Native Americans live amid vast natural wealth, yet their communities are among the poorest in the United States. This paradox is not the result of a lack of ambition or ability, but a consequence of decades of federal policies that treat native peoples, not as equal citizens, but as wards of the state. The paternalism embedded in the federal trust doctrine has crippled economic development, discouraged investment, and stifled individual initiative. To unlock the full potential of Indian Country, the federal government must fundamentally reorient its relationship with native communities by restoring property rights, promoting economic freedom, and enabling energy independence.
At the heart of this issue is land—specifically, who owns it, who controls it, and who can benefit from it. Under current law, the federal government holds approximately 56 million acres of Native American land in trust, meaning that tribes and individuals do not hold full legal title to the land on which they live, work, and depend. The trust system makes it difficult, often impossible, for Native Americans to use their land as collateral, to lease or sell it freely, or to develop it for agriculture, housing, or energy production. This arrangement, although ostensibly designed to protect Native interests, in practice strips them of the autonomy and clarity of ownership required to build wealth and engage meaningfully in market economies. According to research, property held in trust is far less productive than privately-held land. Agricultural productivity on individual trust lands is 30 to 40 percent lower than on equivalent fee-simple land, while tribal trust lands perform 80 to 90 percent worse.
This inefficiency is not limited to farming. The effects are even more damaging when it comes to the development of energy resources. Indian lands contain an astonishing share of the country’s energy potential—nearly 30 percent of its coal reserves west of the Mississippi, half of all uranium reserves, and 20 percent of known oil and gas reserves. These assets are conservatively valued at nearly $1.5 trillion. Yet 86 percent of Indian lands with energy or mineral potential remain undeveloped. The problem is not technical or geological, it is institutional. Four different federal agencies must approve an energy lease on tribal land, and the process often involves dozens of procedural steps. The result is delay, confusion, and lost opportunity. On the Fort Berthold Reservation, for example, which sits atop the Bakken oil formation, the permitting process is so complex and time-consuming that companies prefer to drill on nearby private lands, leaving the reservation impoverished and idle while oil wealth flows just beyond its borders.
This bureaucratic web is a consequence of the trust doctrine and the dual governance structure that places tribal authority under federal oversight. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), for example, retains final approval over leases and development agreements, even when tribes have negotiated these in good faith with private partners. This regulatory structure does not only delay decisions; it creates a chilling effect on outside investment. Investors are reluctant to commit capital when property rights are uncertain, when sovereign immunity can be invoked unpredictably, and when political interference can alter the terms of a deal retroactively. In several high-profile cases, tribes have exercised eminent domain to seize investments without compensation, damaging the reputation of tribal governments and driving away potential partners.
Even within tribes, the legacy of federal intervention has created confusion and fragmentation. Over generations, lands that were originally allotted to individuals have become fractionated, with dozens or even hundreds of heirs each owning an undivided interest. Any decision to lease or develop such land requires the consent of numerous co-owners, making efficient use nearly impossible. Although legislation has attempted to address this problem by simplifying consent requirements, the underlying issue remains: Native Americans cannot fully control or benefit from the land that is legally theirs.
This situation is not just unjust; it is economically devastating. The per capita income for Native Americans on reservations lags far behind the national average. On some reservations, unemployment approaches 80 percent. These statistics persist despite the tremendous value of the resources beneath their feet. If Native Americans were able to earn just a 5 percent return on their undeveloped energy resources, it would translate into an additional $75 billion per year—enough to dramatically raise incomes, lower poverty, and transform entire communities.
There is compelling evidence that where native nations have been able to establish clearer property rights and more stable institutions, incomes rise significantly. A study analyzing the Reservation Economic Freedom Index found a strong correlation between economic freedom and household income on reservations. A one-point increase in the index is associated with a nearly $1,900 increase in median household income, and a move of one standard deviation is linked to a 7.4 percent income gain. These results echo what economists have found globally: secure property rights, the rule of law, and freedom from bureaucratic overreach are essential conditions for prosperity.
The lesson is clear: If the federal government truly seeks to support Native American communities, it must stop trying to manage them. Instead, it must relinquish control over land and resources, allowing tribes and individuals to hold full legal title, to actually control their land, and to make decisions in their own interest. Property held in trust should be converted to fee-simple ownership where tribes or individuals so desire. Energy development agreements should be negotiated and enforced by tribes without federal interference. Courts and contracts must be respected, and sovereign immunity should not be used to evade legal responsibilities.
Economic freedom is not a theoretical ideal, it is a practical necessity. Native Americans have always been capable of managing their affairs and building thriving economies. Before the imposition of federal control, many indigenous nations had robust systems of property rights, trade, and governance. These traditions did not disappear, they were suppressed. Today, with the right reforms, they can be renewed. The way forward lies not in more aid or more oversight, but in restoring the freedom to own, build, and prosper.
Only by removing the structural barriers imposed by Washington can Native Americans reclaim the prosperity that is already within their reach. The United States must finally treat Native peoples, not as dependents, but as full citizens capable of owning their futures. Ending the trust system, restoring property rights, and dismantling bureaucratic obstacles are not radical proposals—they are long overdue acts of justice. Native Americans deserve the same opportunities as anyone else to make use of their resources, to enter the marketplace, and to create wealth for themselves and future generations.
