January, 12 2015, 09:15am EDT

US Tribal Council Mismanagement: Millions of Dollars Missing; Services Undercut
Sioux Falls, SD
Millions of dollars in public funds are missing in the impoverished Lower Brule Sioux reservation, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The Lower Brule Tribal Government should account for the missing public funds and abide by its own rules on openness.
The 111-page report, "Secret and Unaccountable: The Tribal Council at Brule and Its Impact on Human Rights," documents many of the problems with tribal governance at Lower Brule for the first time. It details how the Tribal Council has diverted millions of dollars in federal funds away from key social programs without explaining how those funds were spent. Human Rights Watch has obtained hundreds of pages of government documents detailing financial mismanagement and possible corruption and is making that information public for the first time.
"Since 2007, Lower Brule's Tribal Council has lost tens of millions of dollars to mismanagement and possible corruption," said Arvind Ganesan, director of business and human rights at Human Rights Watch. "This has severely undercut efforts to provide basic services that people across the reservation desperately need."
The report is being released during a crisis in tribal governance with a split between newly elected Tribal Council members who have clashed with longstanding council members over government transparency and accountability.
The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe is located on a small, extremely poor reservation in central South Dakota on the shore of the Missouri River. Some 40 percent of the local population requires food assistance, and the reservation's poverty level is almost three times the national average.
The Tribal Council at Lower Brule serves as the legislative and executive branch of the government and is extraordinarily powerful on the reservation. Since 1980, the council chairman has been Michael Jandreau. Neither the local courts nor any other public institution exercise meaningful oversight over the council's prerogatives.
Over the last two years, the Tribal Council is perhaps best known for its partnership with the Washington Redskins, the National Football League team.
Human Rights Watch found that the Tribal Government's mismanagement of scarce financial resources has directly impacted basic services many tribal members rely on. For example, US$1.2 million was diverted between 2005 and 2007 from a federally funded program to supply potable water on the reservation. How the money was used has not been explained.
In another instance $2.6 million in federal funds meant for the school system and other programs for the poor were diverted from 2010-2011 for unexplained purposes. Since then the Lower Brule school system has effectively collapsed.
In perhaps the most brazen case of mismanagement, in 2009 members of the Tribal Council set up a series of shell companies to purchase the Westrock Group, a troubled Wall Street brokerage firm. By the time of the sale, the firm had been repeatedly sanctioned and fined by regulators for unethical business practices. Within two years of that purchase, Westrock was bankrupt.
The tribe made this dubious investment with the help of a $22.5 million federal loan guarantee, which the tribe subsequently sold for about $20 million in cash. That money is equivalent to nearly two-thirds of the Tribal Government's entire annual budget and has since disappeared.
"The Tribal Council has consistently thwarted public efforts to secure information about government finances," Ganesan said. "Council members' secretive approach to governance has fostered mismanagement, abuse, and serious allegations of corruption."
In 2007, tribal members began to openly protest the Tribal Council's secrecy and mismanagement. In response, the council has withheld virtually all information and documentation about its activities from the public, in violation of the open records provisions of the tribe's constitution and basic standards of good governance and human rights.
This information blockade has even extended to some elected Tribal Council members who wanted to look into the council's financial practices, including three new council members that were elected on a reform platform in September 2014.
Indian reservations in the United States are sovereign entities with considerable authority to manage their own affairs. Sovereignty itself is not the cause of Lower Brule's problems since many other tribal governments have robust mechanisms to hold themselves accountable and protect the rights of tribal members. The lack of any such mechanisms at Lower Brule, coupled with the Tribal Council's refusal to abide by its own rules and constitutional norms, is the primary cause of the problems documented, Human Rights Watch said.
Even though Lower Brule has a sovereign government, US federal officials have an important role to play in securing accountability on the reservation. Federal officials were aware that the tribal government diverted federal funds earmarked for social programs, but has not done enough to address it. The Interior Department's Office of Inspector General has, however, has begun to examine why the Bureau of Indian Affairs extended a loan guarantee to the tribe to buy Westrock.
"The federal government can play an important role by helping to investigate and account for the millions of dollars in taxpayer funds that have gone missing at Lower Brule," Ganesan said. "As a key source of tribal government revenue, federal authorities have the authority - and indeed the responsibility - to demand greater transparency."
When the three reform council members were elected in September 2014, Chairman Jandreau and two other longstanding council members were reelected. Since the new council was sworn into office on October 1, the new council members have been denied access to government information by Jandreau and the incumbent council members.
The new council has not met to conduct official business since October. At the same time, the previous council secured the resignation of a newly elected chief justice of the tribal court just before the new council took office, and reappointed the incumbent judge who had come in third place in the September election.
On December 12, the new council members held a largely symbolic vote of no confidence against the chair and the other two council members, and voted to remove them from office and appoint the runners-up in tribal elections to their positions. Jandreau's representative responded by petitioning the tribal court to remove the three new council members from office. The first hearing in that case takes place on January 12, 2015. These events have led to an increasingly tense environment on the reservation.
Human Rights Watch repeatedly contacted Tribal Council members in office during the period these events occurred, and other Tribal Government officials. They refused our requests for information, would not meet with us, and did not comment on these allegations.
"The people of Lower Brule have been deprived for years of information, desperately needed public services, and government accountability," Ganesan said. "It's time to end the stonewalling and secrecy and let the truth come out about where their money has gone."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Billionaire Palantir Co-Founder Pushes Return of Public Hangings as Part of 'Masculine Leadership' Initiative
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," said one critic in response.
Dec 07, 2025
Venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, a co-founder of data platform company Palantir, is calling for the return of public hangings as part of a broader push to restore what he describes as "masculine leadership" to the US.
In a statement posted on X Friday, Lonsdale said that he supported changing the so-called "three strikes" anti-crime law to ensure that anyone who is convicted of three violent crimes gets publicly executed, rather than simply sent to prison for life.
"If I’m in charge later, we won’t just have a three strikes law," he wrote. "We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes. And yes, we will do it in public to deter others."
Lonsdale then added that "our society needs balance," and said that "it's time to bring back masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable."
Lonsdale's views on public hangings being necessary to restore "masculine leadership" drew swift criticism.
Gil Durán, a journalist who documents the increasingly authoritarian politics of Silicon Valley in his newsletter "The Nerd Reich," argued in a Saturday post that Lonsdale's call for public hangings showed that US tech elites are "entering a more dangerous and desperate phase of radicalization."
"For months, Peter Thiel guru Curtis Yarvin has been squawking about the need for more severe measures to cement Trump's authoritarian rule," Durán explained. "Peter Thiel is ranting about the Antichrist in a global tour. And now Lonsdale—a Thiel protégé—is fantasizing about a future in which he will have the power to unleash state violence at mass scale."
Taulby Edmondson, an adjunct professor of history, religion, and culture at Virginia Tech, wrote in a post on Bluesky that the rhetoric Lonsdale uses to justify the return of public hangings has even darker intonations than calls for state-backed violence.
"A point of nuance here: 'masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable' is how lynch mobs are described, not state-sanctioned executions," he observed.
Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll argued that Lonsdale's remarks were symbolic of a kind of performative masculinity that has infected US culture.
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," he wrote.
Tech entrepreneur Anil Dash warned Lonsdale that his call for public hangings could have unintended consequences for members of the Silicon Valley elite.
"Well, Joe, Mark Zuckerberg has sole control over Facebook, which directly enabled the Rohingya genocide," he wrote. "So let’s have the conversation."
And Columbia Journalism School professor Bill Grueskin noted that Lonsdale has been a major backer of the University of Austin, an unaccredited liberal arts college that has been pitched as an alternative to left-wing university education with the goal of preparing "thoughtful and ethical innovators, builders, leaders, public servants and citizens through open inquiry and civil discourse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hegseth Defends Boat Bombings as New Details Further Undermine Administration's Justifications
The boat targeted in the infamous September 2 "double-tap" strike was not even headed for the US, Adm. Frank Bradley revealed to lawmakers.
Dec 07, 2025
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday defended the Trump administration's policy of bombing suspected drug-trafficking vessels even as new details further undermined the administration's stated justifications for the policy.
According to the Guardian, Hegseth told a gathering at the Ronald Reagan presidential library that the boat bombings, which so far have killed at least 87 people, are necessary to protect Americans from illegal drugs being shipped to the US.
"If you’re working for a designated terrorist organization and you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you," Hegseth said. "Let there be no doubt about it."
However, leaked details about a classified briefing delivered to lawmakers last week by Adm. Frank Bradley about a September 2 boat strike cast new doubts on Hegseth's justifications.
CNN reported on Friday that Bradley told lawmakers that the boat taken out by the September 2 attack was not even headed toward the US, but was going "to link up with another, larger vessel that was bound for Suriname," a small nation in the northeast of South America.
While Bradley acknowledged that the boat was not heading toward the US, he told lawmakers that the strike on it was justified because the drugs it was carrying could have theoretically wound up in the US at some point.
Additionally, NBC News reported on Saturday that Bradley told lawmakers that Hegseth had ordered all 11 men who were on the boat targeted by the September 2 strike to be killed because "they were on an internal list of narco-terrorists who US intelligence and military officials determined could be lethally targeted."
This is relevant because the US military launched a second strike during the September 2 operation to kill two men who had survived the initial strike on their vessel, which many legal experts consider to be either a war crime or an act of murder under domestic law.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, watched video of the September 2 double-tap attack last week, and he described the footage as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.”
“Any American who sees the video that I saw will see its military attacking shipwrecked sailors,” Himes explained. “Now, there’s a whole set of contextual items that the admiral explained. Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in position to continue their mission in any way... People will someday see this video and they will see that that video shows, if you don’t have the broader context, an attack on shipwrecked sailors.”
While there has been much discussion about the legality of the September 2 double-tap strike in recent days, some critics have warned that fixating on this particular aspect of the administration's policy risks taking the focus off the illegality of the boat-bombing campaign as a whole.
Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights for Amnesty International USA, said on Friday that the entire boat-bombing campaign has been "illegal under both domestic and international law."
"All of them constitute murder because none of the victims, whether or not they were smuggling illegal narcotics, posed an imminent threat to life," she said. "Congress must take action now to stop the US military from murdering more people in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Leaked Memo Shows Pam Bondi Wants List of 'Domestic Terrorism' Groups Who Express 'Anti-American Sentiment'
"Millions of Americans like you and I could be the target," warned journalist Ken Klippenstein of the new memo.
Dec 07, 2025
A leaked memo written by US Attorney General Pam Bondi directs the Department of Justice to compile a list of potential "domestic terrorism" organizations that espouse "extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment."
The memo, which was obtained by journalist Ken Klippenstein, expands upon National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by President Donald Trump in late September that demanded a "national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
The new Bondi memo instructs law enforcement agencies to refer "suspected" domestic terrorism cases to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), which will then undertake an "exhaustive investigation contemplated by NSPM-7" that will incorporate "a focused strategy to root out all culpable participants—including organizers and funders—in all domestic terrorism activities."
The memo identifies the "domestic terrorism threat" as organizations that use "violence or the threat of violence" to advance political goals such as "opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality."
Commenting on the significance of the memo, Klippenstein criticized mainstream media organizations for largely ignoring the implications of NSPM-7, which was drafted and signed in the wake of the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"For months, major media outlets have largely blown off the story of NSPM-7, thinking it was all just Trump bluster and too crazy to be serious," he wrote. "But a memo like this one shows you that the administration is absolutely taking this seriously—even if the media are not—and is actively working to operationalize NSPM-7."
Klippenstein also warned that NSPM-7 appeared to be the start of a new "war on terrorism," but "only this time, millions of Americans like you and I could be the target."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


