AI

UN Seeks Indigenous Input on Who Controls Food Knowledge in the Age of AI

Wenona Singel

When Indigenous food knowledge enters an app, database, research project, digital map, or AI system, who controls what happens to it next? Too often, the institution collecting or storing the knowledge sets the terms.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Sofía Monsalve Suárez, is seeking submissions for a thematic report on science, technology, knowledge, and food systems. She’ll present the report to the UN Human Rights Council in March 2027. The call expressly invites Indigenous Peoples’ organizations to submit data, case studies, good practices, shortcomings, and recommendations.

Important Dates

  • Deadline. October 14, 2026, at 11 p.m. Geneva time and 5 p.m. Eastern
  • Report. The Special Rapporteur will present the report to the UN Human Rights Council in March 2027
  • Limit. 2,500 words or five pages, submitted in Word format
  • Languages. English, French, or Spanish
  • Email. hrc-sr-food@un.org
  • Subject line. “Inputs for Science, Technology and Food Systems report”

Resources

AI Governance Is a Tribal Sovereignty Project, Not Just an Employee Policy

Wenona Singel



Recent warnings that AI is advancing faster than government can control it have focused on threats to jobs, democracy, and even humanity. Whatever you might think of the most extreme predictions, AI needs guardrails and too few jurisdictions are responding. For tribes, that’s a sovereignty question.

The Cherokee Nation’s AI policy and Data Sovereignty and Governance Task Force report⁠ offers an important model of executive action. But Tribes aren’t merely employers. Sure, they purchase technology, control data and resources, own businesses, and manage employees, but they also legislate, regulate, prosecute, adjudicate, provide remedies, and negotiate with other governments.

Tribes can begin to take action by inventorying AI uses and assessing risks to citizens, elections, decision-making processes, Indigenous data, cultural knowledge, jurisdiction, treaty rights, and future generations. One possible approach is to use a sequence like below, with steps that will overlap and that can proceed in parallel:

continuous risk assessment → executive policy → employment, contracting, and procurement protections → administrative capacity → Tribal legislation creating rights, duties, oversight, and remedies → Tribal enforcement and remedies → intergovernmental and external enforcement

Jurisdictional limits matter, especially when vendors, data, or harmful actors are beyond a Tribe’s reach. But those limits make contracts and intergovernmental agreements more important; they don’t justify inaction. The magnitude of the risks also requires inter-Tribal coordination and resource-sharing between Tribes.

The question isn’t simply how Tribal employees should use AI. It’s how Tribal governments will exercise sovereignty over it.

Some Useful Resources

Cherokee Nation Data Sovereignty and Governance Task Force Report. Provides a Tribal-specific example of executive policy development, institutional assessment, data sovereignty, cybersecurity, and AI governance.

NIST Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework. Offers a structured method that Tribes can adapt to identify, measure, manage, and monitor AI risks.

CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. Adds an Indigenous-specific framework centered on collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics.

GovAI Coalition Templates and Resources for Public Agencies. Supplies practical policy, procurement, assessment, and vendor review tools that Tribes can revise to reflect Tribal law, values, jurisdiction, and sovereign immunity.

Worth a Watch: Tech Sovereignty and the AI Era

Wenona Singel

Link to video is here.

From NCAI’s YouTube channel:

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to evolve, Tribal Nations face critical decisions about how to protect their natural resources, safeguard Tribal data sovereignty, and ensure emerging technologies align with Tribal values. By exercising governance over AI, Tribal Nations can also harness these tools to preserve and revitalize Indigenous languages, strengthen self-determination, and create high-quality economic and workforce opportunities for Native people.

Whether your Tribal Nation chooses to regulate, leverage, or reject AI, this session provides the clear-eyed roadmap you need to make informed decisions. Hear directly from the foremost Indigenous tech experts on protecting our resources and governing AI on our own terms.

Featured Speakers:

The Risks: Land & Water — Cora Tso, Arizona State University
The Risks: Data & DNA — Dr. Krystal Tsosie & Joe Yracheta, Native BioData Consortium
The Opportunity: Workforce — Danielle Forward, Natives Rising
Innovation: Language — Michael Running Wolf, FLAIR

The webinar was recorded live on July 22, 2026.

Data Centers in Indian Country

Wenona Singel

As some Tribes reject hyperscale data centers in Indian Country, others are embracing data center development. Others are imposing moratoria on data centers to allow for further studies and policy development. Below is a snapshot of what Tribes are doing. It illustrates the diversity of Tribes in the US, and it shows Tribes acting as governments, regulators, landowners, utility operators, infrastructure owners, investors, economic development actors, and political communities as they decide what tech development should look like on their lands.

  • Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma: Released a Data Center Task Force report on August 5, 2026 and is now banning hyperscale data centers on tribally owned and trust lands.

  • Seminole Nation of Oklahoma: On March 7, 2026, the Tribal Council unanimously voted for a moratorium on generative-AI and hyperscale data center development within its jurisdiction. The resolution also bars “any inquiries, discussions and/or developments concerning any entity seeking to develop a data center of any size within the Seminole Nation during the moratorium period.”

  • Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians: Supports a moratorium. The Tribe adopted a resolution on May 19, 2026 supporting the state of Michigan establishing a temporary moratorium on large-scale data centers and cryptocurrency mining until a Tribal consultation process is established, including comprehensive environmental and cultural impact assessments on any legislation involving large-scale data centers and cryptocurrency mining.

  • Muscogee (Creek) Nation: Rejected. In November 2025, the National Council rejected a measure that would have developed a data center at Looped Square Ranch, where land is being used for Tribal food sovereignty.

  • Hoopa Valley Tribe: Supports, under Tribal ownership. Hoopa opened a new data center on July 17, 2026, but it’s not a hyperscale data center. It’s a tribally-owned facility serving as the operational hub of Hoopa’s fiber-to-home broadband network and Acorn Connected, its Tribal internet service provider.

  • Forest County Potawatomi Community: Yes, and has been doing it for years. Its enterprise Data Holdings operates a commercial data center in Milwaukee on trust land and is 100% Tribally owned. It opened in 2013 as a $33 million wholesale data center and now provides colocation/private cloud services and hosts the Milwaukee Internet Exchange.

  • Navajo Nation: Yes. Navajo Tribal Utility Authority operates a data center in Shiprock on the Navajo Nation offering colocation, virtualization and high-speed optical backhaul to off-reservation points-of-presence in Albuquerque and Phoenix. NTUA is a Navajo Nation enterprise, and the facility serves both Navajo and outside government and business customers.
  • Colusa Indian Community: Actively pursuing AI infrastructure. The Community’s Colusa Indian Energy announced a partnership in March 2026 with Strata Expanse to develop an AI and energy infrastructure campus on the land of the Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community in Northern California. Plans include expanding on-site energy generation capacity to more than 100 MW over the next 18 months.
  • Osage Nation: Debating a data center approved in February 2026 by the City of Sand Springs on the Osage reservation. The proposed data center would be operated by Google, and construction is planned to begin in 2027. The developers are seeking support from the Osage Minerals Council, which controls the nation’s 1.47 million acre oil and gas subsurface.

Additional Resources

Tribal Nations and Data Centers: Emerging Issues and Resources, USET

AI Data Centers and Tribes: Emerging Federal and Policy State Trends and Tribal Governance Options, Tana Fitzpatrick, Director, Native Nations Center for Tribal Policy Research

Honor the Earth Data Center Tracker (interactive crowd-sourced map)

Indigenous Peoples Push Back as Data Centers Expand Across North America, John Ahni Schertow in Intercontinental Cry Magazine

The Cloud is Drying our Rivers: Water Usage of AI Data Centers, Charlotte Jennings, EthicalGeo

Honor the Earth DataCenterTracker; Earthstar Geographics; U.S. Census Bureau

Seattle Law School: “Indigenous Perspectives on AI: Appropriation, Regulation, and Innovation” on June 5, 2026

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Join Seattle University School of Law for the 9th Annual Innovation and Technology Law Conference, a virtual gathering exploring Indigenous Perspectives on AI: Appropriation, Regulation, and Innovation.

 

  • Friday, June 5, 2026
  • 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
  • Virtual event
  • Register to receive the Zoom link the day before the event

 

Presented by the Technology, Innovation Law, and Ethics (TILE) Institute and the SITIE Initiative, and co-sponsored by the Northwest Center for Indigenous Law, Seattle Journal of Technology, Environmental & Innovation Law (SJTEIL), and the American Indian Law Journal, this year’s conference brings together leading scholars, practitioners, and Indigenous leaders.

 

Through a full day of panels and discussion, you’ll gain insight into:

 

  • The legal and ethical implications of cultural appropriation in AI
  • Indigenous data sovereignty and emerging frameworks
  • AI regulation through the lens of tribal sovereignty
  • Innovative models led by Indigenous technologists and communities

 

View the full agenda and speaker lineup on the SITIE Conference event page.
Register now to be part of this timely and critical conversation.

Agenda

Continue reading →

Fletcher on AI and Tribal Court Practice

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “AI and Tribal Court Practice,” soon to be published in the American Journal of Trial Advocacy.

Here is an excerpt:

American Indian tribal court practice resides at the intersection of two difficult legal problems. First, because tribal justice systems are usually very young and dynamic, awareness and analysis of tribal law is underdeveloped. Second, because tribal nations are not governed by state or federal law, tribal law is culturally unique. Tribal court practitioners often find that even routine legal matters will involve questions of first impression in the jurisdiction. All of this is to say tribal court jurisprudence is intensely jurisgenerative.

Because tribal law is often unsettled or indeterminate, the costs of discovering and applying this law are occasionally high. Most tribal law involves tribal constitutional or statutory interpretation or the application of federal and state court precedents, which is not terribly costly to perform. But applying tribal customary or traditional law, also known as tribal common law, can be much more difficult. Today, legal practice is knee-deep in reliance on artificial intelligence (AI). More practitioners are using AI to conduct legal research and even to draft pleadings. Assuming a practitioner reasonably utilizes AI generators, the use of AI can be beneficial. One assumes that the larger the corpus of law (statutes, cases, regulations, etc.), the greater value AI can provide in cutting out the relevant legal wheat from the irrelevant legal chaff.

This Article offers preliminary thoughts on how tribal court practitioners can use AI to research and apply tribal law using a common legal issue—tribal sovereign immunity. This Article analyzes written research memoranda and pleadings generated by AI. As a result, this Article concludes there is great potential for the use of AI in tribal court practice, but there are definite and indefinite pitfalls.