Truth and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policies Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 3, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to formally investigate the historical harms of Indian Boarding Schools, promote healing for affected communities, and develop federal recommendations for addressing the lasting impacts.
What it actually does
This bill establishes the Truth and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policies in the United States, along with a Survivors Truth and Healing Subcommittee and two advisory committees. The Commission is tasked with conducting a comprehensive investigation into the history and impacts of Indian Boarding Schools and related policies, developing recommendations for federal action, and coordinating efforts to locate and identify burial sites associated with these schools. It aims to promote healing for survivors, their descendants, and affected communities.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill is a crucial step towards truth, reconciliation, and healing for Native American communities deeply affected by the historical policies of Indian Boarding Schools. They emphasize the need for a comprehensive investigation into the systemic abuses and cultural destruction, and the importance of survivor-led recommendations to inform future federal actions and ensure culturally appropriate support.
Opponents contend
While direct opposition to the concept of truth and healing commissions is rare, potential opponents might raise concerns about the scope and duration of the commission, the financial cost of the investigation, or the potential for the commission's findings to lead to demands for reparations or other forms of redress that could be politically contentious. Some might also question the practical enforceability of recommendations or the extent of federal involvement in historical reconciliation.
The bill is moderately detailed but accessible, allowing an informed reader to understand its core mechanisms within a reasonable timeframe.
Sec. 2
Establishment and Mandate of the Commission
This section outlines the core objectives of the Act: to create a Truth and Healing Commission, investigate the history and effects of Indian Boarding Schools and policies, develop federal recommendations based on findings, and promote healing for survivors and their descendants. It sets the overarching goals for the entire legislative effort.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that clearly stating these purposes establishes a moral and legal imperative for the federal government to address historical injustices and begin a process of reconciliation and healing.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the stated purposes of truth and healing, though concerns about scope or cost may arise regarding the implementation.
Tradeoffs
Balancing the need for a thorough historical investigation with the desire for timely healing and actionable recommendations.
Sec. 101
Establishment and Structure of the Main Commission
This section formally establishes the Truth and Healing Commission in the legislative branch. It details the appointment process for its 5 members (appointed by Congressional leaders), qualifications for nominees (experience in indigenous human rights, trauma-informed care, etc.), term limits (6 years or life of Commission), and operational rules including quorum, compensation, and powers (convenings, information gathering, contracting, gift acceptance). It also specifies that the Commission is exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act but subject to the Congressional Accountability Act.
Sec. 101(l)
Commission Funding Allocation
This provision allocates $90,000,000 from existing authorized appropriations (Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments of 2000 and Indian Financing Act of 1974) to carry out the activities of the Truth and Healing Commission.
Sec. 111
Comprehensive Investigation and Reporting Mandate
This section details the core investigative duties of the Commission, including a comprehensive interdisciplinary review of Indian Boarding School Policies and their social, cultural, economic, emotional, and physical effects. It mandates collaboration with various federal agencies, religious institutions, and Native American entities to gather information, conduct trauma-informed public convenings, and make recommendations to Congress, including on memorialization, preservation of records, and modification of existing statutes. It also specifies duties related to locating and identifying burial sites. The Commission is required to submit annual reports, an initial report (after 4 years), and a final report (before termination) to Congress and various federal officials, with public availability and agency responses.
Sec. 121
Establishment and Role of the Survivors Subcommittee
This section establishes a 15-member Survivors Truth and Healing Subcommittee, appointed by the main Commission. Its membership is specifically designed to include Indian Boarding School survivors, descendants, and educators, ensuring direct representation from those most affected. The Subcommittee's duties include assisting the Commission with convenings, advising on commemoration and public education, and contributing to the initial and final reports.
Sec. 201
Establishment and Role of the Native American Advisory Committee
This section establishes a 19-member Native American Truth and Healing Advisory Committee, appointed by the Commission. It includes representatives from the Commission, Survivors Subcommittee, Secretary of Interior, and various Native American organizations (e.g., National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition, National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, National Indian Education Association), as well as regional representatives. Its duties include advising the Commission, assisting with culturally appropriate convenings, identifying necessary documentation, and contributing to reports.
Sec. 211
Establishment and Role of the Federal and Religious Advisory Committee
This section establishes a 20-member Federal and Religious Truth and Healing Advisory Committee within the Department of the Interior. It comprises representatives from various federal agencies (e.g., Interior, HHS, Education, Library of Congress, National Archives) and three representatives from religious institutions. Its duties include ensuring effective coordination among federal agencies and religious institutions, assisting with information collection, and ensuring timely submission of materials to the Commission. It is explicitly exempt from the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Freedom of Information Act regarding its records.
Sec. 301
Clarification of Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Applicability
This section clarifies that the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) applies to 'cultural items' related to Indian Boarding Schools or their policies, regardless of how a federal agency might have previously interpreted its applicability. This ensures that remains and cultural items from boarding schools are subject to repatriation laws.
Sec. 302
Reburial on Federal Land
This section mandates that federal agencies permit the reburial of cultural items (including human remains) related to Indian Boarding Schools on any federal land, provided it is agreed upon by the relevant lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations, following repatriation or other disinterment processes.
Exempts the main Commission and the Federal and Religious Truth and Healing Advisory Committee from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
Sec. 101(i) and Sec. 211(h)(3)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define the legal framework for new entities. For FACA exemptions, it's often to allow for more flexible or private deliberations, or to prevent procedural hurdles that might slow down sensitive work.
Case for: Proponents argue that FACA exemption allows the Commission and the Federal/Religious Advisory Committee to operate with greater flexibility, hold private meetings when necessary for sensitive testimony, and avoid bureaucratic delays that could impede their critical work of truth-finding and healing.
Case against: Critics might argue that FACA exemption reduces transparency and public oversight of these bodies, potentially limiting public access to their proceedings and records, which could undermine public trust in the truth-seeking process.
Estimated impact: Significant impact on the operational transparency and procedural requirements for the Commission and one of its key advisory bodies.
Exempts records and communications of the Federal and Religious Truth and Healing Advisory Committee from the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Sec. 211(h)(1) and (2)
Why it matters:Potentially evasive, as it significantly limits public access to information gathered by a federal advisory body, though it could also be justified as necessary to encourage full and candid disclosure of sensitive historical information from federal agencies and religious institutions.
Case for: Proponents argue that these exemptions are critical to encourage federal agencies and religious institutions to provide sensitive historical records and candid testimony without fear of immediate public disclosure, which could otherwise hinder the Commission's ability to gather comprehensive information.
Case against: Critics contend that exempting these records from FOIA and the Privacy Act creates a significant transparency loophole, potentially allowing information about historical abuses and institutional complicity to remain hidden from public scrutiny, undermining the very goal of truth-seeking.
Estimated impact: Substantial impact on public access to historical records and communications collected by this specific advisory committee.
Explicitly states that nothing in the Act creates a private right of action to seek administrative or judicial relief.
Sec. 304
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to limit potential litigation against the government or other entities based on the Act's findings or recommendations.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision is necessary to prevent the Commission's work from being bogged down by litigation, allowing it to focus on its truth-finding and healing mandate without creating new avenues for lawsuits against the federal government or other entities.
Case against: Critics might argue that by explicitly denying a private right of action, the bill limits the ability of survivors and their descendants to seek justice or redress through legal means, potentially undermining the 'healing' aspect of the Commission's mandate.
Estimated impact: Prevents any individual or group from suing based on the existence or findings of this Act, channeling redress through policy recommendations rather than judicial processes.