In recent legal proceedings, two Native American tribes in Alaska — the Unalakleet and Elim — are suing the federal government for failing to get their approval and consent before distributing millions of dollars in broadband grants in flagrant disregard for taxpayer accountability and tribal sovereignty. Their lawsuit against the Agriculture Department resonates far beyond the Arctic slopes of Nome, Alaska; it demonstrates the need to respect tribal consent and more robust accountability and oversight of federal broadband programs.
At the heart of the legal dispute lies a USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) decision to award $70 million in ReConnect broadband grants to Mukluk Telephone Co. and Interior Telephone Co. without first obtaining the explicit and proper approval of the affected communities and tribes.
Federal law and USDA regulations unequivocally require that broadband providers obtain consent from local tribes when attempting to obtain grants or loans to service their tribal lands. This requirement is not merely bureaucratic red tape; it is a fundamental tenet of respecting tribal communities and their sovereignty and the right of Native Americans and Native Alaskans to decide what happens on their land.
According to the lawsuit, USDA RUS sidestepped that federal provision when awarding the broadband grant to the two Fastwyre subsidiaries, only securing approval from a community nonprofit organization, Kawerak, rather than the two tribes. This maneuver not only potentially broke federal law but also undermined the integrity of the federal grant process, which risks the accurate and proper allocation of taxpayer dollars.
This egregious act not only affects the $70 million ReConnect grant in the underserved tribal areas but it may also effectively exclude the Unalakleet and Elim from applying for or receiving future broadband funding like the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) initiative. Since the RUS considers an area “served” once a grant has been awarded, the tribal lands are now ineligible for more federal broadband funding. This exclusion — enshrined at federal and state levels — will only broaden the digital divide, burden an unsuspected population of Native Alaskans, and deprive a vulnerable community of digital access and equity.
Missing out on BEAD funding would be a significant missed opportunity for the Unalakleet and Elim tribes, as Alaska is receiving the largest tally per capita (about $1,400) due to its low pace of broadband deployment. A recent report from the American Community Survey found that 71 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native households on tribal lands could access broadband in 2021, compared to the national average of 90 percent.
The complaint against the USDA RUS sheds light on a broader issue of accountability and stewardship of taxpayer funds. Fastwyre’s alleged history of non-compliance, including a previous ReConnect grant that was awarded years ago and remains unbuilt and unfulfilled, raises serious concerns about federal enforcement and oversight within the broadband grant programs. The two affected tribes argue that an injunction is necessary to rectify the immediate injustice and safeguard future investments by preserving funds for equitable and lawful broadband development in the future.
As we strive for more inclusive economic growth and technological advancement, it is imperative that federal agencies uphold their legal responsibilities to protect tribal rights and sovereignty, and taxpayer interests. The legal battle between Unalakleet and Elim against the USDA underscores the urgent need for greater accountability, examination and transparency in federal grant processes, especially within the broadband framework.
Taxpayers and tribes suffer when federal agencies haphazardly award grants without doing the most basic due diligence.
This case is more than a legal dispute; it tests our government’s commitment to equity, responsible stewardship of public resources, and respect for tribal sovereignty. As we strive for inclusive economic growth and technological advancement, we must uphold these principles to protect the rights and futures of all communities. It’s why such agency rules and regulations exist in the first place, and USDA RUS ignoring its own rules warrants further investigation by Congress.
As the lawsuit and injunction progress, we must demand nothing less than accountability and justice for Unalakleet, Elim, and all Indigenous and Native communities striving for equitable access to vital broadband infrastructure. Their fight should shed light on the federal bureaucracy and force necessary changes in the federal broadband programs to ensure that every taxpayer dollar is spent wisely and by the law — because when we protect tribal rights, we protect our property rights and the integrity of our democracy and the future of equitable economic development for all.
