When Policy Meets Sovereignty: Tribal Early Childhood Considerations
By Jannan Cotto, Systems Coordinator, Ekinoonaad (the one who guides)
Across the country, Tribal Nations are building early childhood systems as part of broader nation-building efforts. These systems are not only about care and education—they are critical infrastructure that support families, strengthen workforce participation, and contribute to long-term economic stability within Tribal communities.
They also reflect something deeper. Tribal child care systems carry language, culture, and community-defined priorities forward across generations— reflecting both identity and long-term vision. At First Children’s Finance, our work alongside Tribal Nations focuses on strengthening this infrastructure. As this work continues, federal policy plays an important role in shaping the conditions under which these systems can grow and evolve.
A recently proposed federal rule related to “illegal DEI” certifications raises important considerations about how national policy frameworks intersect with Tribal sovereignty. While the rule is not specific to Tribal Nations, its implications may still affect Tribal early childhood systems and the partners who support them.
In response to this proposed rule, First Children’s Finance submitted a public comment outlining considerations related to Tribal sovereignty and early childhood systems.
Key Insights
- Tribal child care systems are grounded in sovereignty
Tribal child care systems are designed as expressions of Tribal sovereignty and reflect longstanding federal policy distinctions. Tribal early childhood systems are grounded in sovereignty and long-recognized federal policy frameworks.
Tribal systems often include:
- Tribal hiring preferences that reflect community priorities
- Language revitalization efforts embedded in early learning environments
- Culturally grounded approaches to teaching, caregiving, and family engagement
- Targeted investments in Native children and families
These are not supplemental features—they are foundational components of how Tribal Nations design systems that serve their citizens and fulfill responsibilities to future generations.
- Lack of clarity introduces risk and hesitation in systems-building
The proposed rule does not clearly define what constitutes an “illegal DEI program,” creating uncertainty for Tribal Nations and their partners.
Without clear definitions, there is a risk that these core elements of Tribal systems could be misunderstood or evaluated through a framework not designed for Tribal governments. This ambiguity may lead to hesitation in decisions about program design, investment, and partnerships—slowing progress in building essential infrastructure.
- Uncertainty extends to the broader ecosystem of partners
Uncertainty may also affect the partners who support Tribal systems-building, including technical assistance providers, intermediaries, and financing partners. In the absence of clear guidance, this uncertainty can lead to more cautious decision-making across the system. It may:
- Introduce additional legal or administrative review into standard Tribal practices
- Discourage innovation in system design and implementation
- Slow down decision-making across partnerships and initiatives
Over time, these dynamics can limit the pace at which access to high-quality child care expands in Tribal communities.
Recommendations
To support alignment between federal policy and Tribal nation-building efforts, FCF’s comment recommends:
- Engaging in meaningful Tribal consultation prior to finalizing policy
- Clearly affirming Tribal Nations’ authority to design and implement programs for their citizens
- Distinguishing culturally grounded Tribal practices from prohibited discrimination
- Providing clear, actionable definitions to reduce ambiguity
Greater clarity would support Tribal leaders and their partners in continuing to build systems with confidence and intention.
Tribal Nations are already demonstrating what it looks like to build early childhood systems as critical infrastructure—systems that are integrated, community-driven, and aligned with long-term goals. As federal policies evolve, it will be important that they reinforce, rather than complicate, this work.
For Tribal leaders, this creates the conditions to make decisions with clarity—shaping early childhood systems in ways that reflect their communities, priorities, and long-term vision for the next seven generations.
Read our full public comment here.
