The Wild West of Tribal Gaming: Navigating the Trump Era
Indigenous Communities Express Concerns About the Upcoming Four Years Ahead for Native American Territories
Indian Country is bracing for the second term of President Trump, with panelists at an Indian Gaming Association (IGA) webinar voicing concerns over tribal sovereignty and other sensitive issues.
During a webinar called "The New Normal: The Chaos of the First Two Weeks of the Trump Administration," the panelists voiced their anxieties about how executive actions and policy changes might impact tribal governance, gaming enterprises, economic development, and more. For instance, the new administration revoked an executive order by President Joe Biden that bolstered support for tribal colleges and universities.
"We're sitting on a powder keg," said Victor Rocha, IGA conference chair. "We don't know what's coming next, but we know it's gonna be a mess. It's crucial for us to keep a cool head and stick together, providing the stability people are desperately craving in these turbulent times."
The discussion focused on the confirmation of North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum to lead the Department of Interior, which oversees programs for tribes.
Rocha expressed relief that Trump didn't opt for South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, explaining that she's had a contentious relationship with tribes. He added, "Doug Burgum may not be progressive, but he's protective of tribal rights - as long as we're talking about land-based gaming. He's not the worst we could've ended up with."
Mark Trahant, founding editor of Indian Country Today, has concerns about US energy production. If Burgum implemented an energy emergency and oil companies and other extractive industries sought to develop natural resources, the government would likely allow it - even if the tribes vehemently opposed such developments.
"The White House will be driving the policy, and even with cabinet-level authority, Burgum won't have the same clout that former Secretary Deb Haaland did in the Biden Administration," Trahant cautioned. "The decisions will be cleared through the White House, making it even more difficult. We've got a Congress with an inability to govern. The House has a one-vote majority. The ability to get something affirmative passed will be extraordinarily difficult. You're already seeing it with a budget resolution. That creates a vacuum, allowing the administration to claim they can do whatever they want because Congress can't."
The panelists delved into Trump's call for the federal government to recognize the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, a group whose standing has been questioned by tribes.
"It's not a popular move in Indian Country, but it's extremely popular in North Carolina," Rocha said. "Are they planning to introduce gaming in North Carolina? The tribe wants it. The Catawbas are trying to get their foot in the door, but it's been a mess. The Eastern Band of Cherokees don't want any part of it, but they seem to have lost their voice in that political battle."
Looking ahead to the next four years, Rocha asserted that tribes can expect no approval for off-reservation gaming. The Trump Administration might also revisit a Biden Administration decision that permits the Coquille Indian Tribe to build the Cedars at Bear Creek casino in Medford, Oregon, the first off-reservation casino to be approved by the federal government in Oregon, which would be 170 miles away from the reservation in North Bend.
"Companies will give it another shot and try to keep tribes on the reservation," Rocha predicted. "We can't afford to coast; we need to stay active and engaged. We have to safeguard our achievements and remember to attack when necessary."
Trahant suggested that if there's a transactional process, the concept of off-reservation gaming might be spared.
"If an off-reservation investment involves a Trump hotel, or Trump's son's interests, it could happen," Trahant said. "The administration isn't following the rule of law, but they're following transactions. That changes the game entirely when it comes to strategy."
Jason Giles, IGA's executive director, confirmed that tribal leaders from across the country are gone to Washington, D.C., next week to develop strategies and discuss issues with lawmakers. He worries about an illegal market emerging with sweepstakes and if the Department of Justice is hollowed out, enforcement could become a concern.
"We hunker down and fight smart," said IGA Chair Ernie Stevens Jr. "We can't dwell on the fact that it's coming; we have to be prepared for the fight. We need to educate folks about the supreme law of the land, our treaties and sovereignty, and why we act as governments in Indian Country. We have to stand our ground in a good way."
Rocha reminded us of the real-world consequences of the chaos ahead. The battle will take place at the state level, and lobbying is vital.
Trahant emphasized the importance of forging relationships with states. He questioned why, in states where tribal gaming is a significant employer, tribes aren't treated as such. "The economic power of employment is crucial to our argument," Trahant said.
Rocha underlined the significance of discussing revenue and jobs for local communities and economies. He underscored, "If they're coming after us, they're coming after America. Half of our 700,000 employees aren't Native American. These people work and put their kids through college in our industry. We're all in this together. It's not just about taking care of our elders and communities. We take care of a lot of folks who extend beyond reservation boundaries."
Background:
While the specific concerns of the Indian Gaming Association aren't explicitly outlined in available data, broader patterns have emerged that could affect tribal gaming enterprises:
- The administration's rapid policy reversals (e.g., the OMB memo's issuance and withdrawal within 48 hours) create uncertainty for long-term economic planning [2][5].
- Funding instability: The OMB's funding freeze risked critical services and economic programs that support gaming-adjacent community development [2][5].
- Tribes warn that the administration's disregard for treaty obligations could destabilize the legal framework supporting gaming enterprises [5].
- Projects like the transfer of sacred lands threaten cultural and territorial sovereignty, indirectly jeopardizing gaming operations dependent on territorial sovereignty [4].
The Indian Gaming Association did not provide additional insight regarding these impacts or their specific concerns. Nonetheless, the broader systemic challenges to sovereignty, funding, and land rights directly affect gaming enterprises' operational security and growth potential.
- Victor Rocha, IGA conference chair, expressed concerns about President Trump's potential policies, stating, "We're sitting on a powder keg. We don't know what's coming next, but we know it's gonna be a mess."
- Mark Trahant, founding editor of Indian Country Today, warned about the administration's ability to bypass Congress and make decisions unfavorable to tribes, saying, "The decisions will be cleared through the White House, making it even more difficult."
- Rocha highlighted that the Trump Administration might revisit a decision that permits the Coquille Indian Tribe to build an off-reservation casino, stating, "Looking ahead to the next four years, Rocha asserted that tribes can expect no approval for off-reservation gaming."
- Trahant suggested a potential strategy for tribes, stating, "If an off-reservation investment involves a Trump hotel, or Trump’s son’s interests, it could happen," indicating that tribal strategies might need to be transactional in nature.
