Defense Community Infrastructure Program Tribal Eligibility Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Randall, Emily [D-WA-6]
- Committees
- Armed Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 25, 2026
Bottom line
This bill broadens the scope of the Defense Community Infrastructure Program to allow federally recognized Indian tribes to access federal funding for infrastructure projects that benefit military communities.
What it actually does
This bill expands eligibility for the Defense Community Infrastructure Program (DCIP) to include federally recognized Indian tribes. Currently, the program provides grants to state and local governments for infrastructure projects that support military installations. This amendment ensures that Indian tribes can also apply for and receive these grants, aligning their eligibility with other governmental entities near defense facilities.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that including Indian tribes in the DCIP is a matter of equity and practical necessity, recognizing tribes as sovereign governments that often share borders and infrastructure needs with military installations. They contend it will strengthen tribal communities and enhance military readiness by improving shared infrastructure, fostering better relationships between the Department of Defense and tribal nations.
Opponents contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against expanding eligibility for infrastructure programs to additional governmental entities, especially when it aligns with existing federal-tribal relations. Potential concerns, if any, might revolve around the allocation of existing funds or administrative complexities, but these are not direct opposition to the principle of tribal eligibility.
The bill is exceptionally short and clear, allowing for quick comprehension by any interested reader.
Section 2
Inclusion of Indian Tribes in the Defense Community Infrastructure Program
This section amends Title 10, United States Code, specifically Section 2391, which governs the Defense Community Infrastructure Program. It explicitly adds "Indian tribes" alongside state and local governments as eligible entities to receive grants under this program. The bill also defines "Indian tribe" by referencing the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, ensuring consistency with existing federal definitions. This change allows tribal governments to apply for funding for infrastructure projects that support military installations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision rectifies an oversight by recognizing Indian tribes as sovereign governments with legitimate infrastructure needs that often intersect with military operations. They believe it will foster stronger partnerships between the DoD and tribal nations, improve infrastructure resilience in shared communities, and ultimately benefit military readiness.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it aligns with principles of tribal sovereignty and federal-tribal trust responsibilities. Any potential concerns would likely be about the administrative burden or the distribution of existing funds, rather than the principle of tribal eligibility itself.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension, if any, might be the potential for increased competition for existing DCIP funds, though proponents would argue that expanding eligibility to deserving entities is a net positive. It balances the need for efficient program administration with the goal of equitable access for all relevant governmental partners.
Defines "Indian tribe" by reference to section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304).
Section 2(2)(B) (adding new paragraph (7) to subsection (e))
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure consistency with existing legal definitions and avoid redundancy. It is not intended to be evasive.
Case for: Proponents argue that using an existing, well-established definition for "Indian tribe" ensures legal consistency across federal programs and avoids creating new, potentially conflicting definitions.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on cross-references can make legislation less accessible to the general public, requiring additional research to fully understand the scope of the bill.
Estimated impact: Ensures that only federally recognized Indian tribes, as defined by the referenced Act, are eligible for the program, preventing ambiguity.