With AI advancements, work towards AI regulatory action is now being undertaken by sovereigns globally. In 2025, the United States unveiled  America’s AI Action Plan focusing on Innovation, infrastructure, and international diplomacy and security. Trump’s Action Plan consists of ninety recommendations and calls for “slashing environmental regulations, fast-tracking data center construction, preempting restrictive state laws and promoting AI exports.” This plan implements soft regulation through a framework established by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), providing guidance on how to manage AI issues.

Tribal Nations, sometimes referred to as the third sovereign in the U.S., also exercise sovereign authority within their jurisdiction and determine how best to engage with AI. According to the Native Nations Center for Tribal Policy Research, no Tribal Nation is believed to have adopted laws regulating artificial intelligence to date. However, some Tribes are considering policy approaches. On August 21, 2025, the Cherokee Nation  signed a policy “creating guidelines for responsible AI use across government and business operations.” The Cherokee Nation Information Technology Artificial Intelligence (AI) policy outlines specific approved uses of AI while seeking to protect Cherokee language and culture. Such ethical approaches demonstrate how Tribes can engage with AI as they seek to balance innovation and cultural protection.

Tribes are also considering how AI can be leveraged to support tribal sovereignty and governance, particularly around data.  The “information provision” of generative AI systems are reliant on the extraction of large amounts of data. Rusty Pickens, technology expert and author, advocates for “meaningful Indigenous representation” in global AI policymaking and vocalizes his concern about AI’s ability to extract data without tribal consent, potentially repeating historical abuses. Examples include the publication of the Tulalip Tribes of Washington’s sacred ceremonial images and the appropriations of sacred Navajo songs. Recent cases include AI generated Native language books available on Amazon with inaccurate and fictitious translations. These examples demonstrate how misuse can contribute to misrepresentation and cultural appropriations.

This research identifies how some Tribal Nations and their citizens engage AI in support of self-determination that reflects tribal governance structures, values, methodologies, and data sovereignty needs. It identifies areas of promise and provides cultural considerations to inform collaborative efforts. See examples in Table 1. below.

Tribes require AI tools and systems that support tribal sovereignty and data security. Information professionals have an opportunity to work collaboratively with sovereign Tribal Nations to address issues and ethical concerns while informing culturally conscious approaches to building the next generation of AI systems. When designed and implemented with tribal input, AI can be used to streamline tribal governments and administrative operations; to strengthen institutional capacity; to enhance decision-making for tribal leaders, tribal litigators, medical professionals, and other government staff; and to mitigate access issues to tribal information. However, without active tribal contributions in the development and regulation of AI systems, software, and protocols, these technologies “could instead bring new disruptive challenges.”

This research also identifies gaps and challenges when sovereign Tribal Nations seek to implement AI systems, tools, and software. Empirical data around AI as it relates to tribal economic and environmental impact is limited. For example, constructing data centers on or near Tribal lands may require further exploration to understand the potential impact on energy sources and to ensure protection of natural resources and water supplies. This may be an issue of growing importance to Tribes given Trump’s recommendation to fast-track data center construction in the U.S. The literature identified a clear need for Tribal representation, providing accurate tribal data to inform AI models as well as Tribal workforce pathways in AI development and STEM fields.

Challenges illuminated issues with bias. A study by Wang et al. speaks to the challenges of “insufficient Tribal input” in AI systems, which may create bias and imbalance. Lewis et al. highlights the shortcomings and trajectory of AI development that results in systematic operationalization of bias. Dudley and Kuslikis affirm bias that exist in AI systems today stating, “AI systems are cultural artifacts that are designed for and reflective of the cultural understandings of their creators.” Wildcat emphasizes the need to think about cultural bias within AI systems stating that these systems “will never be value or culturally neutral.” As we move into the next phases of generative AI and agentic agents, Tribes may face more pressing ethical considerations and concerns that could impact tribal communities and humanity in general. This quote by Tu that takes into consideration the need for ethical protocols or regulatory action:

“AI is not merely a technological development. It is a potential new form of colonization – one that risks marginalizing…languages, cultures and agency unless meaningful safeguards are established.”

Information professionals can work as partners and collaborators as Tribal Nations seek opportunities that showcase a vital, value-driven model of AI adoption as a way to safeguard Tribal sovereignty, empower their communities, and honor their culture. See Table 2.

In addressing present opportunities, uses, and concerns of AI, Tribes may consider collaborations with other Tribal Nations and non-tribal partners; investments into the education and workforce development of tribal citizens within all areas of technology and AI creation; and incorporation of tribal knowledge systems into the creation, development, and deployment of AI systems and protocols.