The National Archives and Records Administration plans to close two facilities and relocate records from a third, prompting concern from tribal officials, historians, and archivists who say the agency made the decision without meaningful tribal consultation.
The agency plans to close its archival facilities in Chicago and San Francisco and transfer temporary federal records from its Seattle center. Permanent archival holdings in Seattle will remain there until the agency identifies a suitable replacement facility. According to Federal News Network, an internal June 23 email said the changes were intended to reduce expenses, shrink the agency’s real estate footprint and support its long-term financial health.
The Chicago facility alone houses 2,296 linear feet of Bureau of Indian Affairs records from agencies, subagencies and Indian boarding schools that operated across Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa. The collections include enrollment and education records, land allotment files, financial documents, maps, photographs, genealogies and materials related to federal Indian boarding schools. Most have not been digitized and must be accessed in person.
Tribal historians have warned that some relocated records could remain inaccessible for two to three years, while moving them farther from the Native nations and urban Indigenous communities whose histories they document. Researchers have also raised concerns about transportation damage, copying costs, and the loss of experienced staff who understand the collections.
Tribal advocates argue that relocating these materials without consultation disregards the federal government’s trust responsibility and its nation-to-nation relationship with tribes. Some tribal governments and coalitions have requested greater transparency, while advocates are calling for congressional intervention and possible legal action.
A similar effort to relocate Seattle’s archival records was halted in 2021 following litigation involving tribes, states and historic preservation organizations. Advocates say the current plans require the same scrutiny because access to tribal history, treaty rights, and family records is again at stake.
Sources: ICT, Native News Online, Federal News Network
