Overview:
California Tribal leaders are opposing the Senate's Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, warning that proposed rollbacks to federal environmental and historic preservation laws would weaken Tribal consultation, threaten sacred sites and undermine Tribal sovereignty.
WASHINGTON — California Tribal leaders are speaking out against the Senate Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (BAAJA), warning that provisions in the legislation would weaken long-established protections for Tribal Nations and limit their ability to participate in federal decisions affecting their ancestral lands, waters and cultural resources.
The legislation proposes changes to several foundational federal environmental and historic preservation laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
Tribal leaders say the proposed changes could significantly diminish the federal government’s obligation to consult with sovereign Tribal Nations and threaten their ability to protect sacred places, burial sites, traditional cultural landscapes and other resources central to their cultures and identities.
One of the most significant concerns involves proposed changes to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
For decades, Section 106 has required federal agencies to consider the effects of federally funded, permitted, licensed or administered projects on historic properties and consult with Tribal Nations when those projects may affect places of cultural significance.
The process applies to a wide range of federal actions, including public land management decisions, road and highway construction, energy and mining development, pipelines and transmission lines.
For Tribal Nations, Section 106 provides an important opportunity to participate in decisions that could affect their ancestral homelands and cultural heritage.
Under the proposed BAAJA provisions, however, that longstanding process could be substantially weakened.
According to the Native American Rights Fund, the legislation would:
- Narrow the definition of sacred places eligible for consideration, reduce the number of projects subject to review and shorten the time Tribal Nations have to respond.
- Give federal officials greater authority to determine that other considerations outweigh potential harm to sacred Tribal places.
- Allow the Secretary of the Interior to assume control over Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs), eliminate dedicated revenue and restructure how those offices are funded, evaluated and penalized.
- Limit the ability of courts to halt projects that violate the law.
These proposed changes have prompted opposition from national Tribal organizations, including the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) and the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO).
In California, Tribal leaders are adding their voices to the growing opposition, emphasizing that the legislation threatens more than environmental regulations. They say it threatens Tribal sovereignty and the ability of Native nations to protect places that hold cultural, spiritual and historical significance.
Joe Davis, chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, pointed to the Trinity River as an example of what can happen when federal decisions fail to adequately consider Tribal rights and interests.
“The Trinity River is the heart of our homeland, our culture, and our way of life,” Davis said.
He recalled the massive diversion of Trinity River water, which severely damaged the Tribe’s fishery and threatened resources essential to the Hoopa Valley people.
“Today, we continue working to restore the river, protect our fisheries, and preserve the cultural practices that connect our people to these waters,” Davis said.
Davis warned that BAAJA could undermine the tools Tribal Nations rely on to hold the federal government accountable.
“BAAJA threatens to take away the very tools that allow us to hold the federal government accountable and ensure that Tribal Nations have a meaningful voice in decisions affecting our ancestral lands, waters, and sacred places,” he said.
Yatch Bamford, chairman of the Pit River Tribe, raised concerns about the legislation’s potential consequences for Sáttítla, a sacred landscape within the Tribe’s ancestral homelands.
The designation of the Sáttítla Highlands National Monument was a historic achievement for the Pit River Tribe after generations of efforts to protect the area.
“Sáttítla is part of our ancestral homelands, our creation stories, and our identity as Pit River people,” Bamford said.
He emphasized that the monument designation does not eliminate the need for meaningful consultation or the protections provided under the National Historic Preservation Act.
“BAAJA threatens to undermine our ability to protect sacred places, cultural landscapes, and ancestral resources by allowing federal agencies to narrow what receives protection and make decisions without meaningful Tribal input,” Bamford said.
He added that protecting the monument while weakening the laws that support Tribal participation would be contradictory.
“We cannot celebrate the protection of Sáttítla while allowing Congress to weaken the very laws that give Tribal Nations a voice in protecting our ancestral homelands,” he said.
Bennae Calac, interim executive director of the Chuckwalla National Monument Intertribal Commission, described the legislation as a direct threat to Tribal sovereignty.
“This bill is an affront to Tribal sovereignty,” Calac said.
She warned that the proposed changes would strip Tribal Nations of their ability to provide essential input on federal projects affecting sacred sites and cultural landscapes.
Calac also raised concerns about provisions that could allow the federal government to assume functions currently carried out by sovereign Tribal Nations through their Tribal Historic Preservation Offices.
“Frankly, it would exclude us from the rooms where decisions are made. I urge our Senators to reject it,” she said.
The opposition from California Tribal leaders comes as national Tribal organizations press Congress to reconsider the legislation’s permitting and environmental review provisions.
NCAI, NARF and NATHPO have each raised concerns about the potential consequences for Tribal consultation, historic preservation and the federal government’s relationship with sovereign Tribal Nations.
For Tribal leaders, the debate over BAAJA is about more than streamlining federal permitting or accelerating development projects. It is about whether Tribal Nations will retain a meaningful role in decisions affecting their lands, waters, sacred places and cultural survival.
At stake, they argue, are protections that have allowed Tribal Nations to participate in federal decision-making and defend their inherent rights as sovereign governments.
