Green or not, US energy future depends on Native nations

The Trump administration’s drive to and likely cannot be accomplished without a key constituency: Native nations.

The U.S. has with inside the United States’ borders, governing , predominantly west of the Mississippi.

Native American tribal lands contain . And they contain materials critical for advanced technologies, including renewable energy: copper for electric grids, lithium and rare earth elements for batteries and electronics, and water for agriculture and power generation.

Significantly expanding domestic access to fossil fuels, critical minerals and water will require the U.S. government to work with Native nations. Their rights to resources on their lands are enshrined in long-standing treaties whose to the U.S. Constitution itself. , negotiated from the late 18th to the late 19th centuries and ratified by the U.S. Senate. They are not mere historical artifacts but rather key documents at the center of modern conflicts over drilling, mining, pipelines and energy infrastructure.

For Indigenous nations, access to natural resources is more than a matter of economic opportunity or environmental sustainability. Managing these lands is inseparable from questions of sovereignty, sacred land and treaty enforcement.

Treaties as living law

Under the U.S. Constitution, treaties are ranked as “” right alongside the Constitution itself.

Federal Indian Law, largely codified in , defines the relationship between the United States and tribal nations, including recognizing tribes as possessing and exercising “.” Supreme Court decisions sometimes recognize tribes as , but that by congressional authority and overlapping state jurisdiction.

The treaties have long been seen as instruments that allowed settlers of European descent to . But they also on land the tribes never officially gave up. One treaty with the Eastern Shoshone permitted “” on lands reserved to the tribe, while another allowed “.”

But in recent decades, Native nations have used the treaties as grounds for reasserting their sovereign status, restoring the documents to their original purpose as an organized set of nation-to-nation relationships deeply rooted in .

In particular, since the 1970s have revived treaty claims as tools to protect land, water and cultural practices. Treaties once dismissed as instruments of dispossession are increasingly invoked as – and as relevant to, and capable of, .

Energy projects and treaty disputes

The tribes are demanding the federal government protect , and when evaluating proposals for mining and other developments.

Native-led protests and lawsuits are a common feature of large infrastructure projects that cross their land or threaten their resources. In 2021, the sought to block the expansion of the . The route was planned to run underneath a spiritually significant Minnesota lake where it and other tribes had treaty-protected rights to water, hunting and fishing.

In its effort, which was , the from 1837, 1854 and 1855. The tribe argued that these treaties required the federal government to protect their rights to hunt, fish and gather – a position supported by a .

More successful was a 2024 move by the Navajo Nation to get the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to on Navajo lands.

In late January 2026, however, the commission approved a of Yakama Nation lands in the state of Washington. The Yakama Nation and other tribes and local groups are asking state courts to block the project.

These cases expose a in U.S. law between the federal government’s treaty-bound responsibility to protect tribal resources and the authority claimed by the federal and state governments over land and development.

Oak Flat and the Apache Stronghold case

One of the most significant current disputes involves the proposed mine at Oak Flat in Arizona. Known to the Western Apache as Chi’chil Biłdagoteel, Oak Flat is a sacred site used for ceremonies .

In 2014, Congress authorized the transfer of around 2,422 acres of federally protected land in to the mining company through the , embedded in a defense spending bill. If allowed, the underground mining proposed on that land presents a of the site.

In 2021, the Apache-led coalition Apache Stronghold sued the U.S. government, arguing that the land transfer and provisions in the that required the government to respect tribal lands.

The courts have so far sided with the federal government on the grounds that Congress, rather than the states, has ultimate authority in what federal law calls “.”

First, a U.S. District Court denied an injunction to stop the transfer. In March 2024, the justices of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a split ruling upholding that decision and finding that the on the Apaches’ religious rights.

In May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court . However, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas wrote that they wanted to hear the case. They warned that by not hearing it, the court was .

The Apaches tried again in late 2025, but the Supreme Court , leaving intact the 9th Circuit ruling, which allowed the land transfer to the mining company.

Even so, the conflict is not over. The Apaches took additional claims to the 9th Circuit in a , and the court issued in late 2025, which paused aspects of the land transfer while litigation continues.

Why treaties still matter

The Oak Flat dispute highlights the limits of existing legal protections for Indigenous sacred sites, even when treaties and religious freedom are clearly at stake. It also shows how congressional control over use of federal land can override Indigenous objections in the name of energy security and critical minerals.

This and comparable disputes also show how treaties, federal law and the Constitution can be used to slow, reshape and sometimes halt extractive projects, forcing states and corporations to reckon with Native sovereignty, even where Congress or the executive branch claims the last word.

For Native nations, treaties remain central tools for asserting sovereignty and shaping energy futures. Tribal governments and Indigenous corporations are increasingly active in renewable energy and mineral markets, seeking development on . In April 2025, Buu Nygren, president of the coal-rich Navajo Nation, called for energy developments that and secure Indigenous nations’ place in global supply chains.

Treaties are not relics of the past. They continue to shape how energy, law and sovereignty intersect in the United States today.