Interior Department Held Public Meeting for Proposed Changes to Indian Arts and Craft Act

SANTA FE, N.M. - The U.S. Department of the Interior is set to hold its concluding public discussion on the modifications to the regulations of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. This Act safeguards both the genuineness and marketability of items that are labeled as Indian-made.

This discussion is an initiative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to revise certain sections of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (IACA). The revisions aim to incorporate more products under the banner of Indian Products, determine the entities allowed to manufacture Indian arts and crafts, and decide if Native Hawaiian Organizations should be encompassed within the legislation.

In reporting from Native News Online, they received an email communication from Meridith Stanton, who heads the Indian Arts and Crafts Board under the U.S. Department of the Interior, who pointed out that the BIA’s suggested amendments to the present IACA rules aim to broaden the scope of Indian art and craftwork. This expansion includes diverse items, from those not originally made by Indians to agricultural and food-based products. Beyond this expansion, Stanton did not elaborate on other imminent revisions.

In her conversation with Native News Online regarding the IACA regulatory shifts, Suzan Harjo, who is both a Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee and a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, mentioned that several alterations will extend safeguards to certain mediums or Indian items that weren’t protected before. However, she feels they don’t go far enough. While the suggested modifications propose safeguarding film, TV, podcasts, books, cartoons, and the news sector, they omit areas like performing arts and academia.

“Why stop at hot dogs and leave out academia and performing arts?” Asked Harjo regarding the potential addition of Indian products. “If you take care of performing arts, it takes care of a lot of the Hollywood problem.”

Harjo, a key advocate behind the 1990 Amendment to IACA, has long championed for more rigorous protections and stricter law enforcement. The Amendment introduced in 1990 enhanced the foundational 1935 legislation by introducing criminal and civil sanctions against falsely labeling products as “Indian-made” if not crafted by Indians, as characterized by the Act. The Act categorizes an Indian as someone registered with any federally or state-sanctioned tribe in the U.S., or an individual endorsed as an Indian artisan by a tribal entity.

Simply put, this is a federal Indian statute that acknowledges tribes recognized at the state level. Members of these state-acknowledged tribes are entitled to display, advocate, market, create, and vend Indian arts and crafts in a manner similar to members from federally acknowledged tribes. Other federal Indian legislations, like the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, do not extend to state-recognized tribes.

Post the enactment of this legislation, Tribal Nations haven’t been granted authority to enforce the law against individuals who falsely claim tribe membership. In 2021, the National Congress of American Indian ratified a resolution, urging the Indian Arts and Crafts Act Board (IACAB) to review and adjust its regulations concerning who receives protection under the law. This was in light of the frequent misuse of terms like “Indigenous,” “Descendant,” “Ancestral Ties to,” or “Adopted by.” The primary goal of this resolution was to counteract deceptive artists from wrongly representing safeguarded Indian arts and crafts and to highlight the underenforcement of IACA, a public legislation.

In addition, the NCAI endorsed another resolution in 2020, which objected to the utilization of terms such as “Indigenous affiliation” or “Indigenous” equivalently to someone registered in either a federally recognized tribe or a state-sanctioned tribe when it comes to arts-related employment or grants.

“NCAI calls on museums, research institutions, arts organizations, and employers who promote the history, art, language, and culture of the United States’ Tribal Nations to require proof of tribal enrollment in a state or federally recognized Tribal Nation from individuals who present themselves as Native professionals and artists, and as a prerequisite to eligibility for grant funding or any professional alliance as a Native professional or artist with said museums, research institutions, federal or state grant programs, and prior to any public listing as Native American (American Indian or Alaska Native) affiliation,” the resolution states.

The 1990 statute also made it possible for an individual Indian, a Tribe that has received federal recognition, or an organization that promotes Indian arts and crafts to bring a civil lawsuit against a wrongdoer.

“Is this enough authority for an individual, or a Tribe, to go after a perpetrator on their own?” Given that the situation is a civil one rather than a criminal one, Harjo questioned the protections. “In order for Tribes to have authority to enforce this law as well, they must be permitted across jurisdictions, across state lines, to pursue offenders.”

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)’s Tribal Section, which gave Tribes some of their former criminal authority back, would be recognized under the law if Tribes were permitted to file their cases in Tribal courts.

“This also allows Tribes to go after offenders who defame the Tribe’s name and image,” said Harjo.

If successful, the Indian Tribe, an individual Indian, an organization for Indian arts and crafts, or the United States may ask the court to impose sanctions such as real damages, punitive damages, and/or forfeiture of proceeds, but without specifying a dollar amount.

“Given that the Department of Interior is in the comment period, citizens, Tribal Nations and Tribal citizens should closely review the revisions,” said Judge Danielle Tasheena Finn of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, who is also an adjunct professor at Sinte Gleska University in reporting from Native News Online. “Civil actions may have big implications for enforcement.”

“It only took 33 years to bring revisions to the people for discussion,” Harjo said.

“Updating the regulations does not make changes to the existing law. Our goal in updating these regulations is to better support Native artists and craftspeople, so it is critical that we hear their feedback,” said BIA’s Director of Public Affairs Joshua Barnett in an email to Native News Online. “This draft rule is intended to be a starting point for this conversation.”