The recent discourse surrounding Native Hawaiian programs — often framed in Civil Beat and elsewhere as a debate over “race-based” initiatives — misses the fundamental legal reality of our history and our future. (“Do Trump Budget Cuts Signal A New Challenge For Native Hawaiians?”)

We are not a special interest group seeking arbitrary favors. We are a distinct people possessing unrelinquished sovereignty — an inherent political status that manifests today as a vested right to self-determination and the fulfillment of specific federal trust promises.

Our history is not a standard narrative of colonization; it is the record of a stolen nation. By the time Queen Lili‘uokalani formally yielded her authority in 1893, the physical overthrow had already been orchestrated with the backing of U.S. forces. She yielded under protest, not as a surrender, but as a calculated legal maneuver to prevent bloodshed.

Ideas showcases stories, opinion and analysis about Hawaiʻi, from the state’s sharpest thinkers, to stretch our collective thinking about a problem or an issue. Email news@civilbeat.org to submit an idea or an essay.

Read More

Submitting only to the “superior force of the United States,” she declared her trust that the U.S. government would eventually “undo the action of its representatives.” She did not surrender our sovereignty; she preserved our legal claim and forced a moral and legal obligation upon the United States. That obligation remains the bedrock of our relationship today.

Since beginning my legal practice in 1986, I have witnessed firsthand how language dictates outcomes in the courtroom. I was privileged to serve on the legal team in Ka‘ai‘ai v. Drake, which, along with the strict fiduciary standards established in the Ahuna case and the monumental Kalima class-action settlement, successfully held the State of Hawai‘i accountable for its trust obligations.

Building upon the essential groundwork laid by Gov. John Waihe‘e and the Individual Claims Task Force, our collective, multi-generational legal advocacy has consistently reinforced a vital truth: the distinction between a “political status” and a “racial category” is the single shield protecting our most critical assets.

The profound irony of this current “race-based” attack must be called out. It was the federal government that originally imposed blood quantum rules — reducing our identity to fractions to dictate who was “in” and who was “out,” ultimately to limit its own obligations.

Now, opponents are weaponizing that very colonial metric against us, using the racialized categories they imposed to argue that our programs violate the Constitution. It is a trap designed to erase us.

If we are to uphold the rule of law in Hawai‘i, we must stop confusing the issue. We must clearly distinguish between the inherent sovereignty of our people and the concrete, vested rights that the state and federal governments are legally bound to protect.

Our sovereignty speaks to who we are as a people. Our “vested rights,” however, speak to concrete legal obligations that rest upon unbreakable foundational pillars:

• The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921, which established the explicit federal trust responsibility to facilitate the “rehabilitation of native Hawaiians.”
• The 1959 Statehood Admission Act, a binding compact wherein the federal government delegated the administration of these lands. As a strict condition of statehood under Section 5(f) of the Act, the State of Hawai’i was required to legally assume an independent, strict fiduciary responsibility to hold the Public Land Trust explicitly “for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians.” The State is not merely managing public assets; it is legally bound to stand in the shoes of the federal government and execute this duty.
• The 1993 Apology Resolution (Public Law 103-150), in which the United States Congress formally conceded that “the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands,” and recognized an ongoing, unreconciled relationship with the United States.

Because of the exact, codified language in these pillars, programs like the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Native Hawaiian healthcare systems, and educational funds are not “perks,” “charity,” or “special
treatment.” They are necessary repair mechanisms operating within a system that still produces harm.

These institutions exist because the injuries of land loss, displacement, and cultural erosion are ongoing.
Funding them is a trust responsibility and a corrective measure, not a privilege.

Yet, we must clearly identify the forces orchestrating the assault on these rights. The recent attacks on our programs are part of a coordinated, well-funded national strategy. Figures like Edward Blum and the architects behind the white Christian nationalist movement’s “Project 2025” have made it their mission to dismantle minority and indigenous protections nationwide.

This national agenda is actively influencing federal actions. The recent suspension of Solicitor’s Opinion M-37083 — which had explicitly affirmed our special legal relationship — coupled with the December 2025 Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum, are calculated attempts to strip away our political standing to serve this broader ideological goal. Their strategy is clear: force us into a vulnerable “racial” box that conservative courts can easily strike down under the 14th Amendment.

To achieve this, they must perpetuate a lie. Redefining our political status into a mere racial label is a historical fiction designed to erase our nationhood. For them to succeed in codifying this lie, the judicial system would have to willfully corrupt a century of established trust law. Should such a corruption of justice be allowed, the very foundation of our trust relationship is breached. The threat is a direct assault on the conditions needed for Hawaiian survival and self-determination.

Like a blade of pili grass bending but not breaking in shifting winds, our advocacy must remain firmly rooted in our strongest legal foundations. We cannot allow our identity to be legally reduced to a demographic check-box to satisfy a political agenda.

In 1843, following the brief restoration of our sovereignty, King Kamehameha III declared: “Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ʻĀina i ka Pono” — the sovereignty of the land is perpetuated in righteousness. Stripping our political status to dismantle the trusts that sustain our people is not righteous; it is a corruption of the law. We are defending a contractual and moral promise.

Our right to self-determination is not a preference; it is a vested legal reality, and it is time the public conversation reflects that truth.