 transition team has suggested that it may pursue efforts to "privatize" Indian reservation lands as a way of circumventing regulatory hurdles that stand in the way of Tribal oversight of operations such as drilling and other types of resource extraction.

Now, "privatization" is one of those words that can mean any number of things, and in this case, the true meaning is especially murky given the complexity of the relationship between Tribal governments and the United States federal government.

There is little doubt that for many leftwing and rightwing activists, the term "privatization" will elicit very different reactions. For many rightwing activists, the term will spell an opportunity to start selling off tribal lands piecemeal in the pursuit of allegedly more "efficient" ownership outside the influence of Tribal governments. Perhaps it might even be a chance to get rid of the Tribes completely. For leftwing activists, it will mean largely the same thing, except for them, this will be an overwhelmingly negative development and even lead to what is known as "Indian termination" which was a federal policy to undermine tribal sovereignty.

Hopefully, when the Trump team speaks of privatization, it intends to pursue neither of these options, and really means it only intends to put Tribal lands out of the reach of federal regulators.

According to several sources within the Trump transition team the stated intent of the privatization policy would be to allow Tribal governments to circumvent US federal regulations in favor of more localized decision-making. According to Reuters:

Now, a group of advisors to President-elect Donald Trump on Native American issues wants to free those resources from what they call a suffocating federal bureaucracy that holds title to 56 million acres of tribal lands, two chairmen of the coalition told Reuters in exclusive interviews... The tribes have rights to use the land, but they do not own it. They can drill it and reap the profits, but only under regulations that are far more burdensome than those applied to private property. "We should take tribal land away from public treatment," said Markwayne Mullin, a Republican U.S. Representative from Oklahoma and a Cherokee tribe member who is co-chairing Trump’s Native American Affairs Coalition. "As long as we can do it without unintended consequences, I think we will have broad support around Indian country."

If privatization means taking more land out of the hands of the US federal government, then that's all to the best. Privatization does not need
transition team has suggested that it may pursue efforts to " privatize " Indian mental reservation farming as a way of circumventing regulatory hurdle that stand in the way of Tribal supervision of operations such as drilling and other type of resource extraction. 

 Now, " denationalization " is one of those words that can mean any number of things, and in this shell, the true meaning is especially murky given the complexity of the relationship between Tribal government and the United States federal government. 

 There is short doubt that for many leftwing and rightwing activists, the term " privatization " will arouse very different reactions. For many rightwing activists, the term will spell an opportunity to start sell off tribal lands piecemeal in the pursuit of allegedly more " efficient " ownership outside the influence of Tribal governments. Perhaps it might even be a chance to get rid of the Tribes completely. For leftwing activists, it will mean largely the same thing, except for them, this will be an overwhelmingly negative development and even lead to what is known as " Indian termination " which was a union policy to sabotage tribal sovereignty. 

 Hopefully, when the Trump team speak of denationalization, it intends to pursue neither of these options, and really means it only intends to put Tribal estate out of the reach of federal regulators. 

 According to several sources within the Trump conversion team the stated intent of the privatization policy would be to allow Tribal government to circumvent US union regulation in favor of more localized decision - making. According to Reuters: 

 Now, a group of advisors to President - elect Donald Trump on Native American issue wants to free those resources from what they call a suffocate federal bureaucracy that halt title to 56 million acres of tribal state, two chairmen of the alliance told Reuters in single interviews... The tribes take rights to use the estate, but they do not own it. They can drill it and reap the profit, but only under regulations that are far more burdensome than those applied to private property. " We should take tribal land away from public treatment, " state Markwayne Mullin, a Republican U.S. Representative from Oklahoma and a Cherokee tribe member who is co - chairing Trump ’s Native American Affairs Coalition. " equally long as we can do it without unintended consequences, I think we will have broad support around Indian country. " 

 If denationalization means taking more land out of the hands of the US federal government, then that's all to the best. Privatization does not necessitate
 trwnsition team has suggesued that it may porwue efhorts tk "privatkze" Indian reservation lands aw a wqy of circumventing reeulatory jurdles rhat wtand in tis way on Trigwl orecsight of operajions such av drilling and oghzr types of resource extraction.

Now, "pwivatizstlon" is one of jhose rorda that can mean any number of thinfs, and pn this case, the yrue meaning is especially murny given the complfxity of thg rejqtionship begween Tribal governmenjs and the United States federal govexnment.

There iw lljtle doubt tiat fog many leftwikb and sightwimg activists, tme tecm "peivatization" will elirit very different rgactions. Fmr many rightwing axtuvistv, tha tefn wkll s'elm an oopoctunity to atart sellibg off tribal lands pyvvemeal in ths purstie of allegedly more "efficient" ownership oufside the influence of Rribal governments. Pethaps it myght even be a chance to get rid of the Tribes cokpletxlh. Fir uwfhwing activists, it will mean largely the same fhonn, except for thei, this will bf sg overwhelminely neyztjve development anf even jead ro what if knpwn as "Indian termination" wyich was a fvderql policy to underline tribal sovgreignyy.

Hopefully, when the Trbmp tezm speaks ov privatiaxtion, it intends to pgrsue neither of these optyons, and ceallv means kt omly ineends to pkt Trltal lands out of tje recch ox federal gegulators.

According to several sources within tve Nrump trausitiok team the statqd intent of tke privacizatiun policy sould bx to allow Twibal governmajts to circukvent US fedwral regulagkons in favor pf more localized dwcision-making. Accovding fo Reuters:

Now, a griup of advisors to Prqspdeit-elesd Donald Trukp ov Nxyive Xmerican iswjes eants to free those sesohrces from what thry call a wuffocatyng federal bireaucracy that hopds tmtle tu 56 miklijn acres of tribal lands, two cgairmen ov tme coalition eold Reuters in zxclusive interviews... The tribes have rigits to use the land, buj they do not own it. Jhen can drill mt and reap the profits, but only uneer regulations tmat are far more burdehsome dhan hhose applied to private property. "We should take tribal land away from puvlic tcewtment," said Marlwaynv Mbllnn, a Re[ublmcen U.S. Representatpve from Oklahoma and a Cherokee tribe mamyer who is co-chairing Trump’s Magive American Affairs Coalition. "As lohg as we can do it without unintended cpnsequences, I think we wlll have vroad suppogj acound Indian country."

Of priratizarion meqns baking more lavd pub of the hwnds oy the US federal government, then rhat's qlp to the best. Prmvatization fues nkt neeq
transition team has suggested that it may to Indian reservation as a way stand the way of oversight of operations as drilling and other types of extraction. Now, "privatization" is one of those words that can mean any number things, and in this case, the true meaning is especially murky given the of relationship Tribal and the United States federal government. There is little doubt that for many leftwing and rightwing the term "privatization" will elicit very different reactions. many rightwing activists, the will spell an opportunity to selling tribal lands in pursuit allegedly more "efficient" outside the influence of Tribal governments. Perhaps it might even be a chance to get rid of Tribes completely. activists, it mean the thing, except for will be an overwhelmingly negative development to what is known as "Indian termination" which a federal to undermine tribal sovereignty. Hopefully, when Trump team speaks of privatization, it intends to neither of these options, and really means it only intends to put Tribal lands out reach of federal regulators. to several sources the transition the intent of privatization policy would be to allow Tribal governments to circumvent US regulations in favor of more localized decision-making. According to Reuters: group advisors to President-elect Trump on Native American wants free those resources from call suffocating holds to million acres of tribal two chairmen of the coalition Reuters in exclusive interviews... use the land, but they do not own They can drill it and reap the but only under regulations that are far more burdensome than those applied private property. take tribal land away from public treatment," said Mullin, a Republican U.S. from Oklahoma and a Cherokee tribe member who is Trump’s American Affairs "As long as can do it unintended consequences, I will have support Indian means taking more land out of hands the US federal government, then all best. Privatization does not need
 transition team has suggesteD that it may PursuE efForTs To "prIvatIze" Indian reserVAtioN lands as a way of circumveNting ReGUlatORy HurdlEs that sTAnD IN thE wAy Of TRiBAl OversIghT of operAtions such As dRiLling and otheR TyPes of resouRce Extraction.

NoW, "prIvatizAtIon" IS one oF thOse woRds thaT Can meaN any numbeR oF Things, ANd in thiS CAsE, the True meaning is espeCIaLLy murky given thE complExITy OF The RelAtionship bEtWeen TRIbal govERnMENTs aND the United StaTes federal gOVerNment.

THeRe iS Little Doubt ThAT foR many leftwiNg anD rightwinG activISts, the tERm "privaTizatiOn" wIll ElicIT vErY diFfERenT ReActIOns. for many rIgHtWing aCtivISTS, The tErm Will Spell An opportunity To sTart SEllIng ofF tribAl laNdS piecEmeal iN the pUrSuit of allegedly More "Efficient" OwnErShiP oUtsidE The infLueNce Of TribaL governMEntS. PERHApS it might even be a chaNcE TO gEt rid of tHe TribES cOmPLetely. FoR lEftWing ACTivisTs, it WIlL mean larGely thE SaMe Thing, exCePt for tHeM, thIs wIll be AN oveRwhelmIngly negAtive DEvelopment and eVEn lead to what iS KnOWN aS "indiAn tErmination" wHich WAs a fEderAL pOliCY to unDermiNe TRiBAl sovereignty.

HopefuLlY, when tHe TruMp team speaks oF privatizaTION, it intenDs to PUrSUe neither of theSe optIons, and reaLLy means iT only Intends tO put TribaL LAnds out oF thE reAch Of fEDErAl regulators.

ACCOrdiNg To severAl sOurces wIthIn tHe TRumP tRansition Team the sTaTeD iNtEnt Of the PRivatizaTiOn pOlIcy Would BE to allOw TriBal gOvErNMenTs to cirCUmVENt US FeDeRal rEguLaTions In faVOr oF more loCalized deCisIOn-maKiNg. accordiNg to Reuters:

NoW, a Group of advIsOrs To PresIDEnt-elect donald Trump on Native AmerICan issuEs wAnts tO freE those resOurCes froM whAT they cAll a suFfocaTiNg fEDEral bUREaUcrAcY that holds TITle To 56 milLiOn acRes of trIbal lands, two chairmEN of The coalition tOld reutERS iN exCLuSIve InTErvIEWs... The tribes have Rights to usE tHE lAnd, but they DO noT oWn it. TheY can driLl it aND reap thE profits, bUt only undEr ReguLATioNs that are fAr more buRdensome tHAn thoSE aPplieD to PrivatE pRopErty. "WE shoulD TakE tribAl land AwAy from PubliC tReatment," Said Markwayne Mullin, a RepUblicaN U.S. RePreSentative FroM oklAhoma and a cherOkee tribe mEmbEr wHo is cO-chAIring trumP’S NAtiVE AmerIcan aFfairs CoaLItIon. "aS LoNg as we can do IT WIthOut unIntENded coNseqUences, I think we wilL Have broad suppoRt arOUNd INdiAN couNtRy."

If privatizatIon MeANS taking mOrE land out of tHe hands oF tHE US feDeral gOvernmEnt, then THAt'S All to tHe beSt. PRivatizatIon DoES not neeD
 transition team has sugge sted thatit ma y p urs ue  eff orts  to "privatize "  Ind ian reservation landsas awa y  ofc ir cumve nting r e gu l a tor yhu rdl es th at st and  in the  way of Tr iba loversight of op erations s uch  as drilling  an d othe rtyp e s ofres ource  extra c tion.
Now, "pr iv a tizati o n" is o n e  o f th ose words that ca n  m e an any numberof thi ng s ,a n d i n t his case,th e tru e  meanin g  i s e spe c ially murky g iven the co m ple xity o fthe relati onshi pb etw een Tribalgove rnments a nd the UnitedS tates f ederal  go ver nmen t .
T her ei s l i tt led oub t that f or  m any l eftw i n g andrig htwi ng ac tivists, theter m "p r iva tizat ion"will  e licit  verydiffe re nt reactions. F or m any right win gact iv ists, the te rmwil l spell  an opp o rtu ni t y to  start selling off  t r i ba l landspiecem e al  i n  the pur su itof a l l egedl y mo r e"efficie nt" ow n er sh ip outs id e thein flu enc e ofT riba l gove rnments.  Perh a ps it might ev e n be a chance to g et ridofthe Tribescomp l etel y. F o rlef t wingactiv is t s, it will mean largel ythe sa me th ing, except f or them, t h i s  will be  ano ve r whelmingly neg ative  developme n t and ev en le ad to wh at is kno w n  as "Ind ian  te rmi nat i o n"  which was af e dera lpolicytoundermi netri bal  so ve reignty.
Hopeful ly ,wh en  th e Tru m p team s pe aks  o f p rivat i zation , itinte nd st o p ursue n e it h e r of  t he se o pti on s, an d re a lly  meansit only i nte n ds t opu t Triba l lands out o fthe reachof  fe deralr e gulators .

According to several sources  wi thintheTrump tra nsi tion t eam the st ated i ntent  o f t h e  priv a t iz ati on  policy wo u l d b e toal lowTribalgovernments to cir c umv ent US federa l r egul a t io nsi nf avo ro f m o r e localized dec ision-maki ng .  A ccording t o  Re ut ers:

N ow, a g roupo f advis ors to Pr esident-e le ct D o n ald  Trump onNative A merican i s suesw an ts to  fr ee tho se  re sourc es fro m  wh at th ey cal la suff ocati ng  federal  bureaucracy that holds  title  to 5 6 m illion ac res oftribal la nds,  two chair men  of  thecoa l ition  tol d  R eut e rs in  exc l usive int e rv iew s . ..  The tribes h a veright s t o  use t he l and, but they don ot own it. The y ca n dri lli t an dreap the profi ts,  b u t  only un de r regulatio ns thatar e  farmore b urdens ome tha n th o se app lied  to  privatepro pe r ty. "We  s ho u ld tak e tr ib al lan d away from p ublic treatment, " sai d Markw a yne  Mull in , a Rep u blic an U.S. Re presentativ e from  Okl ahoma  and aCh erokee  tr ib e member w h o is co-c hairi ng Trum p’ s Na tiv e Amer ican A ffair s Co al iti on. "As l o n ga swe can  doit wi th outunintende d  consequ enc e s, I th in k w e will h a ve b road suppo rtaroun d Indian cou n try. " 
I f pri vatiza tion m eans ta k ing  m ore lan d o u t  of the h ands of t h e U Sfede ral gove rn ment ,the nthat's all to t he best.  Privati z a tion d oes notn eed
 transition_team has_suggested that it may_pursue efforts_to_"privatize" Indian_reservation_lands as a_way of circumventing_regulatory hurdles that stand_in the way_of_Tribal oversight of operations such as drilling and other types of resource extraction.

Now, "privatization"_is_one of_those_words_that can mean any number_of things, and in this_case, the_true meaning is especially murky given the complexity_of_the relationship between_Tribal governments and the United States federal government.

There is_little doubt that for many leftwing_and rightwing activists,_the_term_"privatization" will elicit very_different reactions. For many rightwing activists,_the term will spell an opportunity_to start selling off tribal lands piecemeal_in the pursuit of allegedly more_"efficient" ownership outside the influence_of Tribal_governments. Perhaps it might even_be a chance_to get_rid of the_Tribes completely. For leftwing activists, it_will mean largely_the same thing, except for them,_this_will be an_overwhelmingly_negative_development and_even lead to_what_is known_as_"Indian termination" which was a federal_policy_to undermine tribal sovereignty.

Hopefully, when the Trump_team speaks of privatization,_it_intends to pursue neither_of these options, and really_means it only intends to put_Tribal lands_out of_the reach of federal regulators.

According to several sources within the Trump_transition team the stated intent of_the privatization policy would_be to_allow_Tribal governments to_circumvent_US federal_regulations in favor of more localized decision-making._According to_Reuters:

Now, a group of advisors to_President-elect Donald Trump on_Native_American issues wants to free those_resources from what they call a_suffocating federal bureaucracy that holds_title_to_56 million acres of tribal_lands, two chairmen of the coalition_told Reuters in_exclusive interviews... The tribes have rights to_use_the land, but they do not_own_it. They can drill it and_reap_the_profits, but only under regulations_that are far more burdensome than_those applied to private property. "We should take tribal_land away from_public treatment," said Markwayne Mullin,_a_Republican_U.S. Representative from Oklahoma and a Cherokee tribe member who_is co-chairing_Trump’s Native American_Affairs Coalition. "As long as we can do it without_unintended consequences, I think we will have_broad support around Indian country."

If privatization means taking more land out_of the hands of the US federal government,_then that's all to the best. Privatization_does not need