Last week, a second Native American-owned company decided to terminate a multi-million dollar agreement with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) due to community pressure. A branch of Oneida ESC Group, owned by the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, ended a $3.8 million contract with ICE for engineering and inspection of federal facilities after the Oneida government objected to the contract. The government also changed the subsidiary’s board of managers.
Chairman Tahassi Hill of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin emphasized the importance of nations having the authority to uphold their own vision and values. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation in Kansas previously canceled a $29.9 million contract with ICE for planning and research, along with dismissing senior leaders of the company involved.
Becky Webster, a member of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin and former senior staff attorney for the tribe, expressed surprise upon discovering the ICE contract, stating that it contradicted the tribe’s core values. Matthew L. M. Fletcher, a law professor at the University of Michigan and a member of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, highlighted how Indigenous-owned businesses are eligible for preferences in federal contracting under the 8(a) program.
The 8(a) program aims to support socially and economically disadvantaged small business owners, with provisions favoring Indigenous-owned enterprises. Despite the discontinuation of other affirmative action programs, the 8(a) program remains unaffected. Fletcher noted the attractiveness of such contracting opportunities to tribes due to their legal standing and lack of public accountability requirements.
Akima, a subsidiary of NANA Regional Corporation owned by 11 Iñupiaq villages in Alaska, holds substantial contracts with the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, including services at Guantanamo Bay. NANA affirmed its commitment to ethical operations aligned with its cultural values. Winona LaDuke, an environmentalist from White Earth Reservation, raised concerns about the ethical implications of some Alaska Native corporations’ contracts and emphasized the importance of tribes monitoring their business activities more closely.