Alaska Native Corporations Defy Pressure to Cut ICE Contracts Amid Tribal Divestment Trend

In December 2025, the Prairie Band of Potawatomi withdrew from a $30 million Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) contract and fired the executives who brokered it, following criticism from tribal members. In January 2026, the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin terminated over $6 million in ICE contracts and replaced its business group head.

Public pressure from tribal organizations has forced these divestitures, even as President Donald Trump’s administration pursued mass deportations. However, this trend has not held in Alaska, where Native corporations—created under the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)—continue pursuing ICE contracts despite demands for divestment.

Tribal Governments vs. Native Corporations: A Key Difference

The disparity stems from the legal structures of the organizations involved. Tribal governments like the Prairie Band of Potawatomi and the Oneida Nation are accountable to enrolled members, who can vote out leaders or demand accountability at council meetings. In contrast, Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) are for-profit entities whose boards answer to fiduciary duty, not community values.

Levi Rickert, a citizen of the Prairie Band of Potawatomi, highlighted the moral contradiction: “Native people know oppression. We were forcibly removed from our homelands, locked in Indian boarding schools, confined to reservations. We cannot—we should not—profit from the oppression of others.”

BSNC’s $88 Million ICE Contracts Under Scrutiny

Bering Straits Native Corporation (BSNC), an ANC, holds $88 million in federal contracts with ICE through its subsidiary, Paragon Professional Services. These contracts include work at the East Montana Detention Center in El Paso and transportation of detained immigrants across Newark, New York, Baltimore, and Boston.

More than 470 BSNC shareholders have signed a petition demanding the corporation divest from ICE work. The board has not formally responded to the petition.

Why Shareholder Pressure Fails for ANCs

Ann Tweedy, a federal Indian law professor at the University of Mississippi, explained the structural divide: “With tribal governments in the Lower 48, there’s a lot of attention to what economic development projects the Tribes are engaged in. There’s less division between the tribal government and any economic development that’s going on. That creates a direct accountability.... I think with Alaska, it created a system where the corporate governance is a bit more removed from shareholders than the direct line you see in tribal governments.”

Tweedy added, “The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act had this assimilationist goal of turning Tribes more into corporate bodies. The idea that they shouldn’t be acting like Tribes is kind of inherent in ANCSA.”

The Moral and Legal Divide

While most public corporations prioritize shareholder value, tribal corporations often carry an added responsibility to their communities. However, ANCs operate under a corporate model that prioritizes profit, making them less responsive to shareholder demands for ethical divestment.

The ongoing debate underscores the tension between corporate governance and tribal values, leaving BSNC and other ANCs insulated from the public pressure forcing divestment in tribal governments elsewhere.