Indigenous land return could combat climate change, despite opposition following billie eilish grammy comments

Pop star Billie Eilish’s Grammy statement that “no one is illegal on stolen land” has reignited national debate about Indigenous land rights and their connection to climate action. While critics like Senator Ted Cruz denounced her comments and Washington Post op-ed writers argued that land restitution would “collapse civilization,” environmental scientists present a different perspective: returning Indigenous lands could be crucial for fighting climate change.

The controversy highlights America’s complex history of Indigenous dispossession through forced treaties, violence, and policies that historians now classify as genocide. From Washington’s Yakama Nation, pressured to cede land under threats of walking “knee-deep in blood,” to Minnesota’s Dakota Nation forced to surrender 35 million acres, these historical injustices continue generating profits today. Through the 1862 Morrill Act alone, nearly 11 million acres taken from over 250 tribes funded 52 universities, while state trust lands carved from Indigenous territories now generate billions for public institutions.

Current examples underscore ongoing inequities: the Ute Tribe pays Utah over $25,000 annually to graze cattle on their own ancestral lands, while Washington State refuses to return 90,000 acres to the Yakama Nation despite acknowledging the land was wrongfully taken due to a federal filing error. Nearly 25% of state trust lands benefiting universities are designated for fossil fuel extraction.

However, more than 600 scientific studies over two decades demonstrate that Indigenous land management offers significant environmental benefits for climate mitigation. Rather than threatening civilization, land return could help preserve it by challenging the extractive industries driving planetary warming and supporting Indigenous communities who have proven to be effective environmental stewards.