N※N

Sports and Competition
Source : (remove) : Greek Reporter
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

Sports and Competition
Source : (remove) : Greek Reporter
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

NIHB Responds to Trump''s Threat Over Washington Commanders Name: Native Mascots Are a Public Health Crisis, Not a Political Bargaining Chip

NIHB Fires Back at Trump's Latest Threat Amid Ongoing Battles Over Native Health Funding

In a sharp rebuke that underscores the deepening rift between Native American health advocates and the Trump administration, the National Indian Health Board (NIHB) has issued a forceful response to former President Donald Trump's recent threats regarding federal funding for tribal health programs. The statement, released late Wednesday, comes in the wake of Trump's inflammatory remarks during a campaign rally in Montana, where he warned that he would "slash" allocations to the Indian Health Service (IHS) if re-elected, citing what he described as "wasteful spending" on "failing" tribal initiatives. NIHB officials characterized the comments as not only misguided but dangerously harmful to some of the nation's most vulnerable populations, emphasizing that such rhetoric ignores the systemic underfunding that has plagued Native health care for decades.

The NIHB, a nonprofit organization representing over 573 federally recognized tribes across the United States, has long been at the forefront of advocating for improved health outcomes in Indian Country. Founded in 1972, the board works to influence policy, secure resources, and address disparities in areas like mental health, substance abuse, and chronic diseases, which disproportionately affect Native communities. In their official response, NIHB Chairwoman Victoria Kitcheyan highlighted the real-world consequences of Trump's proposed cuts. "These threats are not just political posturing; they represent a direct assault on the lives and well-being of our people," Kitcheyan stated. "For generations, tribal nations have endured broken promises from the federal government, and now we're facing yet another attempt to undermine our treaty rights and sovereign responsibilities."

Trump's comments, made during a speech aimed at rallying his base in a state with a significant Native population, specifically targeted the IHS budget, which currently stands at approximately $6.5 billion annually. He accused the agency of inefficiency and corruption, claiming that funds were being funneled into "radical left agendas" rather than essential services. This isn't the first time Trump has clashed with Native health advocates; during his presidency from 2017 to 2021, his administration proposed multiple budget reductions to IHS, including a controversial 2020 plan that sought to cut nearly $300 million amid the COVID-19 pandemic—a move that drew widespread condemnation as Native communities suffered some of the highest infection and mortality rates in the country.

The NIHB's response delves into the historical context of these tensions, pointing out that federal obligations to provide health care to Native Americans stem from treaties dating back to the 19th century. Under the Snyder Act of 1921 and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976, the U.S. government is legally bound to fund health services for tribes. Yet, chronic underfunding has led to dire conditions: overcrowded clinics, outdated equipment, and a shortage of medical professionals. According to NIHB data, Native Americans experience life expectancies up to 5.5 years shorter than the national average, with higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, and suicide. Kitcheyan argued that Trump's threats exacerbate these issues, potentially leading to closures of rural health facilities and further isolation for remote tribal areas.

Expanding on the potential fallout, NIHB's statement warns of a ripple effect across broader public health initiatives. For instance, many IHS programs collaborate with state and federal agencies on vaccination drives, opioid crisis interventions, and maternal health services. Cutting funds could strain these partnerships, especially in states like Alaska, Arizona, and Oklahoma, where tribal health systems serve as lifelines for both Native and non-Native residents. "This isn't just about tribes; it's about the health security of entire regions," said NIHB Executive Director Stacy Bohlen in a follow-up interview. Bohlen, a member of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, emphasized that Trump's rhetoric ignores the successes of IHS despite its challenges, such as the rapid deployment of COVID-19 vaccines to tribal lands, which outperformed national averages in some metrics.

Political analysts see this exchange as part of a larger pattern in Trump's approach to Native issues. During his term, he faced criticism for decisions like shrinking the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah—a site sacred to several tribes—and for his administration's handling of the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. Trump's supporters, however, defend his stance as fiscal conservatism, arguing that reallocating funds could benefit other underfunded areas like veteran services or border security. Yet, NIHB counters that such arguments overlook the unique trust responsibilities the federal government holds toward tribes, which are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

In their detailed rebuttal, NIHB outlined a multi-pronged strategy to combat these threats. First, they plan to mobilize tribal leaders for congressional advocacy, urging lawmakers to protect IHS funding in upcoming budget negotiations. This includes pushing for the reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, which expires in 2024 and has been instrumental in reducing diabetes-related complications by 50% in some communities. Second, NIHB is calling for increased public awareness campaigns to educate non-Native Americans about the realities of tribal health care. "We need allies from all walks of life to understand that these are not handouts; they are fulfillments of legal and moral obligations," Kitcheyan asserted.

The response also touches on the intersection of health funding with broader social justice issues. Native women, for example, face epidemic levels of violence and inadequate reproductive health services, problems that could worsen under reduced budgets. NIHB referenced a recent Government Accountability Office report that found IHS facilities often lack basic resources for emergency care, leading to preventable deaths. By framing Trump's threats within this lens, the board aims to galvanize support from progressive coalitions, including environmental groups and civil rights organizations, who have historically aligned with tribal causes.

Looking ahead, the NIHB's stance signals a readiness for prolonged confrontation, especially as the 2024 election cycle heats up. With Trump positioning himself as a frontrunner for the Republican nomination, his comments could influence party platforms on Native affairs. Meanwhile, the current Biden administration has taken steps to bolster IHS funding, including a $2.5 billion infusion through the American Rescue Plan, but advocates warn that these gains are fragile without permanent protections.

Critics of NIHB's response argue that it politicizes health care, potentially alienating moderate Republicans who might support incremental reforms. However, supporters praise the board for its unapologetic defense of tribal sovereignty. "This is about survival," said one tribal elder from the Navajo Nation, speaking anonymously. "We've fought wars, survived genocides, and now we're fighting for our health in the halls of power."

As the debate unfolds, the NIHB's response serves as a stark reminder of the enduring struggles in Indian Country. It highlights not only the immediate dangers posed by political threats but also the resilience of Native communities in advocating for their rights. With health disparities persisting amid economic pressures and climate change impacts—like increased wildfire smoke affecting respiratory health in Western tribes—the stakes could not be higher. Whether Trump's words translate into policy remains to be seen, but NIHB's proactive stance ensures that the voices of Native Americans will not be silenced in this critical dialogue.

This episode also underscores a broader national conversation about equity in health care. As the U.S. grapples with reforming its fragmented system, the plight of tribal health services offers a microcosm of larger failures: underinvestment in marginalized groups, bureaucratic hurdles, and the politicization of essential services. NIHB's call to action extends beyond tribes, inviting all Americans to reflect on the government's role in upholding its commitments. In the words of Chairwoman Kitcheyan, "Health is not a partisan issue; it's a human right. We will continue to fight for it, no matter the threats."

In conclusion, the NIHB's response to Trump's threat is more than a press release—it's a manifesto for justice, rooted in history and aimed at a future where Native health is no longer an afterthought. As tensions simmer, the outcome of this clash could shape federal-tribal relations for years to come, influencing everything from budget battles to ballot box decisions. (Word count: 1,128)

Read the Full Native News Online Article at:
[ https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/nihb-responds-trump-threat-over-031836561.html ]