How Revenue Works
Native American ownership and governance
Native American land ownership is complex. It involves a patchwork of titles, restrictions, obligations, statutes, and regulations. Natural resources are extracted on Native American lands, and the associated revenue is disbursed through a unique process involving many stakeholders.
Land ownership
Today, there are two major types of Native American land:
- Trust land, in which the federal government holds legal title, but the beneficial interest remains with the individual or Tribe. Trust lands held on behalf of individuals are known as allotments.
- Fee land purchased by Tribes, in which the Tribe acquires legal title under specific statutory authority.
In general, most Native American lands are trust land. Approximately 56 million acres are held in trust by the United States for various Native American Tribes and individuals. See BIA's definition of a federal Indian reservation to learn more.
Natural resource ownership
Native American natural resource ownership parallels land ownership. Natural resources on Native American land can be held in trust for a Tribe or individual, or owned by them as part of restricted-fee land. Different laws govern mineral development on trust land, depending on whether an individual or a Tribe holds the beneficial interest. Regardless, a Tribe or individual cannot develop their natural resources without the federal government's approval.
New types of legal agreements for extraction have given greater control to Tribes, though federal approval remains necessary at some point in the process for most Tribes.
For the leasing process for individually owned minerals, see 25 U.S. Code § 396 and 25 CFR Part 212. For Tribes, see the Indian Mineral Development Act, 25 CFR Part 225, the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938, and 25 CFR Part 211.
Revenue in context: disbursements to Tribes and individual mineral owners
$911.4M was disbursed to Tribes and individual Indian mineral owners in 2025 - $6.2B over 5 years.
Source: Monthly disbursements dataset - filter by fund type "Native American Tribes & Allottees" for the records behind this chart.
Laws and regulations
The laws and regulations governing Native American land and the federal government's relationship to it are grounded in a trust responsibility going back to the 1830s. Since then, the policies enacted by Congress have varied widely. Expand each era below.
The U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause established the regulatory relationship between Native American Tribes and the federal government. Justice John Marshall's series of Supreme Court decisions — the Marshall Trilogy — established several important principles of Native American law, including the federal trust responsibility, under which the government charged itself with "moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust" toward Tribes, and the principle that Tribes are sovereign — a sovereignty only Congress can diminish.
During the Allotment Era of the late 1800s and early 1900s, the federal government parceled out millions of acres of Native American lands to individual Native Americans in an effort to break up reservations. Under the Dawes Act, allotments of usually 80 or 160 acres were held in trust for a period, then transferred to fee title — after which the land became subject to state and local taxation, and thousands of acres passed out of Native American hands. Non-allotted lands were often declared "surplus" and opened to homesteaders.
In 1887, Tribes held 138 million acres; by 1934, 48 million. The allotment policy also left a checkerboard of ownership on many reservations. As original allottees died, their land divided among descendants — a process known as fractionation. Today, individual parcels sometimes have more than 100 co-owners, which limits economic development and can divide lease income into shares of just a few cents. Learn about mitigation efforts in the Cobell Land Buy-Back Program annual report.
The Indian Reorganization Act ended the policy of allotment, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to restore remaining surplus lands to tribal ownership, and incentivized Tribes to adopt U.S.-style governments and constitutions. Most federally recognized Tribes are organized under the IRA. It marked a shift toward tribal self-government that underpins the modern extractive industries policy for Tribes.
IMLA increased the amount of control Tribes have over extraction on their land: leases for extraction on tribal lands required tribal consent — still true today — plus the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. But under IMLA, Tribes could not negotiate leases, influence operations, cancel leases, or set rates.
IMDA gave Tribes and individuals the right to negotiate their own mineral development agreements (MDAs) with companies, covering the full range of the extraction process — including terms on employment of tribal members or subcontracting to tribally owned entities. Individuals can join a tribally negotiated MDA; the federal government may assist in negotiations when requested; and the Secretary of the Interior must still approve MDAs as in the best interest of the Tribe.
The 2005 Act grants Tribes greater autonomy to manage energy resources: with the Secretary's review and approval, a Tribe can enter tribal energy resource agreements (TERAs), enter business agreements and leases for energy development, and grant rights-of-way for pipelines and transmission lines on tribal land.
The 2017 amendments (signed December 2018) direct Interior to provide Tribes technical assistance, allow pooling of tribal energy resources, streamline BIA's TERA approvals, give Tribes preference for preliminary hydroelectric licenses, authorize tribal biomass projects, allow the Navajo Nation to enter mineral leases on restricted lands without DOI approval, and allow the Crow Tribe to lease trust land for up to 99 years, among other provisions.