central to California’s floating offshore wind strategy, but development has slowed amid federal uncertainty. Tribes have raised concerns regarding fisheries impacts, cultural resources, and whether promised community benefits will materialize. State and regional bodies emphasize consultation, but timelines are stretching, increasing uncertainty for Tribal planning. 

Why This Matters: 

  • This is the most advanced offshore wind zone in the state. Decisions made here will shape Tribal roles for decades. 

Links: 

SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act) Concerns

Update: 

  • The SAVE Act / SAVE America Act has not been enacted, but it remains politically active. In late June 2026, House members blocked movement on the National Defense Authorization Act because they wanted proof-of-citizenship and voter ID legislation attached or advanced with it. The bill still faces an uncertain path in the Senate, but it remains a live template for what some call federal voting restrictions. 
  • The citizenship landscape also shifted in June. The Supreme Court rejected the Administration’s effort to end birthright citizenship, reaffirming constitutional citizenship for people born in the United States, while a federal judge separately blocked expanded use of the federal SAVE database for voter citizenship checks. Native voting advocates continue to warn that documentary proof-of-citizenship systems can still burden Native voters who lack easy access to birth records, passports, or in-person election offices.    

Event: 

  • Federal legislation to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration (and, in some versions, additional ID/in‑person requirements). 

Timeline: 

  • First introduced in 2025.  
  • Bill is currently benched/pending in the Senate 

Key Tribal Impact Area(s): 

  • Native voting access (rural/remote communities) 
  • Voter registration drives and mail/online registration 
  • Elder, disabled, and low‑resource Tribal members 

Description: 

  • While the SAVE Act will likely not be a priority in Congress before the midterms, the bill deserves attention because its practical effect would be to raise documentation and travel barriers that hit Tribal voters hardest (e.g., home births without birth certificates; long travel distances; reduced access to mail‑based participation).  
  • Native voting advocates warn versions of the bill would effectively eliminate or severely constrain mail and online registration and require people to present documents in person, which can mean 100+ mile round trips (or more) for some Tribal communities.  

Links: