Hubbry Logo
List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribesList of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribesMain
Open search
List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes
Community hub
List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes
List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes
List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

These organizations, located within the United States, self-identify as Native American tribes, heritage groups, or descendant communities, but they are not federally recognized or state-recognized as Native American tribes. The U.S. Governmental Accountability Office states: "Non-federally recognized tribes fall into two distinct categories: (1) state-recognized tribes that are not also federally recognized and (2) other groups that self-identify as Indian tribes but are neither federally nor state recognized."[1] The following list includes the latter.

For organizations that are recognized by the government of the United States as Native American tribes and tribal nations, see List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States and List of Alaska Native tribal entities. For groups that are recognized by state governments as Native American tribes, see State-recognized tribes in the United States.

Many of these organizations are not accepted as being Native American by established Native American tribes. Exceptions exist, including tribes whose previous recognition was terminated, especially in California under the California Rancheria Termination Acts. Certain historic tribes in California signed treaties in 1851 and 1852 that the U.S. Senate secretly rejected after being pressured by the state of California; many of these historic tribes remain unrecognized.[2]

The following groups claim to be of Native American, which includes American Indian and Alaska Native, or Métis heritage by ethnicity but have no federal recognition through the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Federal Acknowledgment (OFA),[3] United States Department of the Interior Office of the Solicitor (SOL), and are not recognized by any state government in the United States.

Some of the organizations are regarded as fraudulent.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Some organizations are described as Corporations Posing as Indigenous Nations (CPAIN).[10][11][12][13][14]

Non-recognized tribes is a term for "groups that have no federal designation and are not accepted as sovereign entities under U.S. law," which includes state-recognized tribes. "An additional sub-designation under this classification are 'Federally Non-Recognized' tribes, which includes groups that have previously held federal recognition, either under governments prior to the U.S. Federal Government or as Nations that are no longer in existence and/or no longer meet the criteria as a Nation to have sovereignty status."[15]

Indigenous communities in the Pacific such as Native Hawaiians, Samoan Americans, Chamorro people of Guam, and Indigenous peoples of the Northern Mariana Islands are classified as Pacific Indigenous Communities and are not organized into tribes.[16]

Caribbean

[edit]

This list also includes some groups from non-sovereign U.S. territories outside the contiguous United States, especially Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, that identify as having Caribbean Indigenous heritage and which also lack formal recognition. Groups outside the 48 contiguous states and Alaska are currently ineligible for federal recognition.[a][20][21] Some of these groups are represented on the International Indian Treaty Council under the United Confederation of Taíno People, which has campaigned nationally and at the United Nations for the United States to recognize such groups.[22][23][24]

List of groups self-identifying as American Indian tribes

[edit]
This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by editing the page to add missing items, with references to reliable sources.

Following is a list of groups known to self-identify as Native American tribes but that are not recognized by the U.S. federal government (Bureau of Indian Affairs) or by any state government.

Alabama

[edit]
  1. Cherokee Nation of Alabama.[25][26] Letter of Intent to Petition 02/16/1999.[27]
  2. Cherokee River Indian Community,[25] Moulton, AL. Letter of Intent to Petition 08/03/2000.[27][28] Receipt of Petition 08/03/2000.[29]
  3. Chickamauga Cherokee of Alabama.[25]
  4. Chickmaka Band of the South Cumberland Plateau.[25]
  5. Coweta Creek Tribe, Phenix City, AL.[28] Letter of Intent to Petition 2/12/2003.[27]
  6. Eagle Bear Band of Free Cherokees.[25][30][31][32]
  7. The Langley Band of the Chickamogee Cherokee Indians of the Southeastern United States, aka Langley Band of Chickamogee of Cherokee Indians,[25][26][30][31][32] Birmingham, AL Letter of Intent to Petition 04/20/1994;[28] Postal service certified letter returned 11/5/1997.[27]
  8. Phoenician Cherokee II – Eagle Tribe of Sequoyah,[25] Gadsden, AL[33] Letter of Intent to Petition 09/18/2001.[28][27]
  9. Powhatan Nation of American Indians, Enterprise, AL[34]
  10. Principal Creek Indian Nation East of the Mississippi,[25][26][30][31][32] Florala, AL. Letter of Intent to Petition 11/09/1971.[28] Declined to Acknowledge 06/10/1985 50 FR 14302; certified letter returned "not known" 10/1997.[27]
  11. Wolf Creek Cherokee Tribe, Inc. of Florida.[25] Also in Florida.

Alaska

[edit]
  1. Chilkoot Kaagwaantaan Clan,[26] Haines, AK.[28] Letter of Intent to Petition 4/22/1997.[27]
  2. Five Landless Alaska Tlingit communities. These Tlingit communities were omitted from the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and received neither land nor subsistence rights under the Act.[35]
  3. Katalla-Chilkat Tlingit Tribe of Alaska,[26] Juneau, AK.[28] Letter of Intent to Petition 02/02/1995; certified letter returned by P.O. 10/1997.[27]
  4. Knugank, Dillingham, AK.[28] Letter of Intent to Petition 1/7/1999.[27]
  5. Qutekcak Native Tribe, Seward, AK.[28] Letter of Intent to Petition 2/13/2002.[27] Receipt of Petition 2/13/2002.[36]
  6. Tsimshian Tribal Council,[26][31] Ketchikan, AK.[28] Letter of Intent to Petition 07/02/1978.[27]
  7. Alexander Creek, Alexander Creek, AK[37][38][39]

Arizona

[edit]
  1. American Cherokee Confederacy[25]
  2. Arizona Cherokee Pioneers[25]
  3. Barrio Pascua – a village of Yaqui on the Arizona-Mexico border region.[30][32][40]
  4. Chiricahua Apache Ndeh Nation, Silver City, AZ[41]
  5. The United Cherokee Nation (UCN) – Western National Office.[25] Also in Georgia. Supposed "clans" organized in these areas, often calling themselves as "Cherokee Nation of ...": Alabama, Alaska, Alberta, Arizona (Georgia, Nevada), Arkansas, California, Colorado (New Mexico, Utah), Connecticut, Cyprus, Delaware, Florida,[42] Hawaii, Idaho (Montana), Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana (Mississippi), Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri (Kansas), Nebraska (Iowa), New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin (Illinois (Chicago and Metropolis branches), Minnesota) and Wyoming.

Arkansas

[edit]
  1. Amonsoquath Tribe of Cherokee,[25] Van Buren, MO[43]
  2. Arkansas Band of Western Cherokee (formerly Western Arkansas Cherokee Tribe),[25][26] Sulphur Springs, AR. Letter of Intent to Petition 04/07/1998.[27]
  3. Arkansas Cherokee (also known as Chickamauga Cherokee of Arkansas),[25] Conway, AR. Letter of Intent to Petition 03/21/2008.[27]
  4. Arkansas Cherokee Nation,[25] Conway, AR[44]
  5. Arkansas White River Cherokee (also in Florida),[25] Lady Lake, FL[27]
  6. Central Tribal Council,[25] Mammoth Springs, AR. Letter of Intent to Petition 01/21/2003.[27] Receipt of Petition 01/21/2003.[36]
  7. Cherokee Nation West of Missouri and Arkansas (formerly Cherokee Nation West or Southern Band of the Eastern Cherokee Indians of Arkansas and Missouri).[25] Letter of Intent to Petition 5/11/1998.[27] Also in Missouri.
  8. Cherokee-Choctaw Nation of St. Francis and Black Rivers,[25] Paragould, AR. Letter of Intent to Petition 08/01/2006.[27]
  9. Confederated Western Cherokees of Arkansas.[25]
  10. Lost Cherokee of Arkansas and Missouri,[25][26] Conway, AR. Letter of Intent to Petition 02/10/1999; letter returned, marked "in dispute" between two different addresses.[27]
    1. Lost Cherokee of Arkansas and Missouri (I).[25] Faction in Conway, AR.
    2. Lost Cherokee of Arkansas and Missouri (II).[25] Faction in Dover, AR.
  11. Manataka American Indian Council, Hot Springs, AR[45]
  12. Neches Tribe – Cherokee Nation,[25] Hot Springs, AR
  13. Northern Cherokee Nation. Dissolved into three groups:
    1. Chickamauga Cherokee Nation (I),[25][32][46] also known as Chickamauga Cherokee Nation MO/AR White River Band and as White River Band of Northern Cherokee Nation of Missouri and Arkansas.[46] Also in Missouri and Oklahoma. There is also a Chickamauga Cherokee Nation White River Band (II) in Oklahoma.
    2. Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory,[25] Columbia, MO.[47] Letter of Intent to Petition 2/19/1992.[30][32] Also in Missouri.
      1. Kanasas (Awi Akta) District of NCNOLT.[25]
      2. Oklahoma (Ani Tsi Na) District of the NCNOLT.[25]
    3. Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indians of Missouri and Arkansas.[25][30][32] Letter of Intent to Petition 07/26/1985.[27] Also in Missouri.
  14. Old Settler Cherokee Nation of Arkansas.[25] Letter of Intent to Petition 9/17/1999.[27]
  15. Ouachita Cherokee of Cherokee Nation West, Mena, AR[48]
  16. Ozark Mountain Cherokee Tribe of Arkansas and Missouri, Melbourne, AR. Letter of Intent to Petition 10/19/1999.[27] Receipt of Petition 10/19/1999.[29] Also in Missouri.
  17. Red Nation of the Cherokee,[25] Augusta, KS[49] Also in Kansas.
  18. Revived Ouachita Indians of Arkansas and America,[26][32] Story, AR. Letter of Intent to Petition 04/25/1990.[27]
  19. Sac River and White River Bands of the Chickamauga-Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri Inc. (formerly Northern Chickamauga Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri),[25][32][50] Chandler, OK.[51] Letter of Intent to Petition 09/05/1991.[27] Also in Missouri.
  20. Western Cherokee of Arkansas and Louisiana Territories.[25] Letter of Intent to Petition 10/05/2001.[27] Also in Missouri.
  21. Western Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri,[25][26] Mena, AR. Letter of Intent to Petition 05/01/1998.[27] Also in Missouri.
  22. Western Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri, Conway, AR.[52] Separate from the Mena group, this Conway group was represented by Cary G. Kuykendall.[27]

California

[edit]
  1. Alexander Valley Mishewal Wappo,[32] also Mishewal Wappo Indians of Alexander Valley
  2. Alexander Valley Rancheria, formerly federally recognized, terminated on August 1, 1961[53]
  3. Amah Mutsun [Wikidata] band of Ohlone/Costanoan Indians (formerly Amah Band of Ohlone/Costanoan Indians).[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 09/18/1990.[26][27][30][31][54][55]
  4. Amonsoquath Tribe of Cherokee.[25] Letter of Intent to Petition.[26] Also in Missouri.
  5. Ani Yvwi Yuchi (Cherokee).[25][32] Letter of Intent to Petition 7/31/1996.[26][27]
  6. Antelope Valley Paiute Tribe (a.k.a. Antelope Valley Indian Community).[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 07/09/1976.[26][27][30]
  7. Atahun Shoshones of San Juan Capistrano[30][32]
  8. Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians. Letter of Intent to Petition 01/17/2002.[27] Receipt of Petition 01/17/2002.[36]
  9. Big Meadows Lodge Tribe[30][32][56]
  10. Binay Yeha Noha Bear Clan Tribe Letter of Intent to Petition 08/31/2020
  11. Cache Creek Rancheria, formerly federally recognized, terminated on April 11, 1961[53]
  12. Calaveras County Band of Miwuk Indians,[30][31][32][56] Letter of Intent to Petition 08/31/2001.[27] also Calaveras Band of Miwuk Indians, West Point[33]
  13. California Indian Council/Lulapin[32]
  14. Callattakapa Choctaw Tribe. Letter of Intent to Petition 07/13/2004.[27]
  15. Calusa-Seminole Nation. Letter of Intent to Petition 04/28/1998.[26][27]
  16. Cherokee Nation Heritage Organization of California.[25][32]
  17. The Cherokees of California.[25]
  18. Chilula Tribe[32]
  19. The Chiricahua Tribe of California. Letter of Intent to Petition 04/24/2003.[27]
  20. Choctaw Allen Tribe. Letter of Intent to Petition 10/20/2003.[27]
  21. Choinumni Council. Letter of Intent to Petition 07/14/1988.[27] Certified letter undeliverable 10/1997[26][30][56]
  22. Chukchansi Yokotch Tribe of Mariposa CA.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 05/25/1993.[26][27][30]
  23. Chumash Council of Bakersfield.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 10/18/2005.[27]
  24. Coastal Band of Chumash.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 03/25/1982.[26][27][30][56]
  25. Coastal Gabrieleño Diegueño Band of Mission Indians.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 3/18/1997.[26][27]
  26. Coastanoan Band of Carmel Mission Indians.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 09/16/1988.[26][27][30]
  27. Colfax-Todds Valley Consolidated Tribe of the Colfax Rancheria[57]
  28. Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation Inc., Oakland, CA[58]
  29. Confederation of Aboriginal Nations[32]
  30. Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe.[59] Letter of Intent to Petition 08/24/1994.[26][27]
  31. Costanoan Tribe of Santa Cruz and San Juan Bautista Missions. Letter of Intent to Petition 5/11/1999; Letter of Intent withdrawn 5/10/2000.[27]
  32. Costoanoan Ohlone Rumsen-Mutsen Tribe.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 12/07/1994.[26][27]
  33. Diegueño Band of San Diego Mission Indians. Letter of Intent to Petition 10/15/2003.[27]
  34. The Displaced Elem Lineage Emancipated Members (a.k.a. DELEMA). Letter of Intent to Petition 05/11/1998.[26][27]
  35. Dumna-Wo-Wah Tribal Government (formerly Dumna Tribe of Millerton Lake). Letter of Intent to Petition 01/22/2002.[27] Receipt of Petition 01/22/2002 as "Dumna Tribal Council."[36]
  36. Dunlap Band of Mono Indians (a.k.a. Mono Tribal Council of Dunlap).[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 01/04/1984.[26][27][30] Letter of Intent withdrawn 7/2/2002; Letter of Intent to Petition 8/9/2005.[27]
  37. El Dolorado Rancheria, formerly federally recognized, terminated on July 16, 1966[53]
  38. Eshom Valley Band of Michahai and Wuksachi. Letter of Intent to Petition 05/24/2005.[27]
  39. Esselen/Coastanoan Tribe of Monterey County, also Esselen Tribe of Monterey Council.[60][32] Letter of Intent to Petition 11/16/1992; withdrawn 11/15/1996.[26][27]
  40. Fernandeño/Tataviam Tribe, also Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians.[61] Letter of Intent to Petition 04/24/1995.[26][27]
  41. Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians of California. Letter of Intent to Petition 11/03/1998.[26][27] Recognized only as band of the Gabrieliño-Tongva Tribe.
  42. First Nation of Ojibwe California, Fremont, CA [26]
  43. Gabrieliño/Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council. Letter of Intent to Petition 08/14/1997.[26][27] Recognized only as band of the Gabrieliño-Tongva Tribe.
  44. Gabrieliño/Tongva Nation.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 03/21/1994.[26][27][30][31] Recognized only as band of the Gabrieliño-Tongva Tribe.
  45. Gabrieliño-Tongva Tribe, also known as the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians. In 1994, the State of California recognized the Gabrieliño-Tongva Tribe in Assembly Joint Resolution 96, Resolution Chapter 146 of the Statutes of 1994; however, it has no state-recognized tribes today.[62] The tribe, however, has broken into several factions, some of whom are seeking federal recognition as separate tribes. The three largest and most prominent factions are:
    1. Gabrieliño-Tongva Tribe, West Hills, CA, formerly the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, led by Charles Alvarez[63]
    2. Gabrieleño/Tongva Tribal Council of San Gabriel, San Gabriel, CA, led by Anthony Morales[64]
    3. Gabrieleño/Tongva Nation, also Gabrieliño/Tongva Tribe of the Los Angeles Basin).[27] In past years, bills have been introduced in the California legislature to create a Gabrieliño-Tongva Reservation for the tribe and grant the tribe gaming rights; however, these bills failed to make it to the Governor's desk. Senate Bill 1134 introduced on January 30, 2008, would have created the Gabrieliño/Tongva Reservation without giving the tribe gaming rights. However, when the principal author, Senator Oropeza, found out that the tribe would use the reservation for leverage to obtain gaming rights, she pulled her sponsorship of the bill.[65]
  46. Honey Lake Maidu. Letter of Intent to Petition 06/01/2000.[27] Receipt of Petition 06/01/2000.[29]
  47. Hownonquet Community Association[30][32]
  48. Indian Canyon Band of Coastanoan/Mutsun Indians.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 06/09/1989.[27][30]
  49. Independence 14 (Miranda Allotment)[57]
  50. Indian Cultural Organization[32]
  51. Indian Ranch Rancheria, formerly federally recognized, terminated on September 22, 1964[53]
  52. Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation (II). (Copycat band) Letter of Intent to Petition 3/8/1996.[26][27] Decline to Acknowledge 12/03/2007 (72 FR 67951).
  53. Kawaiisu Nation, Kernville, CA[66]
  54. Kawaiisu Tribe of the Tejon Indian Reservation[57]
  55. Kern Valley Indian Community,[32] Lake Isabella, CA.[67] Letter of Intent to Petition 02/27/1979.[26][27][30][68]
  56. Konkow Valley Band of Maidu, Oroville, CA. Letter of Intent to Petition 08/20/1998.[26][27]
  57. Maidu Nation. Letter of Intent to Petition 1/6/1977[30]
  58. Mark West Rancheria, formerly federally recognized, terminated on April 11, 1961[53]
  59. Melochundum Band of Tolowa Indians[30][32]
  60. Mishkanaka (Chumash)[32]
  61. Mission Creek Reservation, formerly federally recognized, terminated on July 14, 1970[53]
  62. Miwok Tribe[32]
  63. Monachi Indian Tribe. Letter of Intent to Petition 10/14/2004.[27]
  64. Mono Lake Indian Community, Lee Vining, CA[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 07/09/1976.[26][27][30]
  65. Mono Lake Kootzaduka'a Tribe,[69] Lee Vining, CA
  66. Muwekma Ohlone Tribe (formerly Ohlone/Costanoan Muwekma Tribe a.k.a. Muwekma Indian Tribe: Costanoan/Ohlone Indian Families of the San Francisco Bay).[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 05/09/1989.[26][30][31] Declined to Acknowledge 9/17/2002 (67 FR 58631); decision effective 12/16/2002.[27]
  67. Nashville Eldorado Miwok Tribe. Letter of Intent to Petition 11/09/2004.[27]
  68. Nevada City Rancheria, formerly federally recognized, terminated on September 22, 1961[53]
  69. Nor-Rel-Muk Nation (formerly Hayfork Band; formerly Nor-El-Muk Band of Wintu Indians).[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 01/05/1984.[26][27][30]
  70. North Fork Band of Mono Indians.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 09/07/1983.[26][27][30]
  71. North Valley Yokut Tribe. Letter of Intent to Petition 09/22/2000.[27] Receipt of Petition 09/22/2000.[29]
  72. Northern Band of Mono-Yokuts. Letter of Intent to Petition 08/22/2006.[27]
  73. Northern Chumash Tribal Council, Baywood-Los Osos, CA[70]
  74. Northern Maidu Maidu Tribe[30][31][32]
  75. Northfolk Band of Mono Indians[32]
  76. Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation.[60] Letter of Intent to Petition 12/03/1992.[26][27][30]
  77. Paskenta Band of Momlaki Indians[32]
  78. Rancho San Timoteo Band of Serrano Indians[32]
  79. Ruffeys Rancheria, formerly federally recognized, terminated on April 11, 1961[53]
  80. San Cayetano Band of Cahuilla Indians or the Montoya Band of Cahuilla Indians[32]
  81. Salinan Nation (a.k.a. Salinan Chumash Nation).[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 10/10/1989.[26][27][30]
  82. Salinan Tribe of Monterey & San Luis Obispo Counties.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 11/13/1993.[26][27][30]
  83. San Fernando Band of Mission Indians (formerly Ish Panesh United Band of Indians; formerly Oakbrook Chumash People a.k.a. Ish Panesh Band of Mission Indians, Oakbrook Park Chumash).[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 05/25/1995.[26][27]
  84. San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 10/18/1984.[26][27][30]
  85. Shasta Nation.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 05/28/1982.[26][27][30]
  86. She-Bel-Na Band of Mendocino Coast Pomo Indians. Letter of Intent to Petition 03/01/2006.[27]
  87. Sierra Foothill Wuksachi Yokuts Tribe. Letter of Intent to Petition 05/11/1999.[27]
  88. Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation, Mariposa, CA (formerly American Indian Council of Mariposa County).[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 04/24/1982.[26][27][30][56][71]
  89. Strawberry Valley Rancheria, formerly federally recognized, terminated on April 11, 1961[53]
  90. Tehatchapi Tribe of the Tejon Reservation[26][30][32]
  91. Tinoqui-Chalola Council of Kitanemuk and Yowlumne Tejon Indians.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 01/16/1996.[26][27]
  92. Tolowa Nation. Letter of Intent to Petition 01/31/1983.[26][27]
  93. Tolowa-Tututni Tribe.[31][32] Also in Oregon.
  94. Toulumne Algerine Band of Yokut. Letter of Intent to Petition 01/23/2006.[27]
  95. Tuolumne Band of Cherokee Indians.[25]
  96. Traditional Choinuymni Tribe.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 03/29/2000.[27] Receipt of Petition 03/29/2000.[29]
  97. T'Si-akim Maidu. Letter of Intent to Petition 11/16/1998.[26][27]
  98. Tsnungwe Council (a.k.a. South Fork Hupa).[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 09/22/1992.[26][27][30]
  99. United Lumbee Nation of North Carolina and America. Letter of Intent to Petition 04/28/1980; Declined to Acknowledge 07/02/1985 (50 FR 18746).[26][27][30] Also in North Carolina.
  100. United Maidu Nation.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 01/06/1977.[26][27]
  101. Wadatkuht Band of the Northern Paiutes of the Honey Lake Valley. Letter of Intent to Petition 01/26/1995.[26][27]
  102. Washoe/Paiute of Antelope Valley. Letter of Intent to Petition 07/09/1976.[26][27][30]
  103. Winnemem Wintu Tribe,[57] Redding, CA
  104. Wintoon Indians.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 10/26/1984; certified letter returned by P.O. 10/1997.[26][27][30]
  105. The Wintoon Tribe of Northern California, Inc. Letter of Intent to Petition 04/27/2005.[27]
  106. Wintu Indians of Central Valley, California.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 10/26/1984; certified letter returned by P.O. 10/1997.[26][27][30]
  107. Wintu of Shasta-Toyon[32]
  108. Wintu Tribe of Northern California.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 08/25/1993.[26][27][30]
  109. Woodfords Community Council[32]
  110. Wukchumni Council[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 02/22/1988.[27] Certified letter undeliverable 10/1997.[26][30]
  111. Xolon Salinan Tribe, Bay Point, CA[33] Letter of Intent to Petition 09/18/2001.[27]
  112. Yak Tityu Tityu Yak Tiłhini, also yak tityu tityu yak tiłhini Northern Chumash Tribe of San Luis Obispo County and Region, YTT Northern Chumash Tribe, San Luis Obispo, CA[72]
  113. Yamassee Native American Association of Nations,[73] Van Nuys, CA
  114. Yaqui Nation of Southern California, Thousand Palms, CA[74]
  115. Yaquis of Southern California, Borrego Springs, CA,[75]
  116. Yokayo Tribe of Indians.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 03/09/1987.[27] Certified letter returned by P.O. 10/1997[26][30]
  117. Yosemite Mono Lake Paiute Indian Community. Letter of Intent to Petition 12/06/2005.[27]

Colorado

[edit]
  1. Munsee Thames River Delaware, Manitou Springs, CO.[27] Letter of Intent to Petition 07/22/1977; declined to Acknowledge 01/03/1983 47 FR 50109.[26][30][31][32]
  2. Council for the Benefit of the Colorado Winnebagoes, Aurora, CO.[27] Letter of Intent to Petition 01/26/1993; certified letter returned "attempted, not known" 11/5/1997.[26][30][32]

Connecticut

[edit]
  1. Grasmere Band of Wangunk Indians of Glastonbury, Connecticut, Middleton, CT (formerly the Pequot Mohegan Tribe, Inc.). Letter of Intent to Petition 4/12/1999.[27]
  2. Native American Mohegans, Inc., Norwich, CT. Letter of Intent to Petition 9/19/2002.[27] Receipt of Petition 9/19/2002.[36]
  3. The Nehantic Tribe and Nation, Chester, CT.[76] Letter of Intent to Petition 9/5/1997.[26][27][32]
  4. New England Coastal Schaghticoke Indian Association[76]
  5. Nipmuc Indian Association of Connecticut, Thompson, CT[77]
  6. Nipmuc Indian Bands[30][32]
  7. Paugussett Tribal Nation of Waterbury, Connecticut. Letter of Intent to Petiton 7/3/2002.[27] Receipt of Petition 7/3/2002.[36]
  8. Pocasset Wampanoag Indian Tribe,[32][26][78] Cheshire, CT. Letter of Intent to Petition 02/01/1995[26]
  9. Poquonnock Pequot Tribe, Ledyard, CT. Letter of Intent to Petition 7/7/1999.[27]
  10. Schaghticoke Tribe, Bridgeport. CT,[33] not the same as the Schaghticoke Indian Tribe, Kent, CT.
  11. The Southern Pequot Tribe, Waterford, CT (a.k.a. The Southern Pequot Tribal Nation of Waterford). Letter of Intent to Petition 7/7/1998.[26][27]
  12. The Western Pequot Tribal Nation of New Haven, West Haven, CT. Letter of Intent to Petition 11/27/2000.[27]

Delaware

[edit]
  1. Assateague Peoples Tribe,[79] Frankford, DE

District of Columbia

[edit]
  1. Cherokee Tuscarora Nation of Turtle Island[25]

Florida

[edit]
  1. Apalachicola Band of Creek Indians.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 08/17/2004[27][80]
  2. Arkansas White River Cherokee (a.k.a. Chickamauga Cherokee Nation - White River Band (I)).[25][50] Letter of Intent to Petition 10/22/2003.[27] Despite the Arkansas name, the group is located in Florida. There is also a Chickamauga Cherokee Nation - White River Band (II) and (III) in Oklahoma.
  3. Binay Tribe[42]
  4. Chickamauga Cherokee Indian Creek Band[25][42]
  5. Choctaws of Florida (a.k.a. Hunter Tsalagi-Choctaw Tribe).[25][59] Letter of Intent to Petition 03/02/2005.[27] Declined to acknowledge 2013-07-11.[81]
  6. Choctaw Nation of Florida.[26]
  7. Church of the Métis Tribe.[42]
  8. Creeks East of the Mississippi (a.k.a. Principal Creek Indian Nation East of the Mississippi).[26][30][31][32][80] Letter of Intent to Petition 03/21/1973 (petitioned as part of a State-recognized tribe Lower Muskogee Creek Tribe – East of the Mississippi, Inc., Georgia); declined to Acknowledge 12/21/1981 46 FR 51652, see also 47 FR 14783[27]
  9. Echota Cherokee Tribe of Florida[82]
  10. Florida Mockingbird Clan[42]
  11. Florida Tribe of Cherokee Indians, Inc[25]
  12. Florida Tribe of Eastern Creeks.[26]
  13. Indian Creek Band, Chickamauga Creek & Cherokee Inc.[31][80] Letter of Intent to Petition 02/19/2004.[27]
  14. Lower Chattahoochee Band of Yuchi Indians[83]
  15. Muscogee Nation of Florida[83] (formerly Florida Tribe of Eastern Creek Indians).[30][31][32][84] Letter of Intent to Petition 06/02/1978;[27] awaiting Active Consideration; all documents have been filed with BAR.
    1. Creek-Euchee Band of Indians of Florida. Letter of Intent to Petition; Receipt of Petition 11/23/1999.[29] Letter of Intent withdrawn 10/20/2000; merged with Florida Tribe of Eastern Creek Indians[27]
  16. Ocali Nation,[42] Ocala, FL
  17. Oklewaha Band of Seminoles.[26]
  18. Ouachita Indians of Florida and America[42]
  19. Original Miccosukee Simanolee Nation,[85] Clewiston, FL. Also Council of the Original Miccosukee Simanolee Nation Aboriginal Peoples.
  20. Perdido Bay Tribe of Lower Muscogee Creeks[42][46]
  21. Rainbow Tribes, Tampa Bay, FL[42]
  22. Red Nation's Intertribal[82]
  23. Santa Rosa Band of the Lower Muscogee,[83] also Santa Rosa County Creek Indian Tribe, Milton, FL[86]
  24. Seminole Nation of Florida (a.k.a. Traditional Seminole).[80] Letter of Intent to Petition 08/05/1983; referred to SOL for determination 5/25/1990.[27]
  25. Siwanoy Nation Incorporated, Tampa, FL[87]
  26. Sovereign Miccosukee Seminole Nation, a.k.a. Everglades Miccosukee Tribe of Seminole Indians.[59]
  27. Topachula Tribe[30][80][26]
  28. Tuscola United Cherokee Tribe of Florida, Inc. (formerly Tuscola United Cherokees of Florida & Alabama, Inc.).[25][26][31][32][46][80] Letter of Intent to Petition 01/19/1979; withdrawn at petitioner's request 11/24/1997;[27] reinstated 2005.
  29. Wolf Creek Cherokee Tribe, Inc. of Florida,[25][82] Milton, FL. Also in Alabama.

Georgia

[edit]
  1. American Cherokee Confederacy (see Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Inc. (SECC) below). Known Bands: Horse Band (OK).
  2. Broad River Band of Cherokee.[25]
  3. Cane Break Band of Eastern Cherokees.[25] Letter of Intent to Petition 01/09/1979;[27] rejoined Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokees, Inc. (I), notification 7/16/1997[26][30][31][32]
  4. Cherokee Indians of Georgia, Inc.[25]
  5. Chickamauga Cherokee Band of Northwest Georgia.[25][32]
  6. Georgia Band of Chickasaw Indians (formerly Mississippi Band of Chickasaw Indians). Letter of Intent to Petition 9/15/1998.[27]
  7. Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokees, Inc.[32] (II).[25] This is an unrecognized tribe in Dahlonega, GA, that have the same name as a State-recognized tribe Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokees, Inc. (I).[26][27]
  8. Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokees, Inc.[32] (III).[25] This is an unrecognized tribe that have the same name as a State-recognized tribe Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokees, Inc. (I).
  9. Kokeneschv Natchez Nation.
  10. Manahoac Saponi Nation[46]
  11. North Georgia Cherokee Indians.
  12. South-Eastern Indian Nation. Incomplete Letter of Intent to Petition 01/05/1996; Incomplete Letter of Intent withdrawn at petitioner's request 11/10/1997.[26][27]
  13. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Inc. (SECC)[25] Letter of Intent to Petition 03/09/1978; Declined to Acknowledge 11/25/1985 (50 FR 39047).[26][27][30][31][32] Became the American Cherokee Confederacy[25][32] on 1/31/1996, with a breakaway group Southeastern Cherokee Council, Inc. (SeCCI) forming on the same day. Bands: Northwest Cherokee Wolf Band (OR), Red Clay Intertribal Indian Band (TN).
  14. Southeastern Cherokee Council, Inc. (SeCCI).[25][27] Also in Michigan. Bands and Clans: Big Lake Eagle Band (AK), Black Wolf Clan (KY),[25] Blue Band (FL), Buffalo Creek Band (TN), Earth Band (PA), Enola Band (NC), Grey Wolf Clan of Ochlocknee (GA), Hummingbird Band (CA), Hummingbird Medicine Band (MO), Little Wolf Band (MI), Long Hair Band (FL), Lost Tribes Band (MI, MN), Many Waters Band (DE, MD), Mountain Band (NC), Myrtlewood Band (OR), Nighthawk Medicine Clan (FL), Northern Lights Band (MN), One Spirit Band (TN), Panther Band (GA), Patoka Valley Band (IN), Red Cedar (VA), Running Horse Band (TX), Tennessee Chota Band (TN), Turtle Band (OK), Turtle Island Band (OH), Turtle Moon Band (FL), Uwharie Band (NC), Wandering Waters Band (MI), Wee Toc Band (NC), Where Rivers Meet Band (MI), Windsong Band (DC (MD)).
  15. Southeastern Indian Nation.[25]
  16. Tama Indian Tribe[31]
  17. Uganawvkalvgv Kituwah Ayeli,[25] also known as Southeast Kituwah Nation.
  18. The United Cherokee Nation (UCN) – Eastern National Office.[25] Also in Arizona.
  19. The United Creeks of Georgia[46]
  20. The Yamassee Native American Moors of the Creek Nation. Letter of Intent to Petition 4/27/1999.[27]

Idaho

[edit]
  1. Delawares of Idaho, Inc., Meridian, ID. Letter of Intent to Petition 06/26/1979.[26][27][30][31][32]
  2. Lemhi-Shoshone Tribes was stripped of recognition in 1907.[31]

Illinois

[edit]
  1. Choctaw Nation Mississippi River Clan[88]
  2. The People of the Mountains. Letter of Intent 6/3/2004.[27]
  3. Vinyard Indian Settlement of Shawnee Indians. Bill HB3217 proposed for state recognition.[89][90]

Indiana

[edit]
  1. Algonquian Confederacy of the Quinnipiac Tribal Council, Milltown, IN[91]
  2. Eel River Tribe Inc. of Indiana. Letter of Intent to Petition 09/13/2006.[27]
  3. Lone Wolf Band of Cherokee Indians.[25]
  4. Lost River Band of the Cherokees, Mitchell, IN[92]
  5. Miami Nation of Indians of the State of Indiana, Inc.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 04/02/1980; Declined to Acknowledge 08/17/1992 57 FR 27312.[26][27][30][31]
  6. Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indiana.[25][32] Letter of Intent to Petition 7/26/1985[30][31]
  7. United Métis Tribe[46]
    1. Buffalo Spirit Band of the United Métis Tribe[46]
    2. Nimkii Band of the United Métis Tribe[46]
  8. Upper Kispoko Band of the Shawnee Nation.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 04/10/1991; certified letter returned undeliverable 10/30/1997.[26][27][30][31][90]
  9. Wea Indian Tribe. Claims re-establishment in 2000[31] Letter of Intent to Petition 03/21/2007.[27]
  10. Wea Indian Tribe of Indiana. Claims re-establishment in 2004[31][82] Letter of Intent to Petition 11/29/2006.[27]
  11. The Zibiodey / River Heart Metis Association/Band[46]

Iowa

[edit]
  1. United People of Cherokee Heritage.[25]

Kansas

[edit]
  1. Delaware-Muncie Tribe.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 06/19/1978.[26][27][30][31][93]
  2. Kaweah Indian Nation, Inc.[25][31] Also in North Carolina.
  3. Neutral Land Cherokee Group.[25] Also in Missouri.
  4. Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory.[25] Located in Arkansas and Missouri
    1. Kanasas (Awi Akta) District of NCNOLT.[25] – Located in Kansas
    2. Oklahoma (Ani Tsi Na) District of the NCNOLT.[25] – Located in Oklahoma.
  5. Red Nation of the Cherokee.[25] Also in Arkansas.[46]
  6. Swan Creek & Black River Chippewas.[30][31][32]
  7. Tripanick Nansemond Family Indian Tribe.[94]
  8. United Tribe of Shawnee Indians.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 07/06/1995.[26][27][30][31][90]
  9. Wyandot Nation of Kansas.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 05/12/1994.[26][27][30][31][93]

Kentucky

[edit]
  1. Black Wolf Clan of SE Cherokee Council, Inc.[25]
  2. Cherokee Tribe of Kentucky.[25]
  3. Kentucky Cherokee Heritage Group[25]
  4. Kentucky Southern Cherokee—Osda Nuwati, Louisville, KY[95]
  5. Southeastern Kentucky Shawnee[90][96]
  6. Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky.[46][59]
  7. Ridgetop Shawnee Tribe of Indians, Hazard, KY,[97] received a congratulary resolution, HJR15 09RS in 2009[98]
  8. Tribe of the Whitetop Band of Native Indians,[99] also The Whitetop Nation, Georgetown, KY

Louisiana

[edit]
  1. Apalachee Indian Tribe,[32] Alexandra, LA[100] Letter of Intent to Petition 01/22/1996.[26][27][100]
  2. Apalachee Indians Talimali Band,[101] Stonewall, LA[102]
  3. Atakapa-Ishak Nation,[103] Lake Charles, LA[100]
  4. Avogel Nation of Louisiana, Marksville, LA[100][33] Letter of Intent to Petition 11/13/2000.[27]
  5. Avogel, Okla Tasannuk, Tribe/Nation, Duson, LA[100][33] Letter of Intent to Petition 03/19/2001.[27]
  6. Avoyel-Kaskaskia Tribe of Louisiana, Marksville, LA[100] Letter of Intent to Petition 06/20/2005.[27]
  7. The Avoyel-Taensa Tribe/Nation of Louisiana Inc.,[101] Marksville, LA[100] Letter of Intent to Petition 01/09/2003.[27] Receipt of Petition 01/09/2003.[36]
  8. Bayou Lacombe Band of Choctaw, St. Tammany Parish, LA
  9. Biloxi, Chitimacha Confederation of Muskogees, Inc., Bourg, LA[100]
  10. Chahta Tribe.[103]
  11. Canneci Tinné Apache Tribe, also Coco Tribe of Canneci Tinne, Carencro, LA[104]
  12. Kispoko Sept of Ohio Shawnee.[31][90]
  13. Louisiana Choctaw Turtle Tribe[103]
  14. Red Shoe Tribe, Kinder, LA[100] Letter of Intent to Petition 6/21/2010.[100]
  15. Talimali Band, The Apalachee Indians of Louisiana (formerly Apalachee Indians of Louisiana[32]), Libuse, LA[100] Letter of Intent to Petition 02/05/1996.[26][27][103]

Maine

[edit]
  1. Métis Eastern Tribal Indian Society of Maine[105]
  2. Wesget Sipu Inc. Letter of Intent to Petition 6/4/2002.[27] Receipt of Petition 6/4/2002.[36]

Maryland

[edit]
  1. Assateague Peoples Tribes[106]
  2. Federation: Moorish Science Temple of America, Inc. Letter of Intent to Petition 01/23/96; determined ineligible to petition 5/15/1997.[27]
  3. Nause-Waiwash Band of Indians,[106][79] Vienna, MD
  4. Notoweega Nation.[46] Filed with the Maryland Indian Commission for state recognition 6/9/2021.[107]
  5. Pocomoke Indian Nation,[106][79] Eden, MD
  6. Youghiogaheny River Band Of Shawnee Indians[90][79]

Massachusetts

[edit]
  1. Assawompsett-Nemasket Band of Wampanoags,[108] Lakeville, MA
  2. Assonet Band of the Wampanoag Nation,[109] New Bedford, MA
  3. Chappaquiddick Band of Massachusetts, Andover, MA[78] Letter of Intent to Petition 5/31/2007.[27]
  4. Chappaquiddick Tribe of the Wampanoag Indian Nation,[78] South Yarmouth, MA. Letter of Intent to Petition 05/21/2007.[27]
  5. Chaubunagungamaug Band of the Nipmuck Nation, Webster/Dudley; Dudley, MA;[27] Grafton, MA. Letter of Intent to Petition 04/22/1980 as part of Nipmuc Nation; separate letter of intent 5/31/1996.[26][30] Declined to acknowledge on 6/25/2004, 69 FR 35664.[110]
  6. Council of Seven, Royal House of Pokanoket, Pokanoket Tribe, Pokanoket Nation,[111] Millbury, MA
  7. Cowasuck Band-Abenaki People, also known as Cowasuck Band of Pennacook Abenaki People, Franklin, MA.[27][32][59] Letter of Intent to Petition 01/23/1995.[26][78]
  8. Federation of Old Plimoth Indian Tribes, Inc.,[78] Plymouth, MA. Letter of Intent to Petition 05/16/2000.[27] Receipt of Petition 05/16/2000.[29]
  9. Historical Nipmuc Tribe,[78][112] Webster, MA
  10. Massachusett Tribe at Ponkapoag,[113] Bridgewater, MA
  11. Mattakeeset Tribe of the Massachuset Nation,[114] Newton, MA. Also Mattakeeset Massachuset Tribe[115]
  12. Natick Nipmuc Indian Council,[78] Natick, MA
  13. New England Coastal Schaghticoke Indian Association and Tribal Council[32] Natick, MA
  14. Praying Indians of Natick and Ponkapoag,[116] Stoughton, MA
  15. Quinsigamond Band of the Nipmucs,[32] Worcester, MA
  16. Rebel Deaf Panther Tribe International,[32] Ashland, MA
  17. Seaconke Wampanoag Tribe,[78] Seekonk, MA

Michigan

[edit]
  1. Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. Petitioner #101. Denied, effective Jan. 23, 2007.[117]
  2. Genesee Valley Indian Association[32][46]
  3. Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians[30][31][32][118] (formerly Grand River Band Ottawa Council). Letter of Intent to Petition 10/16/1994.[27]
  4. Lake Superior Chippewa of Marquette.[30][31][32] Letter of Intent to Petition 12/13/1991.[27]
  5. Little Owl Band of Central Michigan Indians, Sidney.[33] Letter of Intent to Petition 11/27/2000.[27]
  6. Mackinac Bands of Chippewa and Ottawa Indians. Petitioner #186. Letter of intent submitted on May 13, 1998.[117]
  7. Maconce Village Band of Ojibwa. Letter of Intent to Petition 03/07/2000.[27] Receipt of Petition 3/7/2000.[29]
  8. Maple River Band of Ottawa. Letter of Intent to Petition 01/31/2005.[27]
  9. Muskegon River Band of Ottawa Indians. Letter of Intent to Petition 07/26/2002.[27] Receipt of Petition 07/26/2002.[36]
  10. Ooragnak Indian Nation. Letter of Intent to Petition 12/1/1999.[27] Receipt of Petition 12/01/1999.[29]
  11. Southeastern Cherokee Council, Inc. (SeCCI).[25] Also in Georgia.
  12. Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes. Petitioner #135. Letter of intent submitted on May 4, 1993.[117]
  13. The Chi-cau-gon Band of Lake Superior Chippewa of Iron County. Letter of Intent to Petition 02/12/1998.[27]
  14. Wyandot of Anderdon Nation LLC.[118] Letter of Intent to Petition 01/21/2003.[27] Receipt of Petition 01/21/2003.[36] Also in Ontario.

Minnesota

[edit]
  1. Kah-Bay-Kah-Nong (a.k.a. Gabekanaang Anishinaabeg/Warroad Chippewa),[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 2/12/1979;[30][31] Postal service returned certified letter 10/30/1997.[27]
  2. Kettle River Band of the St. Croix Chippewa of Minnesota. Currently recognized only as part of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe.[31]
  3. Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community.[31][32][59] Letter of Intent to Petition 4/11/1996.[27]
  4. Ni-Mi-Win Ojibways[30][31][32]
  5. Rice Lake Band of Mississippi Ojibwe. Currently recognized only as part of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe.[31]
  6. Sandy Lake Band of Mississippi Chippewa,[32][46] petitioned for independent federal recognition and independent state recognition. Currently recognized as part of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe.[30][31]
  7. Snake and Knife Rivers Band of the St. Croix Chippewa of Minnesota. Currently recognized only as part of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe.[31]
  8. St. Croix Chippewa of Minnesota. Currently recognized as part of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe.[31]

Mississippi

[edit]
  1. Grand Village Natchez Indian Tribe[30][31][32]
  2. Mississippi Choctaw Indian Federation (defunct historic organization)[119]
  3. Vancleave Live Oak Choctaw, Vancleave, MS. Letter of Intent to Petition 06/14/2006.[27] State law MS HR50 in 2016 declared this organization "The Official Native American Tribe of the Choctaw People of Jackson County, Mississippi"[120]

Missouri

[edit]
  1. Ahi Ni Yv Wiya, Inc.[25]
  2. Amonsoquath Band of Cherokee.[25]
  3. Amonsoquath Tribe of Cherokee.[25][32] Letter of Intent to Petition 02/17/1995.[27] Also in California.
  4. Cherokee Nation West of Missouri & Arkansas (formerly Cherokee Nation West – Southern Band of the Eastern Cherokee Indians of Arkansas and Missouri).[25] Letter of Intent to Petition 5/11/1998.[27] Also in Arkansas.
  5. Chickamauga Cherokee Nation.[25]
  6. Dogwood Band of Free Cherokees.[25][30][31][32]
  7. Lost Cherokee of Arkansas & Missouri,[26] Letter of Intent to Petition 02/10/1999; letter returned, marked "in dispute" between two different addresses.[27] Also in Conway, AR[121]
  8. Neutral Land Cherokee Group.[25] Also in Kansas.
  9. Northern Cherokee Nation. Dissoved into three groups:
    1. Chickamauga Cherokee Nation (I),[25][32][46] also known as Chickamauga Cherokee Nation MO/AR White River Band and as White River Band of Chickamauga Cherokee Nation of Missouri and Arkansas.[46] Also in Arkansas and Oklahoma. There is also a Chickamauga Cherokee Nation White River Band (II) in Oklahoma.
    2. Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory.[25] Letter of Intent to Petition 2/19/1992.[30][31][32] Also in Arkansas.
      1. Kanasas (Awi Akta) District of NCNOLT.[25]
      2. Oklahoma (Ani Tsi Na) District of the NCNOLT.[25]
    3. Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indians of Missouri and Arkansas.[25][30][31][32] Letter of Intent to Petition 07/26/1985.[27] Also in Arkansas.
  10. Ozark Mountain Cherokee Tribe of Arkansas and Missouri.[25] Letter of Intent to Petition 10/19/1999.[27] Receipt of Petition 10/19/1999.[29] Also in Arkansas.
  11. Sac River and White River Bands of the Chickamauga-Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri Inc. (formerly Northern Chickamauga Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri).[25][32] Letter of Intent to Petition 09/05/1991.[27] Also in Arkansas.
  12. Saponi Nation of Missouri (Mahenips Band). Letter of Intent to Petition 12/14/1999.[27] Receipt of Petition 12/14/1999.[29]
  13. Southern Cherokee Indian Tribe. Letter of Intent to Petition 12/01/2006.[27]
  14. Western Cherokee.[25][46]
  15. Western Cherokee of Arkansas/Louisiana Territories. Letter of Intent to Petition 10/05/2001.[27] Receipt of Petition 10/05/2001.[36] Also in Arkansas.
  16. Western Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri.[26] Letter of Intent to Petition 05/01/1998.[27] Also in Arkansas.
  17. The Wilderness Tribe of Missouri.[25] Letter of Intent to Petition 8/16/1999.[27]

Montana

[edit]
  1. Swan Creek & Black River Chippewa[30][31][32]

Nebraska

[edit]
  1. Nebraska band of Omaha-Winnebago Indians [citation needed]-->

Nevada

[edit]
  1. Pahrump Band of Paiutes, Pahrump, NV. Letter of Intent to Petition 11/9/1987.[27][30][31][32]

New Hampshire

[edit]
  1. Abenaki Indian Center, Inc.[32]
  2. Abenaki Nation of New Hampshire,[30][31][32] Whitefield, NH[122]
  3. Cowasuck Band–Pennacook/Abenaki People, Alton, NH[122]
  4. Koasek (Cowasuck) Traditional Band of the Sovereign Abenaki Nation, Post Mills, NH[122]
  5. Pennacook New Hampshire Tribe[32]

New Jersey

[edit]
  1. Cherokee Nation of New Jersey[25][123]
  2. Eagle Medicine Band of Cherokee Indians, also in Pennsylvania[123]
  3. New Jersey Sand Hill Band of Indians (also known as Sand Hill Band of Lenape and Cherokee Indians or Sand Hill Band of Indians).[26][46] Letter of Intent to Petition 01/09/2007.[27]
  4. Osprey Band of Free Cherokees[25][30][31][32][46]
  5. Unalachtigo Band of Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians. Letter of Intent to Petition 2/1/2002.[27]
  6. Schèjachbi Wonameys, NJ Lenni Lenape Nation.[124][better source needed]

New Mexico

[edit]
  1. Canoncito Band of Navajos,[46] petitioned for independent federal recognition 07/31/1989.[27][30][31] Note: this is a Chapter (governing unit) of the federally recognized Navajo Nation.
  2. Chiricahua Apache Nation, also Chiricahua Apache Nde Nation, Santa Clara, NM[125]
  3. Genízaro. In 2007, the New Mexico state legislator passed a memorial resolution honoring the Genízaros.[126] New Mexico's Legislative Memorial bills do not have the force of law[127]
  4. Mazewalli Nation, Albuquerque, NM[128] unrecognized group claiming to represent Mesoamerican diaspora in New Mexico
  5. Piro/Manso/Tiwa Indian Tribe of the Pueblo of San Juan de Guadalupe, Las Cruces, NM. Letter of Intent to Petition 01/18/1971.[27][30][31][32]
  6. Piro/Manso/Tiwa Tribe of Guadalupe Pueblo (a.k.a. Tiwa Indian Tribe), Las Cruces, NM.[31] Letter of Intent to Petition 12/17/2002.[27] Receipt of Petition 12/17/2002.[36]

New York

[edit]
  1. Cherokee-Blackfeet,[25] New York City, NY. Also Cherokee Blackfoot Cultural Circle[129]
  2. The Chickamauga Notowega Creeks, Staten Island.[33] Letter of Intent to Petition 03/19/2001.[27]
  3. Deer Council of Free Cherokees.[25][30][31][32]
  4. Hudson River Band (formerly Konkapot Band, Hudson Valley Band). Letter of Intent to Petition 04/19/2002.[27] Receipt of Petition 04/19/2002.[36]
  5. Matinecock Tribal Nation, Kew Gardens, NY. Also Matinecock Tribal Nation of Queens and Long Island New York Inc.[130]
  6. Montauk Indian Nation, Amityville, NY. Also Montaukett Indian Nation of New York.[31] Letter of Intent to Petition 07/31/1995.[27]
  7. Montaukett Tribe of Long Island. Letter of Intent to Petition 03/16/1998.[27]
  8. North-Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.[25]
  9. Nuy Keetoowah, Inc.[25]
  10. Ohatchee Cherokee Tribe of New York and Alabama.[25] Letter of Intent to Petition 12/16/2002.[27] Receipt of Petition 12/16/2002.[36]
  11. Schaghticoke First Nations Inc.[131]
  12. Western Mohegan Tribe & Nation of New York.[8][32] Letter of Intent to Petition 1/27/1997.[27][46]

North Carolina

[edit]
  1. Algonquian Indians of North Carolina, Elizabeth City, NC[132]
  2. Cape Fear Band of Skarure and Woccon Indians, Leland, NC[133]
  3. Cherokee Indians of Hoke County, Inc. (a.k.a. Tuscarora Hoke Co.),[25][32] Lumber Bridge, NC. Letter of Intent to Petition 09/20/1983; determined ineligible to petition (SOL opinion of 10/23/1989).[27][30]
  4. Cherokee Indians of Red Banks, Robeson and Adjoining Counties,[25][32] Red Springs, NC. Letter of Intent to Petition 02/01/1979; determined ineligible to petition (SOL opinion of 10/23/1989).[27][30]
  5. Chicora-Siouan Indian People, Letter of Intent to Petition 02/10/1993.[30] Also in South Carolina.
  6. Chowanoke Indian Nation, formerly the Meherrin-Chowanoke,[134] Winton, NC
  7. Coree Indians (a.k.a. Faircloth Indians),[32] Atlantic, NC. Letter of Intent to Petition 08/05/1978.[27][30]
  8. Creek-Cherokee Indians, Pine Tree Clan.[25]
  9. Cumberland County Association for Indian People[32]
  10. Eno-Occaneechi Tribe of Indians, Mebane, NC. Letter of Intent to Petition 11/24/1997.[27]
  11. Free Cherokee.[25]
  12. Four Hole Indian Organization, Letter of Intent to Petition 12/30/1976.[30] Also in South Carolina.
  13. Guilford Native American Association[32]
  14. Hattadare Indian Nation,[32] Bunnlevel, NC. Letter of Intent to Petition 03/16/1979.[27][30]
  15. Hatteras Tuscarora Indians,[32] Maxton, NC. Letter of Intent to Petition 06/24/1978: determined ineligible to petition (SOL opinion of 10/23/1989).[27][30] Merged with Tuscarora Nation East of the Mountains, 3/22/2004.[27]
  16. Kaweah Indian Nation, Inc.,[25][32] Oriental, NC. Letter of Intent to Petition 04/28/1980; certified letter returned by P.O. 10/1997; Declined to Acknowledge 06/10/1985 (50 FR 14302).[27][30][31] Also in Kansas.
  17. Machapunga Tribe of North Carolina, also Machapunga/Mattamuskeet Tribe, Manteo, NC[135]
  18. Meherrin Indian Tribe (II). Letter of Intent to Petition 06/27/1995.[27] There is a State-recognized tribe with the same name, Meherrin Indian Tribe (I).
  19. Ne'Ha-Tsunii Indian Nation[82]
  20. Nee Tribe (a.k.a. Nuluti Equani Ehi Tribe and Near River Dwellers),[25] East Bend, NC
  21. Ridge Band of Cherokees,[25] Ridgecraft, NC
  22. Roanoke-Hatteras Indian Tribe, Elizabeth City, NC,[136] formerly the Roanoke-Hatteras Indians of Dare County.[31] Letter of Intent to Petition 03/10/2004.[27]
  23. Santee Tribe, White Oak Community. Letter of Intent to Petition 06/04/1979[30]
  24. Santee Tribe[30]
  25. Skaroreh Katenuaka Tuscarora Nation of Indians,[137] Windsor, NC
  26. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy,[25] Four Oaks, NC[138]
  27. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Silver Cloud Clan.[25]
  28. Summerville Indian Group.[30] Also in South Carolina.
  29. Tsalagi Nation Early Emigrants 1817,[25] Durham, NC.[139] Letter of Intent to Petition 07/30/2002.[27] Receipt of Petition 07/30/2002.[36]
  30. Tuscarora Indian Tribe, Drowning Creek Reservation,[32] Maxton, NC. Letter of Intent to Petition 02/25/1981; determined ineligible to petition (SOL opinion of 10/23/1989).[30] Group formally dissolved and department notified group 02/19/1997.[27]
  31. Tuscarora Nation of Indians of the Carolinas, Charlotte, NC. Letter of Intent to Petition 12/21/2004.[27]
  32. Tuscarora Nation of North Carolina, Maxton, NC. Letter of Intent to Petition 11/19/1985; determined ineligible to petition (SOL opinion of 10/23/1989).[27][30][32]
  33. Tuscarora Nation East of the Mountains, Bowland, NC. Letter of Intent to Petition 09/08/1999.[27]
  34. United Lumbee Nation of North Carolina and America.[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 4/28/1980; Denied federal recognition 07/02/1985.[30] Also in California. Not to be confused with the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, a state-recognized tribe.
  35. Waccamaw Sioux Indian Tribe of Farmers Union, Clarkton, NC[140]
  36. New River Band of the Catawba Nation[141]

North Dakota

[edit]
  1. Christian Pembina Chippewa Indians,[30][31][32] Belcourt, ND Letter of Intent to Petition 6/26/1984.[27]
  2. Little Shell Band of the North Dakota Tribe, also Little Shell Pembina Band of North America,[30][31][32] Rolla, ND. Letter of Intent to Petition 11/11/1975.[27]

Ohio

[edit]
  1. Alleghenny Nation Indian Center (Ohio Band) (I), Canton, OH[30][31][32][82][93][142] also known as the Allegheny-Lenape Indian Council of Ohio. Letter of Intent to Petition 11/03/1979.[27]
  2. Alleghenny Nation Indian Center (Ohio Band) (II). Letter of Intent to Petition 6/02/2005.[27] Possibly broke away from Alleghenny Nation Indian Center (Ohio Band) (I) located 1 mile away.
  3. Catawba Tribe of Carr's Run,[143] Chillicothe, OH
  4. Cherokee Delaware Indian Center, Coshocton, OH[25]
  5. Cherokee United Intertribal Indian Council.[25]
  6. Chickamauga Keetoowah Unami Band of Cherokee,[25] Cleveland, OH[144]
  7. Chickamauga Keetoowah Unami Wolf Band of Cherokee Delaware Shawnee, Cleveland, OH.[144] Also "Chickamauga Keetoowah Unami Wolf Band of Cherokee Delaware Shawnee of Ohio, West Virginia & Virginia." Letter of Intent to Petition 08/28/2006.[27][90]
  8. East of the River Shawnee[145]
  9. Eastern Cherokee Nation, Overhill Band.[25][90]
  10. Etowah Cherokee Nation.[25]
  11. Free Cherokee, Four Direction Council.[25]
  12. Free Cherokee, Hokshichanklya Band.[25]
  13. Kispoko Sept of Ohio Shawnee (Hog Creek Reservation).[46][90][142]
  14. Lower Eastern Ohio Mekojay Shawnee, Wilmington, OH.[33] Letter of Intent to Petition 3/5/2001.[27][90]
  15. Mekoce Shawnee,[46][90][142] Wilmington, OH
  16. Morning Star Shawnee Nation,[46][90] Shelby, OH
  17. Munsee Delaware Indian Nation—USA, formerly known incorrectly as the "Munsee-Thames River Delaware" and as "Munsee Delaware Indian Nation".[142]
  18. North Eastern U.S. Miami Inter-Tribal Council, Youngstown, OH.[30][31][32][46][142] Letter of Intent to Petition 04/09/1979.[27]
  19. Notoweega Nation,[46][142] Logan, OH.[146] Also known as the Ohio Woodlands Tribe.[142]
  20. The Nottoway in Ohio, Xenia, OH. Letter of Intent to Petition 07/03/2008.[27]
  21. Piqua Sept of Ohio Shawnee Indians, North Hampton, OH.[30][31][32][46][142] Letter of Intent to Petition 04/16/1991.[27] the Piqua Shawnee Tribe were state-recognized in Alabama in 1991[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 9/25/1997.[27][90]
  22. Saponi-Catawba Nation of the Ohio Valley,[143] Webster, OH
  23. Saponi Nation of Ohio,[143] Rio Grande, OH. Letter of Intent to Petition 9/25/1997.[27]
  24. Shawnee Nation, Ohio Blue Creek Band of Adams County, Lynx, OH. Letter of Intent to Petition 8/5/1998.[27][90]
  25. Shawnee Nation United Remnant Band, Bellefontaine, OH[147]
  26. Tallige Cherokee Nation, Fire Clan.[25][93][142]
  27. Tutelo Nahyssan Tribal Nation,[143] Cutler, OH.[148] Letter of Intent to Petition 7/27/2005.[27]
  28. Tutelo-Saponi Tribal Nation (formerly known as Pine Hill Saponi Tribal Nation), Beavercreek, OH. Letter of Intent to Petition 10/1/2002.[27]

Oklahoma

[edit]
  1. Canadian River Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation[25]
  2. Cataba Tribal Association[30][31][32]
  3. Chickamauga Cherokee Nation White River Band (II).[46] There is also a Chickamauga Cherokee Nation White River Band (I) in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
  4. Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory,[25] also in Arkansas and Missouri
    1. Kanasas (Awi Akta) District of NCNOLT.[25] – Located in Kansas
    2. Oklahoma (Ani Tsi Na) District of the NCNOLT.[25] – Located in Oklahoma
  5. Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indians[25]
  6. Northern Chickamaunga Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri.[25] Letter of Intent to Petition 9/5/1991[30][31][32]
  7. Sac River and White River Bands of the Chickamauga Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri, Inc., Chandler, OK[149][150] Also Chickamauga Cherokee Nation (I),[25][32][46] also known as Chickamauga Cherokee Nation MO/AR White River Band and as White River Band of Chickamauga Cherokee Nation of Missouri and Arkansas.[46] Also in Arkansas and Missouri. There is also a Chickamauga Cherokee Nation White River Band (II) in Oklahoma.
  8. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Horse Clan[25]
  9. Southern Cherokee Nation[25][59]
  10. United Band of the Western Cherokee Nation[25] Letter of Intent to Petition 3/14/2003.[27]
  11. Yuchi Tribal Organization,[30][31][32] Sapulpa, OK. Letter of Intent to Petition 10/05/1990; Declined to acknowledge 3/21/2000, 64 FR 71814.,[27] part of the federally recognized Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
  12. Yuchi (Euchee) Tribe of Oklahoma,[32][50] Sapulpa, OK, part of the federally recognized Muscogee (Creek) Nation.

Oregon

[edit]
  1. Celilio-Wyam Indian Community[30][31][32]
  2. Cherokee Delaware Tribe of the Northwest[25]
  3. Chetco Tribe[30][31][32]
  4. Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribes[31][46]
  5. Confederated Tribes: Rogue, Table Rock & Associated Tribes;[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 3/24/1997; properly executed Letter of Intent 6/19/1997[27]
  6. Northwest Cherokee Deer Clan[25]
  7. Northwest Cherokee Wolf and Paint Clan[25]
  8. Northwest Cherokee Wolf Band of the Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Talent, OR.[25][30][31][32] Letter of Intent to Petition 03/09/1978; Declined to Acknowledge 11/25/1985 (50 FR 39047)[27]
  9. Tchinouk Indians,[30][31][32] Letter of Intent to Petition 05/16/1979; Declined to Acknowledge 03/17/1986, 51 FR 2437[27]
  10. Tolowa-Tututni Tribe,[30][31] also in California[32]
  11. Una Nation of Mixed-Bloods,[151] also called the Sakochee Tribe of Native American Descendants,[152] Eugene, OR

Pennsylvania

[edit]
  1. Conestoga-Susquehannock Tribe[153]
  2. Eastern Delaware Nations.[46]
  3. Erie Indian Moundbuilders Tribal Nation, Erie, PA[154]
  4. Free Cherokee-Chickamauga.[25]
  5. Lena'pe Nation.[46]
  6. Eastern Lenape Nation of Pennsylvania.[32][46] Letter of Intent to Petition 05/16/2000.[27][33][155]
  7. Lenape Nation of Pennsylvania,[156] Easton, PA
  8. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy of Pennsylvania.[25]
  9. Thunder Mountain Lenapé Nation,[157] Saltsburg, PA
  10. Tsalagi Elohi Cherokee Earth.[25]
  11. United Cherokee Tribe of West Virginia.[25] Also in South Carolina and West Virginia.
  12. White Path Society.[25]

Rhode Island

[edit]
  1. Aquidneck Indian Council,[32] Newport, RI
  2. Northern Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island,[158] Providence, RI
  3. Pocasset Wampanoag Tribe of Massachusetts and Rhode Island[159]
  4. Pocasset Wampanoag Tribe of the Pokanoket Nation,[159] Cranston, RI
  5. Pokanoket Tribe of the Wampanoag Nation,[32] Bristol, RI. Letter of Intent to Petition 10/05/1994 for Federal Recognition.[27] State recognition attempted for the tribe with the introduction of State of Rhode Island House Bill 2006--H 7236, but the bill was never passed.[160] Also in Massachusetts.
  6. Pokanoket/Wampanoag Federation/Wampanoag Nation/Pokanoket Tribe/And Bands, Warwick, RI. Letter of intent to petition 1/5/1998.[27]
  7. Rhode Island Indian Council,[32] Providence, RI
  8. Seaconke Wampanoag Tribe, Providence, RI, formerly Greenwich, RI. Letter of Intent to Petition 10/29/1998.[27]
  9. Wappinger Tribal Nation, Wakefield, RI. Letter of Intent to Petition 7/7/2003.[27]
  10. Wiquapaug Eastern Pequot Tribe, Hope Valley, RI. Letter of Intent to Petition 09/15/2000.[27] Receipt of Petition 09/15/2000.[29]

South Carolina

[edit]

South Carolina recognizes some Native American entities as groups or special interest organizations, but not as tribes.[161]

  1. Chaloklowa Chickasaw Indian People, Hemingway, SC, a state-recognized group, but not a state-recognized tribe[161]
  2. Eastern Cherokee, Southern Iroquois, and United Tribes of South Carolina,[25] Duncan, SC, a state-recognized group, but not a state-recognized tribe[161]
  3. Natchez Indian Tribe of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, a state-recognized group, but not a state-recognized tribe[161]
  4. Pee Dee Indian Nation of Beaver Creek, Neeses, SC, a state-recognized group, but not a state-recognized tribe[161]
  5. Pine Hill Indian Community Development Initiative,[162] North, SC, state-recognized special interest organization, but not state-recognized tribe[161]

Unrecognized organizations include:

  1. American Indian Center of South Carolina.[163]
  2. Broad River Band of Cherokee.[25]
  3. Carolina Indian Heritage Association.[163]
  4. Cherokee Bear Clan of South Carolina.[163]
  5. Cherokees of South Carolina.[25]
  6. Chicora Indian Tribe of South Carolina (formerly Chicora-Siouan Indian People).[31][32][46][163][164][162] Letter of Intent to Petition 02/10/1993.[27] Also in North Carolina.
  7. Croatan Indian Tribe of South Carolina,[163] Orangeburg, SC[165][166]
  8. Fields Indian Family – Pine Hill Indian Community (or Pine Hill Indian Tribe).[163]
  9. Free Cherokee-Chickamauga[25][32]
  10. Horse Creek Indian Heritage Association.[163]
  11. Little Horse Creek American Indian Association.[163]
  12. Marlboro & Chesterfield Pee Dee Band (a.k.a. Upper Pee Dee Nation of South Carolina)[163][162]
  13. Midlands Intertribal Empowerment Group.[163]
  14. Pee Dee Indian Association. Letter of Intent to Petition 01/30/1995.[27]
  15. Redcrows Foundation.[167] Associated with unrecognized Yamassee Indian Nation.[168]
  16. Santee Indian Nation.[163]
  17. United Cherokee Tribe of West Virginia.[25] Also in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
  18. Waccamaw Siouan Indian Association. Letter of Intent to Petition 10/16/1992; Postal service returned certified letter 11/5/1997.[27]
  19. Yamassee Indian Tribe of Seminoles.[169] Also referred to as the Yamassee Tribe, or Yamassee Nation of Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina.[170]

Tennessee

[edit]
  1. Central Band of Cherokee, Lawrenceburg, TN. Declined to acknowledge 7/24/2012[81]
  2. Cherokee Wolf Clan,[171] Yuma, TN
  3. Chikamaka Band,[171] Tracy City, TN
  4. Etowah Cherokee Nation (I),[25][30][31][32] Cleveland, TN. Letter of Intent to Petition 12/31/1990; certified letter returned undeliverable 10/1997.[27] State legislature denied state recognition, contesting the authority of a Proclamation of Recognition][172] by the Governor of Tennessee of May 25, 1978.[173][174]
  5. Guaymari Kiawah Tribe, Antioch, TN[175]
  6. Remnant Yuchi Nation,[171] Kingsport, TN
  7. Tanasi Council,[171] Memphis, TN
  8. United Eastern Lenape Nation,[171] Winfield, TN
  9. United Aniyunwiya Nation,[25] Memphis, TN
  10. Mennefer Tanasi (ᏔᎾᏏ) Native American Tribe,[176] Germantown, TN. Also Mennefer Tanasi Empowerment Ministries.[177]

Texas

[edit]

As journalists Graham Lee Brewer (Cherokee Nation) and Tristan Ahtone (Kiowa) reported, Texas has "no legal mechanism to recognize tribes."[178]

  1. Absentee Seminole Tribe of Texas,[179]
  2. American Cherokee Tribe of Texas[25]
  3. Apache Council of Texas,[180] Alice, TX[181]
  4. The Arista Indian Village. Letter of Intent to Petition 05/21/2002[27] Receipt of Petition 05/21/2002[36]
  5. Atakapas Ishak Nation of Southeast Texas and Southwest Louisiana. Letter of Intent to Petition 02/02/2007[27]
  6. Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas, also Tribal Council of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas. Letter of Intent to Petition 07/06/1998.[27]
  7. Cherokee Nation of Mexico, Dripping Springs, TX[182]
  8. Cherokee Nation of Texas, Limited.[25]
  9. Chickamauga Cherokee Brushy Creek Band.[82]
  10. Comanche Penateka Tribe. Letter of Intent to Petition 04/03/1998.[27]
  11. Court of the Golden Eagle, The Oukah.[25]
  12. Creek Indians of Texas at Red Oak[30][31][32]
  13. Cuelgahen Nde Lipan Apache of Texas,[183] Three Rivers, TX
  14. Free Cherokee, Hummingbird Clan[25]
  15. Jumano Tribe (West Texas) (formerly The People of LaJunta (Jumano/Mescalero)).[32] Letter of Intent to Petition 03/26/1997.[27]
  16. Karankawa Kadla[184]
  17. Lipan Apache Band of Texas, Brackettville, TX[180]
  18. Lipan Apache Nation of Texas,[180] San Antonio, TX. Also known as the Kuné Tsa Nde Band of the Lipan Apache Nation of Texas
  19. Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas, McAllen, TX.[180][185] Also known as Lipan Apache Tribe. Texas Senate Bill 27, introduced in January 2021, to formally recognize this group died in committee.[186]
  20. Miakan-Garza Band,[187] also Mier Band of the Garza Tribe, in San Marcos, Texas; created the Indigenous Cultures Institute in 2006.[188]
  21. Mount Tabor Indian Community.[178] Also known as Texas Cherokees and Associate Bands-Mount Tabor Indian Community.
  22. Nato Indian Nation (Native American Tribal Organization), Grand Prairie, TX,[189] also in Utah
  23. Pamaque Clan of Coahuila y Tejas Spanish Indian Colonial Missions Inc.[46] Letter of Intent to Petition 04/23/2002;[27] Receipt of Petition 04/23/2002.[36] BAR Papers filed 2005.[26]
  24. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Hawk Clan[25]
  25. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Sequoyah Clan[25]
  26. Southeastern Cherokee Tribe and Associated Bands.[25]
  27. Sovereign Cherokee Nation Tejas[25]
  28. Tap Pilam: The Coahuiltecan Nation[31][46] Letter of Intent to Petition 12/03/1997.[27]
  29. Texas Band of Yaqui Indians[190]
  30. Texas Buffalo Bayou Band of Chickamaugan Cherokee, Southern Cherokee Nation.[25]
  31. Texas Gulf Coast Cherokee and Associated Bands[25]
  32. Tsalagiyi Nvdagi Tribe.[191] Based in Waco, Texas.
  33. United Chickamaugan[82]
  34. United Mascogo Seminole Tribe of Texas. Letter of Intent to Petition 12/31/2002.[27] Receipt of Petition 12/31/2002.[36]
  35. The Yanaguana Bands of Mission Indians of Texas. Letter of Intent to Petition 10/19/2004.[27]

Utah

[edit]
  1. Cherokee Indian Descendents Organization of the Ani-Yun-Wiya[25]
  2. Colorado River Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation[25]
  3. Nato Indian Nation (Native American Tribal Organization), Provo, UT,[192][193] also in Texas
  4. Northeast Band of Shoshone Indians[30][31][32]
  5. Rocky Mountain Band of Cherokee Descendents, Magna, UT[25]
  6. White Mesa Ute Council,[30][31][32][46] White Mesa, UT

Vermont

[edit]
  1. Free Cherokee, Tribal Council.[25]
  2. Green Mountain Band of Cherokee.[25]
  3. Sunray Meditation Society.[25]

Virginia

[edit]
  1. American Indigenous Accawmacke Indians, Cape Charles, VA[194]
  2. Ani-Stohini/Unami Nation, Fries, VA.[32][46] Letter of Intent to Petition 07/08/1994.[27]
  3. Appalachian Cherokee Nation.[25]
  4. Buffalo Ridge Cherokees.[25]
  5. Cherokee of Virginia Birdtown.[25]
  6. Chowanoke Indian Nation, Winton, VA[195]
  7. Free Cherokees Spider Clan.[25]
  8. Halooie Indian Tribe, Seminary Hill area of Alexandria, VA.[citation needed]
  9. Inagel Tsalagi, Cherokee of Virginia.[25]
  10. Northern Tsalagi Indian Nation.[25]
  11. Rappahannock Indian Tribe (II), Change.[33] Letter of Intent to Petition 01/31/2001.[27] Shares a name with a state-recognized tribe Rappahannock Indian Tribe (I).
  12. Roanoke-Chowan Native American Association, Inc., Winton, VA[196]
  13. Roanoke-Hatteras Tribe, Dare County, VA[195]
  14. Southern Cherokee Confederacy, Pine Log Clan.[25]
  15. Turtle Band of Cherokee.[25]
  16. United Cherokee Indian Tribe of Virginia.[25] Letter of Intent to Petition 08/03/2000.[27] Receipt of Petition 07/31/2000.[29]
  17. Wicocomico Indian Nation, also the Confederated Tribes of the Wicocomico Indian Nation, Wilsons, VA[197] and Historic Wicocomico Indian Nation of Northumberland County, Virginia. Letter of Intent to Petition 09/15/2000.[27] Receipt of Petition 08/28/2000.[29]
  18. Wolf Creek Cherokee Tribe, 501(c)(3) in Henrico County, Virginia
  19. Wolf Creek Cherokee Indian Tribe of Virginia. Failed bill introduced to Virginia for state-recognition 1/19/2015[198]

Washington

[edit]
  1. Anisahani Blue Clan, Woodland, WA[25]
  2. Chinook Indian Tribe of Oregon & Washington, Inc., also Chinook Nation,[30][31][50] Baycenter, WA. Letter of Intent to Petition 07/23/1979; Declined to acknowledge 7/12/2003, 67 FR 46204.[27] Also in Oregon.
  3. Duwamish Indian Tribe.[30][31][32][46][50] Letter of Intent to Petition 06/07/1977; Declined to Acknowledge 05/08/2002 (66 FR 49966).[27]
  4. Free Cherokees, Four Directions Council, Toledo, WA[25]
  5. Kikiallus Indian Nation[50]
  6. Marietta Band of Nooksacks,[31][50] Bellingham, WA
  7. Mitchell Bay Band of the San Juan Islands[30][31][32]
  8. Snohomish Tribe of Indians,[30][31][32][50] Port Hadlock, WA. Letter of Intent to Petition 03/13/1975; Declined to Acknowledge 03/05/2004 68 FR 68942.[27]
  9. Snoqualmoo Tribe of Whidbey Island,[30][31][32][50] Bellingham, WA. Letter of Intent to Petition 06/14/1988.[27]
  10. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Haddock/Compton Clan, Vancouver, WA[25]
  11. Steilacoom Tribe of Indians,[30][31][32][50] Steilacoom, WA. Letter of Intent to Petition 08/28/1974; Proposed Finding 02/07/2000. Declined Acknowledgment effective 6/17/2008 73 FR 14833.[27]

West Virginia

[edit]
  1. Monican Indian Nation, Huntington, WV. Letter of Intent to Petition 8/23/2007.[27]
  2. United Cherokee Tribe of West Virginia,[25] Beckley, WV. Letter of Intent to Petition 12/30/2005.[27] Also in Pennsylvania and South Carolina.

Wisconsin

[edit]
  1. Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin.[30][31][32][59] Letter of Intent to Petition 04/15/1980.[27] declined to acknowledge 2012-12-11[81]
  2. Muhheconnuck and Munsee Tribes. Letter of Intent to Petition 06/04/2003.[27]
  3. Southern Cherokee Confederacy, Wisconsin.[25]

Wyoming

[edit]
  1. Northwestern Shoshoni,[46][50] Rock Springs, WY[32]

List of groups self-identifying as Caribbean Indigenous tribes

[edit]
See also: Indigenous peoples of the Caribbean, Kalinago, and Taíno
This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by editing the page to add missing items, with references to reliable sources.

Following is a list of groups known to self-identify as Caribbean Indigenous tribes but that have been recognized neither by the federal government (Bureau of Indian Affairs) nor by any state, territory or tribal government.

Puerto Rico

[edit]
  1. Concilio Taino Guatu-Ma-Cu A Borikén (Puerto Rico)[199]
  2. Jatibonicu Taino Tribal Nation of Borikén. (Puerto Rico).[200]

U.S. Virgin Islands

[edit]
  1. Opia Carib Indian Tribe in U.S. Virgin Islands (St. Thomas)[201][202]
  2. Carib-Taino Tribal Confederacy[203]

See also

[edit]
United States
Canada

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes refer to groups asserting indigenous tribal identity and without federal acknowledgment by the (BIA), contrasting with the 574 federally recognized tribes eligible for government services and treaty-based relations. These entities, numbering around 400 according to government estimates, often petition for recognition but must demonstrate under BIA criteria—codified in 25 CFR Part 84—ongoing political authority, distinct community existence since historical times, and descent from a treaty-signing or aboriginal tribe, criteria many fail due to insufficient genealogical, anthropological, or historical evidence. Self-identification alone grants no , tribal , or access to federal benefits like land trusts or gaming compacts, leading to disputes over authenticity and . The federal acknowledgment process, administered by the BIA's Office of Federal Acknowledgment, involves rigorous review of petitions, with only a fraction succeeding; as of recent data, numerous applications remain in process or have been denied for lacking continuous tribal or verifiable lineage, underscoring that mere cultural affinity or distant ancestry does not suffice for recognition. While some unrecognized groups trace to historical disruptions like termination policies or administrative oversights, others emerge from modern formations lacking pre-colonial roots, often driven by incentives such as eligibility for grants, tax exemptions, or casino operations under the . This proliferation challenges the integrity of indigenous , as unrecognized entities cannot exercise sovereign powers like immunity from state laws or federal trust responsibilities. Controversies surrounding these organizations frequently involve allegations of , where groups misrepresent membership to siphon federal funds from programs intended for verified tribes, with reports identifying at least two such entities defrauding multiple agencies through false claims of status. Critics, including recognized tribal leaders, argue that "wannabe" or pretendian-led outfits undermine legitimate Native by diluting blood quantum standards, competing for resources, and perpetuating without accountability, as seen in cases of fabricated affiliations despite only three federally recognized Cherokee tribes existing. Such issues highlight causal disconnects between self-proclaimed identity and empirical tribal continuity, prompting calls for stricter verification to prevent exploitation while preserving recognition for groups with substantiated claims.

Tribal Recognition Framework

Federal Acknowledgment Criteria

The federal acknowledgment process for Indian tribes is administered by the Office of Federal Acknowledgment (OFA) within the (BIA), under the Department of the Interior, pursuant to 25 CFR Part 83. This administrative procedure requires petitioning groups to submit documented evidence demonstrating they existed as an autonomous Indian tribe since historical times, typically prior to 1900, and have maintained distinct community and political structures continuously. Satisfaction of all seven mandatory criteria under 25 CFR § 83.11 is required for acknowledgment, which establishes a government-to-government relationship, eligibility for federal services, and sovereign status; failure to meet any criterion results in denial. As of January 2024, 574 tribal entities hold federal recognition through this or prior processes, though the administrative petition success rate remains low, with only 18 of 52 resolved petitions granted since the regulations' inception, reflecting stringent evidentiary standards involving anthropological, genealogical, and historical analysis. The criteria demand comprehensive documentation, such as federal records, tribal rolls, affidavits, and scholarly sources, evaluated for reliability and continuity; petitioners bear the burden of proof, often requiring evidence affecting at least 50% of members for and political aspects. OFA technical teams review submissions, prepare proposed findings for public comment, and recommend to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, who issues final determinations. Recent amendments effective September 29, 2025, refined evidentiary thresholds but preserved the core requirements. (a) Indian entity identification: The group must have been identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900, evidenced by federal, state, or local records; anthropological or historical scholarship; media reports; or consistent self-identification by members. (b) Distinct : A predominant portion of the group must have existed as a distinct from historical times to the present, demonstrated through social interactions, marriage patterns, enrollment criteria, or cultural practices substantially connecting members. (c) Political influence or authority: The group must have maintained political influence or other authority over its members as a separate entity from other Indian groups since historical times, shown by roles, , land transactions, or mobilization for communal purposes, with evidence of involvement by a preponderance of members. (d) Governing document: The petitioner must submit its current governing document, including membership criteria, or, if none exists, a detailed statement describing officials, selection methods, and internal processes. (e) Descent: Membership must descend primarily from a historical Indian tribe or tribes that combined into a single autonomous entity, verified through rolls, census data, church records, or affidavits linking ancestors to specific tribes. (f) Unique membership: The group's membership must consist principally of individuals not enrolled in another federally recognized tribe, or it must demonstrate distinct political despite overlaps. (g) No congressional termination: Neither the group nor its members can be subject to legislation explicitly terminating or prohibiting a federal relationship.

State Recognition Processes and Limitations

State recognition of Native American tribes occurs independently of federal processes and varies significantly by jurisdiction, typically through legislative enactment, gubernatorial executive orders, or dedicated state commissions that evaluate petitions based on evidence of historical continuity, distinct community identity, and descent from pre-colonial indigenous groups. For instance, North Carolina's Commission of Indian Affairs operates a Tribal Recognition Program established in 1971, requiring petitioners to demonstrate bilateral kinship ties to historical tribes, maintenance of political influence, and a distinct cultural heritage, with decisions finalized by the commission after review of genealogical, anthropological, and historical documentation. Similarly, Virginia's recognition process, formalized under the Virginia Commission on Indian Affairs since 1983, mandates proof of descent from tribes documented in 17th- and 18th-century records, continuous existence as a community, and governance structures, culminating in legislative approval as seen in the 2018 federal acknowledgment pathway enabled by state actions for six tribes. These processes lack uniform standards across states, with approximately 17 states recognizing over 60 tribes as of 2023, often prioritizing local historical claims over the rigorous seven-criteria framework of the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs. While state commissions or legislatures may impose evidentiary thresholds akin to federal ones—such as requiring rolls or censuses tracing lineage—implementation is frequently influenced by political considerations rather than standardized administrative review, leading to approvals for groups with contested genealogical evidence or interrupted communal histories. In , for example, the Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe received state recognition via in 1992 following legislative petitions, but subsequent federal denials highlighted discrepancies in descent claims under stricter scrutiny. States without formal commissions, such as , rely ad hoc on bills or resolutions, as with the Tigua tribe's intermittent state affirmations amid federal disputes. This variability underscores that state recognition serves primarily symbolic or limited administrative purposes, such as eligibility for state-level cultural grants or educational designations, without mandating the exhaustive documentation or public comment periods characteristic of federal acknowledgment. The principal limitations of state recognition stem from its subordination to federal supremacy in Indian affairs, conferring no from state laws, no eligibility for services or federal trust lands, and no automatic access to programs under the of 1988, which requires federal acknowledgment for Class III gaming compacts. State-recognized tribes cannot repatriate human remains or cultural items independently under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, instead cooperating with federally recognized entities, and they possess only negotiated jurisdictional authority over internal matters, vulnerable to state override in civil regulatory domains. As affirmed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, state recognition establishes a -to- relationship solely with the state, not the federal , thereby denying tribes the constitutional protections and resource allocations—totaling billions annually in federal disbursements—reserved for the 574 federally acknowledged tribes as of 2024. This disparity perpetuates economic and legal vulnerabilities, exemplified by ’s 55 state-oriented groups lacking federal status, which bars land-into-trust applications and exposes them to state taxation without reciprocal sovereignty.

Distinctions and Consequences of Unrecognized Status

Federally recognized tribes maintain a distinct as entities with a government-to-government relationship to the , entitling them to inherent rights of , limited from state laws, and eligibility for federal trust responsibilities including and resource protection. In contrast, organizations self-identifying as Native American tribes but lacking federal acknowledgment are classified as non- groups, akin to private associations or ordinary citizens, fully subject to state and local jurisdiction without exemptions or special protections. This distinction arises primarily from the failure to satisfy the ' seven mandatory criteria, which require documented evidence of continuous community existence, political influence or authority, and descent from a historical since first sustained contact with non-Indians. Unrecognized status precludes access to critical federal services and funding streams reserved for the 574 acknowledged tribes, such as grants for tribal , , and projects. These groups also receive no support from the , which delivers healthcare to over 2.6 million eligible individuals from recognized tribes, leaving unrecognized members reliant on general public systems and vulnerable during emergencies; for instance, over 200 unrecognized tribes were excluded from allocations in 2020, hindering pandemic response efforts. Legally, unrecognized organizations cannot exercise tribal , such as regulating internal affairs or pursuing land-into-trust acquisitions, and they lack standing in federal environmental reviews like Section 106 of the unless agencies exercise discretion. Economically, the absence of recognition bars participation in the framework, which permits Class III gaming compacts exclusively for federally acknowledged tribes and has generated billions in revenue for recognized entities since 1988. Unrecognized groups forgo this pathway, often struggling to sustain cultural preservation or community programs without federal scholarships, housing assistance, or educational funding. State recognition, where granted, offers limited benefits like symbolic acknowledgment or minor state aid but does not confer federal privileges or , leaving most self-identifying organizations—estimated at over 400 nationwide—effectively without institutional support to verify or maintain claimed tribal continuity.

Historical and Causal Context

Traditional Tribal Formation and Continuity

Traditional Native American tribes formed as kinship-based polities, where groups, clans, and bands coalesced around shared descent, linguistic affiliations, and territorial control, often spanning millennia of adaptation to local ecologies. These structures arose through processes involving migration, alliance-building, and conflict resolution, yielding over 2,000 distinct groups by the time of European contact, each with specialized subsistence strategies ranging from hunting-gathering to intensive . Linguistic diversity, with hundreds of families, and archaeological patterns of village aggregation provide evidence of this organic development, independent of external impositions. Kinship systems—typically matrilineal in the Southeast and Southwest or patrilineal in the Plains—served as the foundational mechanism for tribal cohesion, dictating membership, marriage prohibitions within clans or moieties, and . Governance emerged causally from these kin networks, featuring consensus-based councils, achievement-oriented chiefs, or hereditary leaders who mediated disputes and coordinated warfare or , ensuring group survival without centralized states in most cases. Continuity of identity relied on intergenerational transmission via oral genealogies, ceremonial cycles, and land-based practices, fostering resilience across environmental shifts and inter-tribal interactions over 15,000–20,000 years. Archaeological continuity in settlement patterns and genetic analyses of ancient remains, such as those linking to contemporary Picuris Pueblo members or demonstrating persistent lineages in indigenous groups, affirm biological and cultural persistence tied to specific locales. This evidence contrasts with fluid modern self-identifications, highlighting traditional tribes' grounding in empirically traceable descent and adaptive social contracts.

Colonial Impacts and Modern Recognition Evolution

European colonization of North America initiated profound disruptions to Native American tribal societies, primarily through catastrophic demographic declines driven by introduced diseases such as , , and , which lacked immunity among indigenous populations and resulted in mortality rates estimated at 80-95% in affected regions by the mid-18th century. This depopulation fragmented networks, leadership hierarchies, and communal governance systems that had sustained tribal identities for centuries, often leaving surviving groups too diminished to maintain pre-contact political authority or territorial control. Concurrently, military conflicts, coerced land cessions via over 500 treaties between 1778 and 1871, and policies like the of 1830 forcibly displaced tens of thousands, such as the Cherokee Trail of Tears in 1838-1839 which claimed approximately 4,000 lives, further eroding traditional tribal structures and fostering ad hoc reconstitutions under duress. These colonial forces engendered a causal chain wherein disrupted continuity enabled later self-identification claims by groups lacking verifiable descent or governance lineage, as surviving remnants intermingled with non-indigenous populations or formed new associations detached from historical antecedents. Assimilationist measures, including missionary efforts and later 19th-century boarding schools that separated children from families to suppress languages and customs, compounded governance breakdowns by prioritizing individual integration over collective sovereignty. By the early 19th century, U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the Marshall Trilogy (1823-1832) codified tribes as "domestic dependent nations," affirming limited sovereignty but subordinating them to federal oversight, which shifted recognition from bilateral treaty-making to administrative discretion. The evolution of modern federal recognition emerged from this backdrop to delineate genuine tribal continuity amid proliferating claims. Initially treaty-based until Congress ended the practice in 1871, recognition transitioned to informal (BIA) determinations post-1849 reorganization under the Department of the Interior. The of 1934 marked a pivot toward by authorizing constitutions for over 250 s, yet it excluded many without prior administrative ties, highlighting gaps exploited by unrecognized groups. Formalization occurred in 1978 with Interior Department regulations establishing the Federal Acknowledgment Process (FAP), administered by the BIA's Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, requiring petitioners to demonstrate seven criteria: continuous community existence, political influence, descent from a historical , unique governance, termination absence, distinctness from other groups, and non-state cessation of recognition. Subsequent refinements addressed inefficiencies and potential abuses; revisions in 1994 clarified evidence standards, while 2015 updates eased some burdens but retained rigorous anthropological and genealogical proofs to filter entities formed post-1900 without historical roots. A 2024 regulatory overhaul under 25 CFR Part 83 streamlined petitions—reducing active cases from over 30 to fewer—by emphasizing bilateral negotiations and deprioritizing exhaustive historical audits, yet upheld core mandates for pre-colonial lineage to preserve sovereign integrity against economic-driven fabrications like casino pursuits. As of 2025, only 574 tribes hold federal status, underscoring the process's role in distinguishing entities with unbroken causal ties to pre-colonial polities from those self-identifying via modern invention. This framework's stringency reflects awareness of colonial-induced discontinuities, prioritizing empirical descent over subjective assertions to mitigate erosion of recognized tribes' immunities and resources.

Evidence Standards for Legitimate Descent and Governance

The (BIA) establishes mandatory criteria under 25 CFR Part 83 for federal acknowledgment, serving as a primary evidentiary benchmark for legitimate tribal descent and governance among self-identifying Native American organizations. For descent, petitioners must demonstrate that a significant proportion of their current membership descends from individuals comprising a historical Indian tribe or tribes that combined into a single autonomous entity, typically through genealogical records such as federal censuses, tribal rolls (e.g., from 1898–1914), allotment documents, or missionary and agency reports predating 1900. The BIA imposes no minimum blood quantum threshold, prioritizing documented lineal ancestry over , as commercial DNA results do not suffice for proving tribal affiliation or enrollment eligibility due to their inability to link specific individuals to historical tribal populations. Self-identifying groups often fail this criterion when relying on unverified family lore or post-1934 enrollments without tracing back to pre-reservation era constituents, as such evidence lacks the historical specificity required to confirm continuity from autonomous pre-contact entities. Governance legitimacy requires proof of maintained political influence or over members as an autonomous entity from historical times to the present, evidenced by bilateral political relationships, leadership exerting social control (e.g., , ), or formal structures like councils documented in historical records. This criterion demands demonstration of distinct community existence alongside political continuity, such as through networks, shared practices, or interactions with other tribes and governments that predate modern state recognitions. For instance, petitioners must show substantially continuous exercise of since at least the 19th century, often via treaties, , or congressional acts, rather than ad hoc formations in the late 20th century motivated by economic incentives like casino development under the of 1988. Unrecognized self-identifying organizations frequently exhibit discontinuities, such as leadership elected without historical precedents or memberships aggregated from disparate non-Indian descendants, undermining claims to continuity. These standards prioritize empirical historical documentation over subjective self-identification to preserve causal links to pre-colonial polities, as discontinuous or fabricated erodes the distinct status afforded recognized tribes under U.S. . State-level recognitions, by contrast, apply looser evidentiary thresholds—often requiring only a with minimal genealogical claims and recent organizational bylaws—lacking the BIA's rigorous historical , which has led to over 200 self-identifying groups achieving state status without federal validation as of 2023. In cases of genealogical , such as altered records or invented ancestries, federal courts have upheld denials, emphasizing that legitimacy derives from verifiable descent and traceable to entities exercising before significant colonial disruptions.

Controversies in Self-Identification

Pretendian Claims and Genealogical

Pretendian claims involve non-Indigenous individuals or groups fabricating to assert tribal identity, often leading to the formation of unauthorized organizations that self-identify as tribes without verifiable descent or community continuity. These claims typically rely on unsubstantiated family lore, altered genealogical records, or selective interpretation of , bypassing established criteria for tribal legitimacy such as continuous and ties. In the context of self-identifying organizations, pretendians have established entities purporting to represent tribes like the , where leaders promote membership based on self-declared heritage rather than enrollment in federally or state-recognized bodies. For instance, over 200 unrecognized groups claiming Cherokee affiliation operate across the , some issuing fraudulent tribal identification cards for fees, which enable access to benefits intended for legitimate tribes. Genealogical fraud in these organizations manifests through systematic misrepresentation of ancestry, including the sale of paid genealogy services or DNA tests that vaguely suggest Indigenous markers without confirming tribal affiliation, as tribal citizenship requires documented lineage from historical rolls rather than genetic percentages. The Cherokee Nation has documented cases where such groups charge individuals for "enrollment" based on fabricated pedigrees, exploiting public interest in Native heritage post-colonial disruptions. A 2010 Government Accountability Office report identified 24 unrecognized entities defrauding 26 federal programs through false tribal claims, bilking millions in taxpayer funds via misrepresented status. Similarly, organizations claiming Abenaki identity in Vermont have been exposed as descending primarily from French-Canadian settlers, with leaders using pseudohistorical narratives to assert sovereignty absent from federal records. These fraudulent practices erode the evidentiary standards for tribal recognition, as organizations led by pretendians prioritize individual assertions over communal verification, often resulting in legal challenges from recognized tribes. The Tribal Alliance Against Frauds, comprising members from federally recognized tribes, conducts genealogical investigations revealing patterns of ethnic , such as invented ancestors who allegedly evaded enrollment to maintain —a claim lacking support in or records. Motivations include economic gain, such as pursuing gaming compacts or federal grants, alongside cultural appropriation that dilutes sovereign integrity by equating personal fantasy with collective history. Recognized tribes argue that such perpetuates the misconception of fluid self-identification, undermining their -based and resource allocations.

Economic Motivations Including Gaming Interests

The of 1988 authorizes federally recognized tribes to conduct gaming activities on Indian lands, subject to compacts with states, thereby creating substantial economic opportunities not available to unrecognized groups. This framework has enabled tribal casinos to generate approximately $42 billion in gross gaming revenue nationwide in 2023, with proceeds often distributed as payments to enrolled members, funding tribal governments, and supporting . Unrecognized self-identifying organizations lack access to such sovereign immunities and revenue streams, incentivizing some to fabricate tribal continuity or genealogical claims in pursuit of federal acknowledgment, which could unlock gaming rights upon success. Empirical analysis demonstrates a causal link between gaming expansions and heightened Native American self-identification, particularly among individuals with partial indigenous ancestry who stand to benefit from enrollment. A study examining U.S. data from 1990 to 2010 found that state policy shifts permitting tribal gaming increased the probability of self-reporting as Native American by 1.2 percentage points on average, with effects concentrated in counties near operational or planned . This pattern holds after controlling for cultural revival or unrelated demographic shifts, indicating pecuniary motivations over purely ancestral reconnection, as self-identification confers no automatic benefits absent tribal enrollment but aligns with efforts to join or form revenue-eligible groups. Documented cases illustrate how gaming prospects drive organizational fraud among self-claimants. In one instance, James City Roberts fabricated an eight-generation lineage for a fictitious clan in during the early 2000s, posing as its chief to solicit investments and state recognition explicitly for developing a ; he was convicted of in 2004 after defrauding supporters of over $100,000. Similarly, certain unrecognized Cherokee-affiliated groups have promoted themselves as tribes to attract members and investors for gaming ventures, with federal authorities exposing schemes that misrepresented historical status to secure funding, as noted in warnings from recognized Nations. These examples underscore how the prospect of gaming wealth—contrasted with the ' stringent seven-criteria acknowledgment process, which has approved only 17 petitions since 1980—fuels opportunistic self-identification by organizations lacking verifiable descent or governance continuity.

Erosion of Sovereign Integrity for Recognized Tribes

Federally recognized tribes maintain authority to define their membership criteria, including blood quantum requirements or lineal descent from historical rolls, as a core element of . This authority enables tribes to preserve cultural continuity, allocate resources such as distributions from gaming revenues, and access federal services exclusively for enrolled members. Fraudulent ancestry claims, or "pretendians," erode this integrity by asserting indigenous identity without tribal verification, thereby challenging tribes' exclusive right to determine . , a and citizen, has described such actions as "attacking the of Native nations to select citizens and set citizenship standards," which threatens by promoting individual self-identification over communal validation. In the , United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and —collectively enrolling around 400,000 members—self-identifying groups and fake tribes dilute sovereign legitimacy by falsely claiming descent and promoting unauthorized cultural practices. Over 500,000 individuals self-identify as Cherokee without enrollment, amplifying public misconceptions and stereotypes while infringing on tribes' governance over identity and resources. These imposters exploit traditions for profit, such as through unauthorized teaching or sales of , which misrepresents federal definitions of "Indian" under the of 1934 and burdens recognized tribes with defending their status against legal and public challenges. For instance, non-recognized entities have secured contracts by fabricating tribal affiliations, diverting funds intended for legitimate tribes and eroding trust in sovereign entities' resource management. Fraudulent enrollment attempts, though mitigated by tribal verification processes like Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) cards, pose risks of internal dilution when ancestry documentation is falsified, potentially inflating membership rolls and reducing per-member federal allocations or gaming proceeds. Such dilutions undermine governance stability, as seen in cases where unrecognized groups sell memberships or fabricate rolls to mimic recognized structures, echoing historical assimilation tactics and complicating tribes' efforts to maintain evidentiary standards for descent. This erosion extends to cultural integrity, where non-authentic members may influence leadership or traditions, further straining sovereign self-regulation amid external pressures from self-identifying claimants.

Self-Identifying Organizations by Recognition Pursuit

State-Recognized but Federally Unrecognized Groups

State-recognized but federally unrecognized groups consist of Native American organizations formally acknowledged by state governments through , , or commission determination, typically based on evidence of descent from historic tribes, distinct community maintenance, and political leadership continuity within state boundaries. Unlike federally recognized tribes, these groups do not receive services, from state , or eligibility for federal trust lands, limiting their authority to state-granted privileges such as cultural preservation funding or educational programs. As of 2023, eleven states recognize about 63 such groups, concentrated in the Southeast and Northeast, where colonial disruptions fragmented traditional tribal structures without federal oversight until the . State recognition processes vary, often requiring genealogical records, oral histories, and anthropological reports, but lack the federal standard's emphasis on bilateral political relations with the U.S. government predating 1900. These groups frequently petition for federal acknowledgment concurrently, facing denials due to insufficient documentation of continuous governance or community cohesion under federal criteria outlined in 25 CFR Part 83, though revised in 2015 and 2024 to prioritize historical evidence over recent self-governance. Examples include the MOWA Band of Indians in , denied federal status in 1997 after demonstrating descent from pre-removal Choctaw but failing to prove sustained tribal political influence. Such denials highlight tensions between state leniency—sometimes influenced by local politics—and federal rigor aimed at preventing fraudulent claims that could dilute resources for verified tribes. The following enumerates principal state-recognized groups by state, excluding those with federal acknowledgment as per the ' 2024 list of 574 entities. (recognized by the Alabama Indian Affairs Commission under Act 2019-403, listing nine groups besides the federally recognized ):
  • Cher-O-Creek Intra-Tribal Indians (established 1997, claiming mixed and Creek heritage in southeast ).
  • Cherokee Tribe of Northeast Alabama (formerly Cherokees of Jackson County, focused on Appalachian descendants).
  • Cherokees of Southeast .
  • Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama (recognized 1997, emphasizing post-Trail of Tears continuity).
  • Ma-Chis Lower Creek Indian Tribe of Alabama (claiming Lower Creek descendants avoiding removal).
  • MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians (Mobile-Washington area, state-recognized 1984, federal petition denied 1997 for lacking pre-1934 political evidence).
  • Piqua Shawnee Tribe.
  • Star Clan of Muscogee Creeks.
  • United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation.
North Carolina (eight state-recognized tribes per the Commission of Indian Affairs, with the federally recognized since 1868):
  • Coharie Tribe (Sampson and Harnett Counties, recognized 1971, tracing to Neusiok and Mattamuskeet peoples).
  • (Halifax and Warren Counties, recognized 1965, amalgamated and other Siouan descendants).
  • (largest state-recognized group with over 55,000 members, recognized 1885 as Indians, renamed in 1956; federal bill for recognition vetoed in 2024).
  • Indian Tribe ( and surrounding counties, recognized 1971, Iroquoian speakers with 18th-century history).
  • Band of the Nation (Alamance County, recognized 2002, revived from 17th-century traders).
  • Sappony (formerly Indians of Person County, recognized 2001, descendants).
  • Siouan Tribe (Bladen and Columbus Counties, recognized 1971, claiming Siouan continuity post-colonial dispersal).
Virginia (eleven state-recognized tribes per the Virginia Council on Indians, with Pamunkey Nation federally recognized in 2016):
  • Chickahominy Indian Tribe (recognized 1983, Powhatan Confederacy remnant in New Kent County).
  • Chickahominy Indian Tribe - Eastern Division (recognized 1983, eastern branch maintaining separate governance).
  • Cheroenhaka (Nottoway) Indian Tribe (recognized 1984, Nottoway descendants in Southampton County).
  • Monacan Indian Nation (recognized 1989, Siouan group in Amherst County with archaeological ties to pre-contact villages).
  • Nansemond Indian Nation (recognized 1984, Tidewater descendants with 17th-century land patents).
  • Rappahannock Tribe, Inc. (recognized 1983, Rappahannock River group splintered by 20th-century racial policies).
  • Upper Mattaponi Tribe (recognized 2010, Mattaponi upstream community distinct from the reservation-holding band).
Similar groups exist in Connecticut (e.g., Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe, recognized 1992), Georgia (e.g., Georgia Tribe of Eastern , legislative acknowledgment 2007), (e.g., Biloxi-Chitimacha Confederation of Muskogees, recognized 1995), (e.g., Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs lists Piscataway groups), (e.g., Mashpee federally recognized 2007, but others like pending), New York (e.g., Shinnecock federal, but state aids others), (six groups including Edisto Natchez-Kusso Tribe, recognized via 2006 act), and (four bands recognized 2011-2012). These recognitions often stem from 20th-century legislative efforts to affirm post-removal survivals, but federal non-status persists due to evidentiary gaps in bilateral relations.

Groups Petitioning for Federal Acknowledgment

The federal acknowledgment process, administered by the ' Office of Federal Acknowledgment, allows self-identifying groups to submit documented petitions demonstrating descent from a historical Indian , continuous community existence, distinct community maintenance, political influence over members, governing documents, and prior federal identification, among other criteria specified in 25 CFR Part 83. Petitioners undergo phased technical assistance reviews, public commenting periods, and evaluations, with projected timelines for many stages but no guaranteed outcomes; denials can occur if evidence fails to substantiate claims of tribal continuity. As of October 24, 2025, 23 groups have submitted documented petitions under the 2015 revised regulations, with active consideration limited to seven in prioritized review, while others await supplementation or remain in preparatory phases. Petitions in process under the revised regulations include groups at stages such as Phase I technical assistance (TA) review, responding to TA feedback, commenting on documented petitions, and narrative comment responses, reflecting varying degrees of evidentiary submission and scrutiny.
Petition #Group NameStateStage
410Salyersville Indian CommunityMICommenting on Documented Petition (projected end: December 16, 2025)
409Affiliated Ute Citizens of the State of UtahUTCommenting on Documented Petition (projected end: October 14, 2025)
408Mattaponi Indian Tribe and ReservationVACommenting on Documented Petition (projected end: May 13, 2025)
407Tuskarora Nation of Moratoc IndiansNCCommenting on Documented Petition (projected end: April 15, 2025)
406Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo CountiesCAResponding to Comments on Narrative (projected end: June 12, 2025)
405Tripanick Nansemond Family Indian TribeKSResponding to Comments on Narrative (projected end: June 16, 2025)
404Chihene Nde Nation of New MexicoNMPhase I TA Review
403Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission IndiansCAPhase I TA Review
402Butte Tribe of Bayou BourbeauxLAResponding to Phase I TA Review (no time limit)
401Schaghticoke Indian TribeCTResponding to Phase I TA Review (no time limit)
032Muscogee Nation of FloridaFLPhase II TA Review (projected end: December 2, 2024)
005Piro/Manso/Tiwa Indian Tribe of the Pueblo of San Juan GuadalupeNMResponding to Phase I TA Review (no time limit)
146Grand River Bands of Ottawa IndiansMICommenting on Documented Petition (projected end: September 3, 2025)
Separate from active petitions, several groups have indicated plans to supplement incomplete submissions to meet documented requirements, often due to insufficient historical or genealogical evidence under prior evaluations.
Petition #Group NameStateStatus
119BMeherrin Indian TribeNCPlanning to supplement (no time limit)
056United Houma Nation, Inc.LAPlanning to supplement (no time limit)
056ABiloxi, Chitimacha Confederation of Muskogees, Inc.LAPlanning to supplement (no time limit)
056BPointe-au-Chien Indian TribeLAPlanning to supplement (no time limit)
084AJuaneno Band of , NationCAPlanning to supplement (no time limit)
082Southern Sierra Miwuk NationCAPlanning to supplement (no time limit)
Additionally, over 200 groups have submitted letters of to without full , placing them in a pre-evaluation queue not yet eligible for formal ; these entities self-identify as tribes but lack the substantiated evidence required for advancement. The process's rigor, including anthropological and genealogical verification, has resulted in most petitioners facing delays or denials, underscoring the evidentiary burden for establishing legitimate tribal continuity amid claims of historical descent.

Other Unrecognized Self-Claiming Entities

Numerous organizations assert tribal status as Native American entities without state recognition or active pursuit of federal acknowledgment through the process. These groups typically rely on self-reported ancestry, oral traditions, or minimal to claim descent from historical , often bypassing criteria such as sustained distinctiveness, political , and descent from a historical Indian as outlined in federal regulations. Estimates indicate over 200 such self-claiming groups alone exist nationwide, many originating in the southeastern states and emerging prominently since the 1990s amid popularized testing and cultural revival movements. Prominent examples include the of Jackson County in , which claims continuity from Cherokee removals but maintains no petitioned status; the Echota Cherokees, operating cultural centers and issuing membership cards without evidentiary submission to oversight bodies; and the United Cherokees, a loose asserting through private bylaws rather than historical records. Similar entities appear in other traditions, such as the Star Clan of Muskogee Creeks in or the Revived Ouachita Indians in , which promote events and artifacts as tribal but hold no government-to-government relations. These groups frequently concentrate in areas with historical Native presence but dilute claims through intermixture with non-Indian populations, lacking the rigorous genealogical proof required for legitimacy. Federally recognized tribes, including the , have issued warnings against engaging with these entities, attributing their proliferation to economic incentives like selling fraudulent crafts or memberships rather than verifiable heritage preservation. Without formal acknowledgment, such organizations cannot access federal services, exercise , or compel state deference, often resulting in internal disputes or external legal challenges when asserting unverified authority. This category underscores tensions between individual identity claims and institutional standards for tribal integrity, with recognized tribes viewing unchecked self-identification as eroding collective and resource allocation.

Geographical Distributions in the United States

Northeast States

In the Northeast states, comprising Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont, numerous organizations self-identify as Native American tribes, often claiming descent from historical Algonquian or Iroquoian peoples such as the Abenaki, Lenape (Delaware), Pequot, or Wampanoag. These groups include state-recognized entities, those petitioning for federal acknowledgment through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and fully unrecognized claimants, many of which have faced scrutiny over genealogical continuity, community cohesion, and historical documentation under federal criteria outlined in 25 CFR Part 83. Federally recognized tribes in the region, such as the Mohegan Tribe and Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation in Connecticut or the Passamaquoddy Tribe in Maine, maintain sovereign status independent of these self-identifying organizations, which typically lack such acknowledgment and associated benefits like trust lands or gaming compacts. Controversies often center on alleged insufficient evidence of descent from pre-colonial communities, with disputes amplified by objections from federally recognized tribes elsewhere, highlighting tensions over cultural appropriation and dilution of indigenous sovereignty. Connecticut hosts five state-recognized tribes under Public Act 78-26, including the Golden Hill Paugussett Indian Nation, Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation, and Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians, alongside the federally recognized Mohegan and Mashantucket Pequot; however, the non-federal groups have repeatedly petitioned the BIA for acknowledgment, with denials citing failures in demonstrating continuous tribal political influence and community existence from historical times. For instance, the Golden Hill Paugussett's 1992 petition remains in process, but prior BIA evaluations found inadequate genealogical ties to a distinct historical tribe, leading to ongoing legal challenges as of 2024. The Schaghticoke and Eastern Pequot experienced federal recognition in the early 2000s, followed by disacknowledgment in 2004 due to state political interference and lack of primordial descent proof, though state recognition persists and federal re-petitioning efforts continue. Vermont's four state-recognized Abenaki groups—the Nulhegan Band of the Coosuk Nation, Missisquoi Abenaki Tribe, Elnu Abenaki Tribe, and Grand Council of the Crees (affiliated)—received acknowledgment via Acts 2012 and 2016 based on self-reported oral histories and limited , without requiring federal-level genealogical verification. These recognitions have drawn sharp criticism from the federally recognized Abenaki First Nations of and Wôlinak in , who assert that genealogical reviews of , including church and census data from 1765–1930, reveal many members lack verifiable Abenaki ancestry, instead tracing to European or other non-indigenous lines, potentially constituting that harms authentic Abenaki communities' cultural integrity. As of , Odanak's researchers documented over 90% of claimed lineages in one group as unsupported by historical rolls, prompting calls for to revoke recognitions and the U.S. to enforce stricter BIA standards; tribes counter that state processes respect local histories beyond colonial records. In , the Hassanamisco Band of Indians holds state recognition since 1976 via , claiming continuity from 17th-century communities, though it has not pursued or achieved federal status and faces questions over enrollment criteria relying on self-identification rather than documented descent. The Herring Pond Tribe, provisionally state-recognized in recent years, self-identifies as a remnant of bands but lacks federal acknowledgment, with historical records showing assimilation into non-indigenous society by the 19th century. lacks formal state recognition but features self-identifying groups like the Cowasuck Band of the Pennacook- People, which claims ties to pre-contact bands and has lobbied for inclusion in state commissions, amid similar ancestry disputes raised by representatives. New Jersey recognizes three tribes at the state level—the , Ramapough Lenape Nation (formerly Mountain Indians), and Renape Nation—none federally acknowledged, with claims to or related Algonquian heritage in the watershed; however, BIA reviews have rejected petitions due to evidence of recent formation (e.g., Ramapough organized in ) and intermarriage diluting tribal distinctness from surrounding populations. has no state-recognized tribes and features unrecognized self-claimants like the Lenape Nation of Pennsylvania, which asserts descent from the displaced westward in the and seeks formal acknowledgment, though federal tribes in and dispute localized continuity, citing historical migrations and lack of persistent communities in the state. Fringe groups, such as the Cherokee Nation of New Jersey or Eagle Wing Press Band of in , self-identify with southeastern origins but operate without historical presence in the Northeast, raising concerns of opportunistic claims unlinked to regional indigenous histories.

Southeast States

In Alabama, the state recognizes eight non-federally acknowledged tribes alongside the federally recognized . These state-recognized entities self-identify as Native American tribes and maintain cultural organizations, though they lack federal sovereign rights or services. The Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama traces descent from families who remained in the region post-Trail of Tears and received state recognition in 1997. The MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians, claiming continuity from and Creek ancestors who evaded removal in the 1830s, obtained state acknowledgment in 1979 and has an active federal petition process dating to 1996, with over 3,500 members as of 2022. The MaChis Lower Creek Indian Tribe, focused on Creek heritage, was state-recognized but denied federal acknowledgment in 1997 for insufficient evidence of continuous tribal political influence since first sustained contact. Other state-recognized groups include the Cherokees of Northeast Alabama, Cher-O-Creek Intra Tribal Indians, and Piqua Shawnee Tribe, each asserting regional indigenous ancestry without federal validation. Georgia lacks federally recognized tribes but acknowledges three state-level groups that self-identify as tribes, primarily claiming or Creek descent amid historical southeastern indigenous presence before 19th-century removals. The Georgia Tribe of Eastern , with roots in families who hid from removal, received state recognition via legislation in 2006 and numbers around 200 members organized under a tribal . The Lower Muskogee Creek Tribe, emphasizing Muskogee cultural continuity, also holds state acknowledgment and pursues federal status through documented genealogies and traditions. The of Georgia Tribal , incorporated since 1988 with 369 members, focuses on cultural preservation and received formal state legitimacy under Georgia Code § 44-12-300. Florida has two federally recognized tribes—the (established 1957, over 4,000 members) and (recognized 1962, about 600 members)—but no state-recognized non-federal entities. Some unrecognized groups, such as splinter factions, self-identify locally but hold no official status and face disputes over authenticity from recognized tribes. North Carolina features seven state-recognized tribes without federal status, plus the federally acknowledged (about 16,000 enrolled members on the since 1866). The , the largest with over 55,000 members claiming multi-tribal southeastern ancestry, received state recognition in 1885 and a federal law naming them Lumbee, though lacking full acknowledgment; their federal petition remains unresolved amid debates over distinct tribal identity. The , state-recognized since 1965 with around 4,000 members, asserts and other Algonquian heritage in Halifax and Warren counties. Coharie Tribe (state-recognized 1971, ~2,000 members), Meherrin Indian Tribe (1971, ~900 members), Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation (2002, ~500 members), and Waccamaw Siouan Tribe (1971, ~500 members) similarly self-identify through state charters, emphasizing post-removal continuity in the . South Carolina recognizes nine non-federal entities as tribes or groups, in addition to the federally recognized Catawba Indian Nation (about 3,000 members, reservation since ). These include the Beaver Creek Indians (state-recognized, focusing on heritage), Edisto Natchez-Kusso Tribe (claiming Natchez and Muskogean roots), and Indian Nation of Upper (emphasizing continuity), each operating under state commission oversight with cultural programs but no federal services. The Santee Indian Organization and Sumter Tribe of Indians also hold state status, tracing to colonial-era alliances, while umbrella groups like the , Southern and United Tribes of coordinate multiple self-identifying communities. In , considered part of the Southeast, eight state-recognized tribes self-identify without federal acknowledgment, all tracing to confederacy remnants or other Algonquian groups who persisted post-17th-century conflicts. These encompass the Chickahominy Tribe (recognized 1983, ~700 members), Eastern Chickahominy Tribe (2005), Tribe (1983, reservation since 1656), (1989, ~400 members), Pamunkey Tribe (1983, reservation since 1646, federal acknowledgment granted 2016 but here noting state context), Rappahannock Tribe (1983), and Upper Tribe (2010), with the Cheroenhaka (Nottoway) Indian Tribe added in 2010; they maintain state commissions and pursue federal processes based on historical records and genealogies. States like , , , , and host fewer formalized recognitions, with self-identifying groups often comprising unrecognized derivative organizations or small bands claiming Creek or ties, such as Tennessee's Central Band of Cherokee or Kentucky's informal heritage groups, lacking state or federal validation and relying on private associations. These entities frequently cite over documented tribal continuity, contributing to ongoing debates about legitimacy amid federal criteria requiring sustained political and social cohesion.

Midwest States

In Michigan, the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians claims descent from Ottawa and Chippewa bands signatory to 19th-century treaties, asserting continued federal recognition despite displacement via the 1904 Burnt Village swindle that razed their settlement. The Bureau of Indian Affairs issued a final determination against acknowledgment in September 2005, citing failure to meet criteria for continuous community existence and political influence under 25 CFR Part 83. The band, with approximately 225 documented descendants, pursues reaffirmation through legislation and litigation, including a 2024 court challenge to BIA rulemaking delays. The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians, tracing roots to Ottawa groups in the Grand River Valley, submitted a documented petition to the BIA in 1997 and remains in the acknowledgment process as of October 2024, with the current stage involving comments on the narrative petition projected to conclude by September 2025. Michigan's Salyersville Indian Community, claiming Anishinaabe heritage, entered the BIA process with a documented petition and is slated for technical assistance review by mid-2025 following response to comments. In , the Tipanick Nansemond Family Indian Tribe petitions for acknowledgment, self-identifying as descendants of the people with ties to Midwestern migration, currently responding to BIA comments on its narrative as of 2024. Ohio hosts no federally recognized tribes headquartered within its borders, but self-identifying groups include the Shawnee Nation United Remnant Band, which claims continuity from removed westward in the 1830s yet lacks documentation satisfying BIA criteria for tribal existence; similar entities like the Piqua Sept of Ohio Shawnees assert lineage without federal or state validation. Indiana features the Miami Nation of Indiana, a self-governing body distinct from the federally recognized Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, claiming primary descent from the Miami removed from the state in 1846; it operates without federal acknowledgment and faces disputes over authenticity from recognized kin tribes. No state-level recognition exists in Indiana. States like Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin report fewer prominent self-identifying tribal organizations, with most Native populations affiliated with distant federal tribes; Wisconsin's Brothertown Indians, petitioning since 1995, received BIA denial in 2016 for insufficient evidence of distinct community post-1830 termination, though revival efforts persist among 700 members.

South Central States

In the South Central states of , , , and , numerous organizations claim to represent Native American tribes without federal acknowledgment from the (BIA), which requires documented evidence of continuous tribal political influence, community existence, and descent from a historical under 25 CFR Part 83 criteria. , home to 39 federally recognized tribes primarily resulting from 19th-century relocations, also sees unrecognized groups, often splinter entities claiming Cherokee affiliation; the has documented over 200 such U.S.-wide "tribes" since the early , many operating in and criticized for lacking verifiable ties to historic Cherokee bands, potentially undermining legitimate tribal governance and services. Texas lacks both federal and state-recognized tribes, as historical indigenous populations like the and Karankawa were decimated by disease and conflict by the 19th century, leaving descendant organizations to self-identify without government validation. The Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas, headquartered in McAllen with roots claimed in 18th-century migrations, pursues federal status but remains unrecognized as of 2023. The Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, asserting continuity from pre-colonial groups and numbering around 1,500 members as of 2024, submitted a BIA petition emphasizing cultural practices and genealogical records, though it awaits review amid debates over landless status in a state without trust lands. Arkansas hosts no federally or state-recognized tribes, with self-identifying groups focusing on revived or dissident claims from southeastern origins. The Revived Ouachita Indians of Arkansas and America traces to the historic Ouachita people encountered by European explorers in the 1670s, but lacks BIA-documented continuity post-removal era. Chickamauga Cherokee factions, such as the Chickamauga Nation with approximately 3,000 members as of 2025, assert descent from 18th-century Cherokee resistors who migrated to Arkansas River Valley sites between 1790 and 1822; they have contested state land developments, citing early U.S. acknowledgments under Thomas Jefferson, though denied federal status and viewed skeptically by the Cherokee Nation for insufficient evidence of distinct political evolution. Louisiana features four federally recognized tribes but several state-recognized and petitioning entities alongside other claimants. State-recognized groups without federal status include the Adai Indian Tribe of , linked to 18th-century Caddo subgroups, and the Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb, formed from intermarriage post-1830s migrations with about 200 members maintaining cultural sites. Petitioners in BIA process as of October 2025 encompass the Butte Tribe of Bourbeaux ( #402, responding to Phase I technical assistance), United Houma Nation ( #056, supplementing documentation for 19,000 claimed descendants of pre-colonial Houma), Biloxi-Chitimacha Confederation of Muskogees ( #056A), and Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe ( #056B), all rooted in Gulf Coast bands affected by 20th-century hurricanes and seeking acknowledgment for services eligibility. Additional self-identifying organizations, such as the Clifton-s, claim Choctaw lineage without formal recognition. BIA evaluations often highlight gaps in governance records for these groups, contrasting with federally recognized tribes' treaty-based histories.

Western States

In Arizona, the Hia-Ced O'odham (also known as the Hia C-ed O'odham) self-identify as a sovereign Indigenous nation with historical territories spanning the U.S.- border near , distinct from the federally recognized Tohono O'odham Nation; they lack federal or state acknowledgment and have pursued recognition through advocacy and documentation of continuous community existence since at least the early , when U.S. policies overlooked their land claims during border establishment. In , the Piro/Manso/Tiwa Indian Tribe of the Pueblo of San Juan de Guadalupe self-identifies as a tribe with roots in 16th-century Spanish colonial records of Piro, Manso, and Tiwa peoples displaced from the Valley; their documented petition (#005) has been under review since 1979, remaining in process as of 2025 without federal acknowledgment, though they received state legislative support for historical continuity in 2021. Also in New Mexico, the Chihene Nde Nation self-identifies as descendants of the Warm Springs Apache (Chihene band), citing pre-colonial sovereignty acknowledged in 1790 Spanish treaties and U.S. interactions until the 1871 end of treaty-making; their petition (#404) entered Phase I technical assistance in 2024, facing opposition from recognized Apache tribes like the Fort Sill Apache over overlapping historical claims, and remains unacknowledged federally as of 2025. In , the Pahrump Band of Paiutes self-identifies as a distinct Paiute group in the Pahrump Valley, listed among federally non-recognized entities without state acknowledgment or successful federal petition as of 2025. In , the Affiliated Ute Citizens of the State of self-identify as a tribal entity linked to historical Ute bands, with their petition (#409) under review for documented petition comments as of 2025, separate from the federally recognized Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation.

Pacific and Mountain States

In California, over 100 organizations claim descent from indigenous groups affected by Spanish missions and lack federal recognition, often petitioning or supplementing petitions through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) process. Notable examples include the Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties, which is responding to comments on its narrative petition as of 2025; the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of , under Phase I technical assistance review; the Band of , Nation, supplementing its petition; and the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation, also supplementing. These groups assert continuous community ties but face rigorous criteria under 25 CFR Part 83, including documented political influence and descent from historical tribes. In Washington, non-federally recognized groups include the Chinook Indian Tribe/Confederated Tribes of the Lower Chinook, centered in Bay Center, which maintains cultural practices despite denial of federal acknowledgment in 2002 after a brief recognition period. The Duwamish Tribal Council, claiming descent from Chief Seattle's people, operates without federal status following a 2001 denial for insufficient evidence of continuous tribal existence post-1855 treaty. Other self-identifying entities are the Snoqualmoo Tribe of and the Mitchell Bay Band. Oregon features fewer such organizations, including the Celilio-Wyam Indian Community, which self-identifies with historical peoples and pursues cultural preservation without federal recognition. The Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribes claim ties to coastal groups terminated or unacknowledged federally. In , the Tribal Council represents a non-recognized group among otherwise predominantly federally acknowledged Native villages, asserting Southeast Alaskan roots outside the framework. Hawaii lacks organizations self-identifying strictly as "tribes," as (Kānaka Maoli) emphasize national sovereignty or self-determination through entities like claimants rather than continental-style tribal structures; federal policy treats them separately via the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act attempts, without tribal acknowledgment. Among , Arizona's Hia-Ced self-identifies as a distinct Tohono subgroup in the Mexico-U.S. , petitioning for recognition due to historical division and lack of inclusion in federal rolls. The San Juan Southern Paiute similarly claims autonomous desert communities overlooked in treaties. In , the Piro/Manso/Tiwa Indian Tribe responds to Phase I review, asserting multi-ethnic Rio Grande Valley heritage; the Chihene Nde Nation (Warm Springs Apache) is under review; and the Tiwa Indian Tribe claims non-Pueblo Tiwa identity. Utah's Affiliated Ute Citizens petitions as a subgroup seeking separate acknowledgment. No prominent self-identifying organizations appear in Colorado, , , , or records beyond federally recognized entities.

Territories and Caribbean Groups

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory, hosts no federally recognized Native American tribes under the , as federal acknowledgment processes have historically focused on continental U.S. groups with documented continuity from pre-colonial times. The island's indigenous population, estimated at 30,000–60,000 at European contact in , suffered near-total demographic collapse due to disease, enslavement, and violence by 1550, with Spanish colonial records indicating assimilation or extinction of pure Taíno communities. Modern self-identifying groups emerged in the late amid cultural revival movements, often citing genetic studies showing 10–15% Taíno mitochondrial DNA in contemporary , though these organizations lack evidence of unbroken tribal governance or . In the 2020 U.S. , approximately 92,000 residents self-identified as Indigenous, reflecting personal heritage claims rather than tribal affiliation. These groups typically assert descent from caciques (chiefs) or related peoples, emphasizing language revival, ceremonial practices, and petitions for under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), though eligibility remains contested absent federal status. Skepticism persists regarding historical continuity, as colonial-era intermarriage diluted distinct identity, and revival efforts draw from archaeological data and oral traditions rather than continuous institutions; nonetheless, they self-organize as yukayekes (villages/tribes) for cultural preservation. Key organizations include:
  • Arawak Taino Tribe of Puerto Rico (Yucayeke Arawak Taino de Puerto Rico): Founded on July 9, 1992, this group claims direct descent from pre-colonial , requiring documented proof of indigenous ancestry for membership—unlike broader self-identification models—and cites genetic studies affirming 62% of retain indigenous roots. It pursues NAGPRA rights for repatriating remains and artifacts held by institutions like the Smithsonian.
  • United Confederation of Taíno People (UCTP): Established in 1998 with operations in , this nonprofit advocates for self-determination, cultural revitalization, and protection of sacred sites, including recent acquisition of 20 acres in Mayagüez for communal use in 2025. It functions as a representative body without sovereign claims.
  • Taíno Council Guatu-Ma-cu-A Borikén: Operating as a religious nonprofit, led by Martín Veguilla, it conducts ceremonies and seeks of skeletal remains from museums, asserting ancestral ties to Borikén ( name for ) but holding no governmental recognition.
  • Jíbaro-Boricua Indigenous Movement: With about 200 members under leader Uahtibili Báez Santiago, this group claims ties to pre- or Mayan-influenced ancestors, petitioning for access to ceremonial sites like the Caguana Indigenous Ceremonial Center and inclusion in educational curricula, though its indigenous claims diverge from mainstream historiography.
These entities face barriers to formal acknowledgment, as Puerto Rican law classifies them under cultural or religious frameworks rather than indigenous , and federal processes do not extend tribal status to Caribbean revival groups without substantiated petitions.

U.S. Virgin Islands

The Guainía Taíno Tribe of the U.S. Virgin Islands self-identifies as a Native American tribe tracing descent from the pre-Columbian people who inhabited the islands, including the , prior to European contact. Led by Kasike Maekiaphan Phillips, the group focuses on cultural preservation, including , traditional practices, and community education about Taíno heritage. In June 2021, Governor issued a proclamation formally acknowledging the tribe's existence and permitting it to exercise its cultural and traditional activities within the territory, marking the first such territorial-level recognition of a group in the . This acknowledgment does not confer federal tribal status under U.S. law, which requires a separate process through the , and the tribe continues to pursue nationwide recognition via petitions and advocacy. The organization maintains a tribal registry for members demonstrating Taíno ancestry or cultural affiliation and hosts events such as welcomes for affiliated Taíno representatives and proposals for cultural demonstration sites to educate locals and visitors. These activities aim to counter historical narratives of Taíno extinction following Spanish colonization and emphasize ongoing indigenous continuity in the region.

Other U.S. Territories

No organizations in other U.S. territories, including , , and the Commonwealth of the , self-identify as Native American tribes. The indigenous populations in these areas—primarily Chamorro in and the Northern Marianas, and in —possess distinct Austronesian ancestries and cultural traditions originating from migrations predating European contact by millennia, rather than the continental North American indigenous lineages associated with Native American tribal identities. Proposals to extend U.S. Native American or benefits to these groups, such as for in , have been evaluated and deemed unwarranted due to mismatches in historical, cultural, and legal criteria defining Native American tribes under federal Indian law. Chamorro efforts emphasize within a Pacific context, without alignment to Native American tribal frameworks. As of 2025, federal recognition processes administered by the remain confined to tribes with demonstrable continuity to pre-colonial North American communities, excluding Pacific territories' indigenous entities.

References

  1. https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa
  2. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/08/2024-00109/indian-entities-recognized-by-and-eligible-to-receive-services-from-the-united-states-bureau-of
  3. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-12-348
  4. https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa/petitions-process
  5. https://sentinelksmo.org/fake-indian-tribes-bilk-millions-from-taxpayers/
  6. https://ictnews.org/archive/5-fake-indians-checking-a-box-doesnt-make-you-native/
  7. https://www.hcn.org/articles/tribal-affairs-how-pretendians-undermine-the-rights-of-indigenous-people/
  8. http://www.thepeoplespaths.net/Cherokee/LegalDocuments/CNO001113Recognized.htm
  9. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-25/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-83
  10. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-25/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-83/subpart-B/section-83.11
  11. https://hrlr.law.columbia.edu/files/2022/12/4.-Lee-1.pdf
  12. https://www.doa.nc.gov/divisions/american-indian-affairs/tribal-recognition-program
  13. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47414
  14. https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS94/rpt/olr/htm/94-R-0170.htm
  15. https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions
  16. https://www.doi.gov/ocl/federal-acknowledgement
  17. https://www.bia.gov/faqs/what-federally-recognized-tribe
  18. https://www.doi.gov/tribes/benefits
  19. https://www.usa.gov/tribes
  20. https://www.courthousenews.com/specter-of-pandemic-dire-for-tribes-fighting-for-federal-recognition/
  21. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/17/988123599/unrecognized-tribes-struggle-without-federal-aide-during-pandemic
  22. https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/whitepapers/2018-06/GuidetoWorkingwithNon-FederallyRecognizedTribesintheSection106Process.pdf
  23. https://www.justia.com/native-american-law/gaming-regulations-for-native-americans/
  24. https://scdah.sc.gov/historic-preservation/resources/native-american-heritage/federal-and-state-recognized-native
  25. https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/about/understandings
  26. https://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US01-00.html
  27. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08791-9
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10872549/
  29. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1521744113
  30. https://fiveable.me/archaeology-of-colonial-america/unit-10/impact-european-colonization-native-american-societies/study-guide/lETvVIWVfyb7FYBj
  31. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/native-americans-colonial-america/
  32. https://www.hoover.org/research/bonds-colonialism
  33. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/indian-treaties
  34. https://www.archives.gov/research/native-americans/treaties
  35. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=nebanthro
  36. https://fiveable.me/hs-native-american-studies/unit-3/colonial-policies-effects-native-societies/study-guide/1MIPu4MVaNlbbLcY
  37. https://iltf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/american_indian_history_timeline.pdf
  38. https://www.bia.gov/bia/history
  39. https://www.bia.gov/bia/history/IndianLawPolicy
  40. https://www.bia.gov/faqs/how-federal-recognition-status-conferred
  41. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/07/12/2024-15070/federal-acknowledgment-of-american-indian-tribes
  42. https://www.narf.org/nill/documents/nlr/nlr14-3.pdf
  43. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/83.11
  44. https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/assets/as-ia/ofa/admindocs/OfficialGuidelines.pdf
  45. https://support.ancestry.com/s/article/Indigenous-Americas-Region
  46. https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/assets/as-ia/ofa/admindocs/25CFRPart83_2015_abbrev.pdf
  47. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/15/2025-00709/federal-acknowledgment-of-american-indian-tribes
  48. https://www.voanews.com/a/going-native-why-are-americans-hiijacking-cherokee-identity/4495119.html
  49. https://www.cherokeephoenix.org/news/non-recognized-cherokee-tribes-flourish/article_ac02834f-35d3-5bc3-bd2c-ad2b69101baf.html
  50. https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2024/04/27/vermont-abenaki-actually-french-canadian-frauds-uvm/73469873007/
  51. https://tribalallianceagainstfrauds.org/
  52. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/the-economic-ripple-effects-of-tribal-gaming-and-federal-contracting
  53. https://www.irs.gov/government-entities/indian-tribal-governments/fraud-and-abusive-schemes-information-for-indian-tribal-governments
  54. https://spot.colorado.edu/~antmanf/Antman&Duncan_NativeAmericanIdentity&Casinos.pdf
  55. https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/15861/american-indian-casinos-and-native-american-self-identification
  56. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/07/usa.garyyounge
  57. https://nativegov.org/resources/blood-quantum-and-sovereignty-a-guide/
  58. https://www.cherokee411.com/post/defending-sovereignty-the-fight-against-fake-tribes
  59. https://legislature.maine.gov/doc/5373
  60. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/11/2024-29005/indian-entities-recognized-by-and-eligible-to-receive-services-from-the-united-states-bureau-of
  61. https://aiac.alabama.gov/pdf/2019/StateRecognizedTribes.pdf
  62. https://aiac.alabama.gov/pdf/2022/2022CHIEFListOct21.pdf
  63. https://www.doa.nc.gov/divisions/american-indian-affairs/tribes
  64. https://www.commonwealth.virginia.gov/virginia-indians/state-recognized-tribes/
  65. https://cma.sc.gov/south-carolinas-recognized-native-american-indian-entities
  66. https://vcnaa.vermont.gov/recognition/recognized-tribes
  67. https://ictnews.org/archive/unrecognized-cherokee-claims-cause-problems-for-nation/
  68. https://accessgenealogy.com/native/list-of-federally-non-recognized-tribes.htm
  69. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0072.htm
  70. https://www.ctinsider.com/politics/article/ct-native-american-indian-tribes-bia-recognition-19656911.php
  71. https://vtdigger.org/2024/05/03/dispute-over-abenaki-identity-in-vermont-grows-more-entrenched/
  72. https://www.sevendaysvt.com/news/quebec-abenaki-say-research-proves-vermont-tribal-members-lack-native-heritage/
  73. https://www.umb.edu/naisa/tribes/
  74. https://www.500nations.com/New_Jersey_Tribes.asp
  75. https://www.lenape-nation.org/
  76. https://www.tuscaloosanews.com/story/news/2025/09/12/how-many-native-american-tribes-are-in-alabama-meet-the-9-in-the-state/86112159007/
  77. https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/2025/09/10/how-many-native-american-tribes-are-recognized-in-georgia-there-are-3/86073166007/
  78. http://georgiaindiancouncil.com/georgia_tribes
  79. https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-44/chapter-12/article-7/part-3/section-44-12-300/
  80. https://www.semtribe.com/
  81. https://nais.fsu.edu/TwoTribesSymposium
  82. https://dos.fl.gov/library-archives/research/explore-our-resources/florida-history-culture-and-heritage/native-americans-in-florida/
  83. https://aihc.nc.gov/about-us/american-indians-nc
  84. https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/assets/as-ia/ofa/petition/101_burtlk_MI/101_fd.pdf
  85. https://burtlakeband.org/about/
  86. https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/2023/10/09/is-ohio-home-to-any-native-american-tribes-the-answer-is-complicatedwho-gets-to-decide-whos-native-a/70765014007/
  87. http://www.native-languages.org/ohio.htm
  88. https://faqs.in.gov/hc/en-us/articles/360033547051-Are-there-any-Native-American-tribes-in-Indiana
  89. https://hcpl.net/blogs/post/a-quick-primer-on-texas-native-american-tribes/
  90. https://www.indigenousmexico.org/articles/the-indigenous-groups-along-the-lower-rio-grande
  91. https://www.swtimes.com/story/news/2025/04/10/tribal-chiefs-defend-chickamauga-history-land-rights-in-arkansas/82996297007/
  92. https://katv.com/news/local/arkansas-begins-archeological-study-on-prison-site-after-chickamauga-tribe-raises-concerns-chief-justin-flanagan-david-jurney-indian-burial-ground-native-american-grave-ceremonial-rock-formation-petroglyph-franklin-county-prison-hdr-cromwell-corrections
  93. https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/Indian-Affairs/Federal-State-Tribes-2021.pdf
  94. https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2023/01/24/sovereign-hia-ced-oodham-tribe-seek-federal-recognition/
  95. https://news.asu.edu/20221102-forgotten-history-hiaced-oodham
  96. https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa/005-pimati-nm
  97. https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa/404-chnnnm-nm
  98. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/17/2024-08084/receipt-of-documented-petition-for-federal-acknowledgment-as-an-american-indian-tribe
  99. https://www.scdailypress.com/2021/12/31/fort-sill-apache-raise-concerns-tribal-groups-seek-recognition/
  100. https://ospi.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/2023-10/nonfedrectribesinwash.pdf
  101. https://juustwa.org/program-areas/issues/first-american-indian-nations/resources/northwest-tribes-and-nations/
  102. https://www.doi.gov/hawaiian/self-identification-exercise-self-determination
  103. https://kjzz.org/content/1769210/qaz-are-there-any-federally-unrecognized-native-american-tribes-arizona
  104. https://www.bia.gov/service/tribal-leaders-directory
  105. https://brownpoliticalreview.org/beyond-paper-genocide/
  106. https://www.americanindianmagazine.org/story/taino-survival-back-history
  107. https://www.tainotribepr.com/about-us
  108. https://www.uctp.org/about-us-taino
  109. https://globalpressjournal.com/americas/puerto-rico/puerto-rican-indigenous-communities-seek-recognition-return-ancestral-lands/
  110. https://stthomassource.com/content/2022/04/06/usvi-taino-chief-seeks-members/
  111. https://stthomassource.com/content/2022/11/25/virgin-islands-taino-welcome-tribal-members-from-caribbean/
  112. https://www.guainia-taino-tribe.net/tribal-registry
  113. https://www.oah.org/process/oberiano-guahan-and-the-chamoru-people/
  114. https://www.guampedia.com/origin-of-chamorro-as-an-ethnic-identifier/
  115. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-16931877
  116. https://www.gao.gov/assets/hrd-88-1.pdf
  117. https://decol.guam.gov/sites/default/files/social-impactsself-determination-and-indigenous-rights-on-guam-international-and-domestic-law.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.