New Truth and Healing Commission Established to Investigate Indian Boarding School History; Exemptions Raise Transparency Questions

This legislation, the Truth and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policies Act of 2025, sets up a formal federal commission dedicated to investigating the history and devastating, long-term impact of Indian Boarding School policies on Native American communities. Think of it as a massive, government-mandated deep dive into a painful chapter of American history. The Commission is tasked with documenting the social, cultural, and economic damage caused by these assimilation policies and developing recommendations for what the federal government should do next.

The Commission’s Massive Undertaking

The core of the bill is the Truth and Healing Commission, a legislative body that will exist for six years. It has a huge mandate: to review all existing research, dig through records held by federal agencies, religious institutions, and private groups, and assess the harm done to students, their families, and their cultures. To get this done, the bill authorizes $90 million in funding. Crucially, the Commission must hold at least one public meeting, or “convening,” in each of the 12 Bureau of Indian Affairs regions, plus one in Hawaii. They can’t turn away anyone who wants to give relevant testimony.

Prioritizing Survivors and Trauma-Informed Care

One of the most important provisions is the creation of the Survivors Truth and Healing Subcommittee. This 15-member group, made up primarily of survivors and descendants, ensures that the people most affected have a direct, formal role in shaping the investigation and its findings. Furthermore, the bill mandates that all public meetings must be “trauma-informed” and “culturally appropriate.” This means that the Commission must provide trauma-informed care services—like counseling and private support spaces—for participants and attendees during and after these testimony sessions. For survivors and their families, this is a critical step toward ensuring the process itself doesn't cause further harm.

Connecting History to Existing Law

This Act also clarifies how historical findings connect to current law, which has real-world implications for cultural preservation. Specifically, the bill states that the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) now definitively applies to cultural items related to Indian Boarding Schools. This closes any potential loopholes that federal agencies might have used previously to avoid repatriating artifacts or remains associated with these schools. It also allows for co-stewardship agreements, enabling federal agencies to partner with Tribes to manage cemeteries or school grounds where remains might be located, ensuring respectful management of these sensitive sites.

The Trade-Offs: Transparency and Accountability

While the restorative goals of the bill are clear, there are some structural provisions that raise eyebrows regarding transparency. The main Commission and its various subcommittees are explicitly exempted from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which normally requires federal advisory bodies to operate transparently. More significantly, the Federal and Religious Truth and Healing Advisory Committee—the body responsible for coordinating information from federal agencies and religious institutions—is exempt from both the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regarding its records and communications. This means the public won't have the usual legal tools to request or review the documents and information this specific committee gathers, limiting public oversight of a key part of the investigation.

The Bottom Line: No Right to Sue

Finally, Section 304 includes a straightforward but critical clause: No right of action. This means that while the Commission is created to investigate and recommend, the Act itself cannot be used by individuals or organizations to sue the government or anyone else to force compliance with its provisions. For the public, this is important to understand: the accountability mechanism of this entire effort relies solely on the Commission’s final report and the government’s subsequent response, not on litigation.