How have tribal leaders and advocates responded to the DOJ withdrawing the report on missing and murdered Native Americans?
Executive summary
Tribal leaders, advocates and some members of Congress denounced the Department of Justice’s removal of the Not One More / Not Invisible Act commission report from the DOJ website as harmful and politically motivated; senators Catherine Cortez Masto and Lisa Murkowski have publicly pressed the administration, arguing the removal misclassifies tribal nations as a racial group and undercuts federal treaty obligations [1] [2]. Advocates say the deletion makes it harder to find data and practical recommendations gathered from more than 250 testimonies and undermines law‑enforcement and survivor support efforts [1] [3] [4].
1. What was pulled and why critics say it matters
The report removed from the DOJ site summarized testimony from over 250 tribal members, survivors and relatives, outlined root causes of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons (MMIP) crisis, and offered concrete remedies — including a proposal to use U.S. Marshals to assist tribal police — that advocates say are essential to investigations and services [1] [4]. Tribal advocates and local responders told reporters that losing official DOJ placement makes the findings harder for law enforcement, students, advocates and families to access and use, diminishing its practical impact on searches, mental‑health support and funeral assistance [3] [5].
2. Administration rationale and the immediate pushback
The Department of Justice said it removed the document to comply with Office of Personnel Management guidance tied to President Trump’s executive order restricting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) related materials — the DOJ framed the action as following that guidance, and said parts of its MMIP response remain on a Tribal Justice and Safety page while the commission report exists on some external sites [6] [7] [8]. Senators who shepherded the law and other tribal‑affairs lawmakers called the move a misclassification of tribal nations as a racial category rather than recognized political sovereigns, and demanded answers from the administration [2] [1].
3. Tribal leaders’ rhetoric: treaty obligations and political identity
Sen. Cortez Masto, speaking for many tribal advocates and allied lawmakers, framed the removal as evidence the administration “doesn’t care” about violence in tribal communities and as an ignorance of the federal trust and treaty relationship with tribes — a rhetorical line that foregrounds the legal distinction between tribes as political sovereigns and racial groups [2] [9]. That framing has been a central argument from those pushing to restore the report: they say the action not only erases testimony but implicitly treats tribal nations as DEI subjects rather than government partners [9] [1].
4. Advocates warn of operational and human costs
Several tribal responders and advocates said removing the report makes investigations and community support harder: group leaders in Arkansas and elsewhere told local outlets that the missing DOJ posting reduced easy access to guidance and data for searches, task forces and researchers, and that survivors’ and families’ work is hampered by the loss of a central, authoritative source [3] [5]. Freedom United and allied organizations argued the deletion increases vulnerability to trafficking and exploitation by weakening coordinated federal attention to disappearances [4].
5. Congressional and political response — demands to restore and reclassify
A collection of Democratic members of Congress and bipartisan senators have publicly urged restoration of the report and clarification of its status, arguing the removal followed an executive order rather than an evidentiary review and asking that tribes be exempted from DEI‑related crackdowns so their political status and treaty rights are preserved [10] [9]. The pushback includes formal letters and public statements demanding that the DOJ either restore the report to its site or explain why a congressionally mandated document was taken down [10] [2].
6. What the reporting does not say and limits of current accounts
Available sources do not mention internal DOJ deliberations beyond generic compliance statements nor do they include full legal analyses resolving whether the Not One More/Not Invisible Act report legally counts as DEI content under the administration’s executive order; detailed internal memos, if any, are not provided in current reporting (not found in current reporting). Several outlets note the report is still discoverable on other websites, but sources diverge on whether the DOJ’s public response fully addresses advocates’ operational concerns [6] [7].
7. Why this matters going forward
Restoration advocates say the dispute is not just about one PDF but about federal recognition of tribal sovereignty, public access to data and policy continuity on MMIP — a crisis Congress has targeted through Savanna’s Act and the Not Invisible Act — and they warn that removing the report undermines years of testimony and recommendations needed to prevent future disappearances [11] [1]. The debate mixes legal classification, executive policy priorities, and urgent public‑safety needs; tribal leaders and advocates have made clear they will continue to press for reinstatement and legislative or administrative protections for tribal‑produced MMIP work [5] [10].