BORDER SECURITY

Partnership 

Agreements and 

Enhanced Oversight 

Could Strengthen 

Coordination of 

Efforts on Indian 

Reservations

Report to the Honorable Jon Tester, 

U.S. Senate

April 2013

GAO-13-352

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-352, a report to the 

Honorable Jon Tester, U.S. Senate

April 2013

BORDER SECURITY

Partnership Agreements and Enhanced Oversight 

Could Strengthen Coordination of Efforts on Indian 

Reservations 

Why GAO Did This Study

Individuals seeking to enter the United 

States illegally may attempt to avoid 

screening procedures at ports of entry 

by crossing the border in areas 

between these ports, including Indian 

reservations, many of which have been 

vulnerable to illicit cross-border threat 

activity, such as drug smuggling, 

according to DHS. GAO was asked to 

review DHS’s efforts to coordinate 

border security activities on Indian 

reservations. This report examines 

DHS’s efforts to coordinate with tribal 

governments to address border 

security threats and vulnerabilities on 

Indian reservations. GAO interviewed 

DHS officials at headquarters and 

conducted interviews with eight tribes, 

selected based on factors such as 

proximity to the border, and the 

corresponding DHS field offices that 

have a role in border security for these 

Indian reservations. While GAO cannot 

generalize its results from these 

interviews to all Indian reservations 

and field offices along the border, they 

provide examples of border security 

coordination issues. This is a public 

version of a sensitive report that GAO 

issued in December 2012. Information 

that DHS, the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) and the Department of the 

Interior (DOI) deemed sensitive has 

been redacted.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DHS examine 

the benefits of government-togovernment agreements with tribes 

and develop and implement a 

mechanism to monitor border security 

coordination efforts with tribes. DHS

concurred with our recommendations.

What GAO Found

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is coordinating in a variety of ways 

with tribes, such as through joint operations and shared facilities and Operation 

Stonegarden—a DHS grant program intended to enhance coordination among 

local, tribal, territorial, state, and federal law enforcement agencies in securing 

United States borders. However, the Border Patrol and tribes face coordination 

challenges. Officials from five tribes reported information-sharing challenges with 

the Border Patrol, such as not receiving notification of federal activity on their 

lands. Border Patrol officials reported challenges navigating tribal rules and 

decisions. Border Patrol and DHS have existing agreements with some, but not 

all, tribes to address specific border security issues, such as for the 

establishment of a law enforcement center on tribal lands. These agreements 

could serve as models for developing additional agreements between the Border 

Patrol and other tribes on their specific border security coordination challenges. 

Written government-to-government agreements could assist Border Patrol and 

tribal officials with enhancing their coordination, consistent with practices for 

sustaining effective coordination. DHS established an office to coordinate the 

components’ tribal outreach efforts, which has taken actions such as monthly 

teleconferences with DHS tribal liaisons to discuss tribal issues and programs, 

but does not have a mechanism for monitoring and overseeing outreach efforts, 

consistent with internal control standards. Such monitoring should be performed 

continually; ingrained in the agency’s operations; and clearly documented in 

directives, policies, or manuals to help ensure operations are carried out as 

intended. Implementing an oversight mechanism could help enhance DHS’s 

department-wide awareness of and accountability for border security 

coordination efforts with the tribes while identifying those areas that work well 

and any needing improvement. 

View GAO-13-352. For more information, 

contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777 

or gamblerr@gao.gov
Page i GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

Letter 1 

Background 5

DHS Is Coordinating with Tribes on Border Security, but Could 

Strengthen Efforts by Establishing Agreements and Oversight 8

Conclusions 21

Recommendations for Executive Action 21

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 21

Appendix I Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 23

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 25

Tables

Table 1: DHS Components and Offices That Support Border 

Security on Indian Reservations 6

Table 2: Summary of DHS Strategies Addressing Border Security 

on Indian Reservations 7

Table 3: Summary of Coordination Methods Used by Selected 

Tribes and the Border Patrol to Address Border Security 

Issues 9

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

Abbreviations

BEST Border Enforcement Security Task Force

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection

CBP-OFO CBP Office of Field Operations

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOI Department of the Interior

DOJ Department of Justice

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FMFIA Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982

HSI Homeland Security Investigations

I&A Intelligence and Analysis

IBET Integrated Border Enforcement Team

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

IGA Office of Intergovernmental Affairs

LEC Law Enforcement Center

MOA memorandum of agreement

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy

OSLTC Office of State, Local and Tribal Coordination

POE port of entry

THSGP Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program

USCG United States Coast Guard

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

April 5, 2013

The Honorable Jon Tester

United States Senate

Dear Senator Tester:

The United States shares over 5,000 miles of border with Canada, and 

over 1,900 miles of border with Mexico. Individuals seeking to enter the 

United States illegally or to smuggle contraband may attempt to avoid the 

Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) screening procedures at ports of entry (POE) by 

crossing the borders in areas between POEs, including Indian 

reservations on the borders.1 Eighty-six miles of the northern border and 

68 miles of the southwest border are on 13 Indian reservations, many of 

which are vulnerable to illicit cross-border threat activity, such as drugs, 

weapons, and human smuggling, according to DHS officials.2

The United States has a unique legal and political relationship with Indian 

tribal governments, established through and confirmed by the Constitution 

of the United States, treaties, statutes, executive orders, and judicial 

decisions. In recognition of that special relationship, executive agencies 

have been charged with engaging in regular and meaningful consultation 

and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of federal policies 

that have tribal implications, and are responsible for strengthening the 

government-to-government relationships between the United States and 

As a result, 

the security of Indian reservations is a key part of the overall integrity of 

U.S. borders.

 

1

Ports of entry are government-designated locations where CBP inspects persons and 

goods to determine whether they may be lawfully admitted or entered into the country. An 

Indian reservation is an area established by or pursuant to a treaty, statute, regulation, 

executive order, or other formal government recognition. 

2

A vulnerability is a physical feature or operational attribute that renders an entity open to 

exploitation or susceptible to a given hazard. A threat is a natural or man-made 

occurrence, individual, entity, or action that has or indicates the potential to harm life, 

information, operations, the environment, or property. 
Page 2 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

Indian tribes.3

As part of this mission, Border Patrol agents operate on Indian 

reservations on or near the border. U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE), also within DHS, is responsible for investigating the 

sources of cross-border crimes and dismantling illegal operations, 

including on Indian reservations. According to the 2012 through 2016 

Border Patrol Strategic Plan, homeland security missions—such as 

border security missions—are conducted through collaboration with an 

array of homeland security partners, including state, local, tribal, and 

territorial governments. In May 2011, DHS issued a Tribal Consultation 

Policy to, among other things, promote border security coordination on 

Indian reservations.

Securing U.S. borders is the primary responsibility of 

various components within DHS, in collaboration with other federal, state, 

local, and tribal entities. CBP, a component within DHS, is the frontline 

agency responsible for preventing terrorists and their weapons of 

terrorism from entering the United States and interdicting persons and 

contraband crossing the border illegally. The Border Patrol is the CBP 

component charged with carrying out this mission along border areas 

between the POEs.

You asked us to review federal collaboration with tribal governments on 

border security issues. In response, this report addresses the following 

question: To what extent is DHS coordinating with tribal governments to 

address border security threats and vulnerabilities on Indian 

reservations?

This report is a public version of the prior sensitive report that we 

provided to you. DHS, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the 

Department of the Interior (DOI) deemed some of the information in the 

prior report as law enforcement sensitive, which must be protected from 

public disclosure. Therefore, this report omits sensitive information 

regarding a question about border security threats and vulnerabilities, as 

 

3

“Policies that have tribal implications’’ refers to regulations, legislative comments or 

proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government 

and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes. “Indian tribe” means an Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, 

nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to 

exist as an Indian tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994,

25 U.S.C. § 479a.
Page 3 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

well as the names and locations of the Indian tribes and reservations 

within the review, and techniques used to carry out border security 

missions. Although the information provided in this report is more limited 

in scope, the overall methodology used for both reports is the same.

To determine the extent to which DHS is coordinating with tribes to 

address border security threats and vulnerabilities, we reviewed federal 

strategies, such as DHS’s Northern Border Strategy, and policies and 

plans, such as DHS’s Plan of Action to Develop a Tribal Consultation and 

Coordination Policy, which address coordination with tribal governments. 

In reviewing coordination between the federal government and tribal 

governments, we focused primarily on DHS’s Office of Intergovernmental 

Affairs Tribal Desk (Tribal Desk)—DHS’s designated lead for tribal 

relations and consultation—and the Border Patrol—the lead federal 

agency charged with securing the border in areas between the ports of 

entry—where the Indian reservations in our review are located. We 

reviewed DHS’s Tribal Consultation and Coordination Plan, our prior work 

on effective interagency collaboration, and our Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government to assess DHS’s efforts to oversee 

and monitor coordination with tribes on border security.4 Additionally, to 

determine the benefits and challenges regarding coordination between 

the governments, we conducted interviews with tribal officials such as 

chairmen and police chiefs, from eight different Indian reservations along 

the northern and southwest borders, selected based on their proximity to 

the borders according to U.S. Census data.5

 

4

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, 

We also interviewed 

headquarters officials at DHS, DOJ, and DOI, to obtain information on 

their efforts related to border security on Indian reservations. We 

conducted interviews with officials from 10 Border Patrol stations, 7 

Border Patrol sectors responsible for patrolling the Indian reservations in 

GAO-06-15 (Washington D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005), 

and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). These standards, issued pursuant to the 

requirements of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA), provide 

the overall framework for establishing and maintaining internal control in the federal 

government. Also pursuant to FMFIA, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

issued Circular A-123, revised December 21, 2004, to provide the specific requirements 

for assessing the reporting on internal controls. Internal control standards and the 

definition of internal control in OMB Circular A-123 are based on GAO’s Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government. 

5

We did not review reservations on the U.S. border between Canada and Alaska.
Page 4 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

our review,6 and various other entities involved in border security on 

Indian reservations, including seven state and major urban area fusion 

centers,7 two Border Enforcement Security Task Forces (BEST),8 and 

three Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBETs).9

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to April 2013 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

While we cannot 

generalize information obtained from these interviews to all Indian 

reservations and federal agencies’ field units along the northern and 

southwest borders, we selected these tribes and locations to provide 

examples of the way federal agencies coordinate with tribal governments 

on border security issues.

 

6

The Border Patrol is organized into 20 sectors—with 8 sectors on the northern border, 9 

sectors on the southwest border, and 3 sectors on coastal areas along the Gulf of Mexico 

and in Puerto Rico. Each sector has a headquarters with management personnel and 

various numbers of stations with agents responsible for patrolling within defined 

geographical areas. For example, the Tucson sector includes the Ajo, Casa Grande, 

Douglas, Naco, Nogales, Sonoita, Tucson, and Willcox stations.

7

A fusion center is a collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, 

expertise, and information to the center with the goal of maximizing the ability to detect, 

prevent, investigate, and respond to criminal and terrorism activity.

8

BESTs are task forces developed and facilitated by ICE to enhance border security, 

investigate transnational smuggling organizations, and combat violence related to 

smuggling occurring at the nation’s borders, through coordinated colocated efforts. 

Partners involved include DHS Information and Analysis, CBP, the U.S. Coast Guard, the 

Drug Enforcement Administration, the Canadian Border Services Agency, and the Royal 

Canadian Mounted Police along with other key federal, state, tribal, and local law 

enforcement agencies.

9

IBETs are permanent binational forums established through a charter that outlines 

partners’ responsibilities for sharing border security information and coordinating crossborder law enforcement and antiterrorism efforts between the ports of entry. Core IBET 

agencies include Canada’s Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canada Border Services 

Agency, CBP, ICE, and the Coast Guard. 
Page 5 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

The federal government recognizes Indian tribes as distinct, independent 

political communities with inherent powers of self-government that include 

enacting substantive law over internal matters and enforcing that law in 

their own forums.10 The United States has a trust responsibility to 

federally recognized Indian tribes and maintains a government-togovernment relationship with those tribes.11 The Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) within DOI provides law enforcement on Indian reservations unless 

tribes opt to assume responsibility for law enforcement or the state in 

which the reservation is located has criminal jurisdiction.12 Federal crimes 

such as illegally crossing the border or drug smuggling across the border 

fall under the authority of federal law enforcement whether they occur on 

Indian reservations or not. However, tribal law enforcement generally has 

the authority to arrest offenders on Indian reservations and detain them 

until they can be turned over to the proper authorities, even if the tribe 

itself lacks criminal jurisdiction.13

 

10See, e.g., Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 55-56 (1978); see also 25 

U.S.C. § 1301(2) (defining an Indian tribe’s power of self-government).

Further, tribal law enforcement officers 

11The federal Indian trust responsibility is a legal obligation under which the United States 

“has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust” toward 

Indian tribes. Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 297 (1942). The federal 

Indian trust responsibility is a legally enforceable fiduciary obligation on the part of the 

United States to protect tribal treaty rights, lands, assets, and resources, as well as a duty

to carry out the mandates of federal law with respect to American Indian and Alaska 

Native tribes and villages. 

12Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, as 

amended, federally recognized Indian tribes can enter into self-determination contracts or 

self-governance compacts with the federal government to take over administration of 

certain federal programs for Indians previously administered by the federal government, 

including law enforcement. (Pub. L No. 93-638, codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 450 et 

seq.). In addition, Public Law 83-280, as amended, confers criminal jurisdiction over 

offenses committed by or against Indians in specific areas of Indian country on six 

states—Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1162(a). Tribes retain concurrent criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians 

against Indians. 

13See Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438, 456 n.11 (1997) (“We do not here question 

the authority of tribal police to patrol roads within a reservation . . . and to detain and turn 

over to state officers nonmembers stopped on the highway for conduct violating state 

law.”); Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, 697 (1990) (“Where jurisdiction to try and punish an 

offender rests outside the tribe, tribal officers may exercise their power to detain the 

offender and transport him to the proper authorities.”); U.S. v. Becerra-Garcia, 397 F.3d 

1167, 1175 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Intrinsic in tribal sovereignty is the power to exclude 

trespassers from the reservation, a power that necessarily entails investigating potential 

trespassers”). 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

can be cross-deputized to enforce federal laws. For example, ICE 

designated a tribal law enforcement officer with customs authority and 

this officer provides intelligence to ICE and assists with ICE 

investigations.

DHS and its components have established a number of different offices to 

assist with facilitating tribal coordination on all homeland security issues, 

including border security. As shown in table 1, these components and 

offices have a variety of roles in supporting border security efforts on 

Indian reservations. Fusion centers, while not DHS components or 

offices, also support border security on Indian reservations by providing 

information to tribes.

Table 1: DHS Components and Offices That Support Border Security on Indian Reservations 

DHS components and offices Roles and responsibilities related to border security on Indian reservations

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs (IGA) 

Tribal Desk

IGA coordinates with state, local, tribal, and territorial governments regarding homeland 

security issues. IGA serves as the main point of contact between the Secretary of 

Homeland Security and tribal leaders across the country, and the Tribal Desk, as part of 

IGA, is DHS’s designated lead for tribal relations and consultation.

DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis 

(I&A) 

DHS I&A works through fusion centers to provide tribal law enforcement agencies with 

strategic analysis of border security threats as well as facilitating coordination among 

tribes and ICE, CBP, and other federal agencies. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) Grants Office

The FEMA Grants Office supports tribal border security efforts by coordinating with 

tribes to administer the Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program (THSGP), which 

provides grants for homeland security activities, including border security, and 

Operation Stonegarden, which provides funds intended to enhance cooperation and 

coordination among local, tribal, territorial, state, and federal law enforcement agencies 

in a joint mission to secure the United States land and maritime borders. There were no 

border security–related THSGP grants awarded to tribes for fiscal year 2012. 

CBP Office of Field Operations (CBP-OFO) CBP-OFO works with tribes to facilitate tribal members crossing the border at the 

POEs, none of which are located on Indian reservations. 

Border Patrol tribal liaisons According to a senior Border Patrol official, tribal liaisons are designated Border Patrol 

personnel at the sector or station level responsible for facilitating partnerships, 

improving relationships, and cultivating trust with tribal communities that have a nexus 

to the border.

United States Coast Guard (USCG) USCG partners with the Border Patrol, among other DHS components, to coordinate 

with tribal, state, and local law enforcement to address maritime border security issues, 

such as conducting surveillance patrols of international maritime boundaries adjacent to 

Indian reservations. 

ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Besides working in other areas, HSI investigates immigration crime; human rights 

violations and human smuggling; and the smuggling of narcotics, weapons, and other 

types of contraband. 

CBP Office of State, Local and Tribal Liaison The CBP Office of State, Local and Tribal Liaison is responsible for establishing and 

nurturing relationships with state and local governments as well as tribal and territorial 

entities. 
Page 7 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

DHS components and offices Roles and responsibilities related to border security on Indian reservations

ICE Office of State, Local and Tribal 

Coordination (OSLTC)

OSLTC is responsible for building and improving relationships and coordinating 

partnership activities for state, local, and tribal governments, as well as law 

enforcement agencies and groups.

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

DHS and its components also have strategies, as shown in table 2, that 

help facilitate coordination between DHS and tribes to address border 

security on Indian reservations.

Table 2: Summary of DHS Strategies Addressing Border Security on Indian Reservations

Strategy 

Description of DHS strategy as it relates to border security on Indian 

reservations

DHS Northern Border Strategy, 

Issued by DHS in 2012

Emphasizes the importance of federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, and Canadian 

partnerships in achieving DHS’s goals for the northern border. DHS’s goals include 

collaborating to deter and prevent terrorism and transnational threats at the earliest 

opportunity, including before they reach U.S. borders; enabling the efficient flow of 

lawful trade and travel across U.S. borders; and the achievement of a border at which 

the nations’ shared communities, critical infrastructure, and populations are prepared 

and protected through binational and bilateral security, resilience, and response 

protocols and activities.

States that maintain partnerships with tribes across the United States and First Nations 

in Canada are critical in strengthening land and maritime domain border security. 

2012-2016: Border Patrol Strategic Plan, 

Issued by CBP and the Border Patrol in 

2012

Addresses coordination with the tribes on border security as part of its overall 

partnership with federal, state, local, tribal, and international partners in meeting its goal 

of working with all of its partners to secure the border using information, integration, 

and rapid response in a risk-based manner.

Tribal coordination is also emphasized as part of the Border Patrol’s international 

liaison efforts; disruption of transnational criminal organizations; and holistic, whole-ofgovernment approach to securing the borders. Specifically, the Border Patrol is 

responsible for building coalitions with international, federal, state, local, and tribal law 

enforcement agencies; public service entities; and other identified stakeholders to 

develop a common operational strategy in the border environment.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

Northern Border Strategy

Issued by CBP in 2009

This strategy addresses tribal coordination as part of its overall partnership with federal, 

state, local, and tribal governments. As part of this broader partnership, this strategy 

calls for enhancing relationships with state, local, tribal, and foreign partners and 

leveraging intelligence and partnerships with tribal governments to address limitations 

in surveillance and response in some areas along the border. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data. 

Note: The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) 2011 National Southwest Border 

Counternarcotics Strategy and 2012 National Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy also 

address border security on Indian reservations by describing how federal agency coordination with 

tribes to address cross-border crime can be enhanced.
Page 8 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

The Border Patrol is coordinating and sharing information with tribes in a 

number of ways to address border security issues. The Border Patrol and 

six tribes reported using one or more of the following coordination 

methods: Operation Stonegarden—a DHS grant program intended to 

enhance coordination among local, tribal, territorial, state, and federal law 

enforcement agencies in securing United States borders—task forces 

such as BESTs and IBETs, fusion centers, tribal and public land liaisons, 

and joint operations and shared facilities to coordinate on border 

security.14

 

14Operation Stonegarden funds are intended to enhance cooperation and coordination 

among local, tribal, territorial, state, and federal law enforcement agencies in a joint 

mission to secure the U.S. borders along routes of ingress from international borders to 

include travel corridors in states bordering Mexico and Canada, as well as states and 

territories with international water borders. The Border Patrol’s public lands liaison agents 

coordinate with public lands managers, including tribal officials, to foster better 

communication, increase interagency understanding of respective mission objectives and 

priorities, and serve as central points of contact within the Border Patrol to facilitate the 

successful resolution of environmental issues at a local level.

Border Patrol and tribal officials report that they share border 

security–related information through the BEST and IBET forums, and 

tribal officials reported receiving border security–related information from 

fusion centers. In addition, according to Border Patrol and tribal officials, 

the Border Patrol uses tribal or public lands liaisons to coordinate with 

tribes on border security. Another way Border Patrol and tribal officials 

said they coordinate on these issues is by tribal law enforcement using 

Operation Stonegarden funds to support daily coordination with the 

Border Patrol, including participating in joint patrols with the Border Patrol. 

In addition to these methods, the Border Patrol and tribes reported using 

joint operations, such as patrolling together in the same vehicles and 

DHS Is Coordinating 

with Tribes on Border 

Security, but Could 

Strengthen Efforts by 

Establishing 

Agreements and 

Oversight 

DHS and Tribes Use a 

Variety of Methods to 

Coordinate on Border 

Security and Report 

Positive Aspects of This 

Coordination 
Page 9 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

using shared facilities, to coordinate on border security. Table 3 contains 

more detailed information regarding these coordination methods.

Table 3: Summary of Coordination Methods Used by Selected Tribes and the Border Patrol to Address Border Security Issues

Tribal–Border Patrol coordination and 

information-sharing methods Examples of coordination methods

Operation Stonegarden • Officials from one of the tribes we interviewed stated that the tribe is a participant in 

Operation Stonegarden, which has been very effective from their perspective. Tribal 

law enforcement officers and Border Patrol agents work together daily via Operation 

Stonegarden. Tribal officials said that Operation Stonegarden is beneficial because it 

allows for regular coordination between tribal law enforcement and the Border Patrol, 

as well as additional officers to provide a proactive presence to deter illegal crossborder activity.

• According to officials from another tribe we interviewed, all coordination with the 

Border Patrol occurs as a result of Operation Stonegarden. These officials stated that 

if this program were not in place, tribal-–Border Patrol coordination would not occur.

• Officials we interviewed from a Border Patrol sector with responsibility for border 

security on an Indian reservation in our review stated that conducting Operation 

Stonegarden with tribal law enforcement allows the Border Patrol to extend its patrols 

of the border.

Border Enforcement Security Task Forces 

(BEST) and Integrated Border 

Enforcement Teams (IBET) 

• Border Patrol station officials responsible for border security on one of the Indian 

reservations in our review stated that the station and BEST communicate with other 

federal agencies, in addition to providing information on seizures and apprehensions 

related to the reservation to BEST partners.

• Officials from one of the tribes we interviewed reported that tribal law enforcement 

has received information from the IBET, as well as providing information to the IBET. 

For example, tribal law enforcement, via the IBET, was able to assist Canadian 

authorities with an issue involving tugboats crossing into Canadian waters. 

Fusion centers • Officials from one of the tribes we interviewed stated that the tribe shares information 

with the state fusion center and participates in daily briefings provided by the fusion 

center.

• Tribal officials from another Indian reservation stated that they receive border 

security–related intelligence, such as daily intelligence reports, from DHS 

components via a fusion center. The tribe also receives reports from another federal 

interagency coordination center and provides information on border security–related 

arrests to the center. 

Border Patrol tribal or public land liaisons • According to officials from one of the tribes in our review, DHS and the Border Patrol 

have tribal liaisons and the tribe knows whom to contact regarding border security 

issues.

• Officials we interviewed from a Border Patrol station responsible for border security 

on one of the Indian reservations in our review, reported that they use the public 

lands liaison program, which tribes participate in, to coordinate with the tribes. 
Page 10 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

Tribal–Border Patrol coordination and 

information-sharing methods Examples of coordination methods

Joint operations and shared facilities According to officials we interviewed from a Border Patrol station with border security 

responsibility that includes an Indian reservation in our review, joint patrols with tribal law 

enforcement are the most beneficial method the Border Patrol uses to coordinate with the 

tribe. These joint patrols assist the Border Patrol with developing plans and effectively 

utilizing limited resources to secure the border.

Officials from one of the tribes in our review stated that tribal law enforcement conducts 

joint patrols with the Border Patrol, some of which involve Border Patrol agents riding in 

tribal law enforcement vehicles. This type of joint patrol is helpful because it allows tribal 

law enforcement and the Border Patrol to learn from each other.

Officials from another tribe in our review reported that they use Law Enforcement Centers 

(LEC) to address border security threats.

a

Source: GAO analysis of DHS and tribal information.

The LECs, because of their proximity to the 

border, reduce the time it takes the Border Patrol to process apprehensions and seizures 

occurring on the reservation. 

a

Law Enforcement Centers are temporary, dual-use Border Patrol tribal facilities that are leased by 

the Border Patrol and used to respond to security threats close to the border.

In addition to these mechanisms, tribal and Border Patrol officials 

reported using other coordination methods, such as agent-to-tribal police 

officer interaction, meetings, and e-mails to coordinate on border security. 

For instance, although officials from two of the tribes in our review said 

their tribes do not use any of the coordination methods described in table 

3, both tribes reported using meetings to coordinate as the need arises 

with the Border Patrol on border security issues. Officials from six of the 

eight tribes and 4 of the 10 Border Patrol stations we contacted reported 

that these methods of contact are the most beneficial for coordinating on 

border security. Officials from one tribe in our review reported that the 

timely sharing of information via e-mail is the tribe’s most important 

coordination mechanism with federal agencies. Officials from another 

tribe explained that leadership from the responsible Border Patrol Sector 

regularly calls the tribal chairman to discuss border security issues, as 

well as holding frequent meetings. Officials from four of the eight tribes 

and 4 of the 10 stations we interviewed also reported that they 

communicate daily with each other.

Officials from some of the tribes and Border Patrol sectors and stations 

we contacted reported positive aspects of coordinating to address border 

security issues. Specifically, officials from five of the eight tribes we 

contacted reported having a good or effective relationship with the Border 

Patrol. In particular, officials from two of the tribes we reviewed, as well as 

the corresponding Border Patrol sectors and stations, reported that there 

are positive aspects of DHS’s overall coordination with the tribes to 

address border security threats. For example, officials from one of the 
Page 11 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

tribes explained that tribal law enforcement officers have a good working 

relationship with the Border Patrol and that the Border Patrol is the best 

federal agency they have worked with in terms of coordinating with the 

tribe. Tribal officials cautioned that while the tribe has a good relationship 

with the Border Patrol, the majority of tribal community members do not 

want any Border Patrol presence on the reservation and that the tribal 

community is very mistrusting of nontribal entities, including law 

enforcement agencies. Border Patrol sector officials—who staff the sector 

responsible for border security on one of the two reservations—stated 

that in addition to productive monthly Border Patrol–tribal leadership 

meetings and daily interaction between Border Patrol agents and tribal 

law enforcement, the Border Patrol was the first federal law enforcement 

agency invited to speak at tribal schools and community meetings.

Officials from one of the tribes in our review also reported that DHS and 

the Border Patrol at both the national and local levels are more sensitive 

to tribal concerns now than in the past and that the Border Patrol is willing 

to work with tribal law enforcement in sharing intelligence and keeping the 

lines of communication open. For instance, tribal officials explained that 

they have quarterly meetings with the Border Patrol sector during which 

the Border Patrol shares existing and future border security strategies 

with the tribe, including the decision of whether to deploy surveillance 

towers on the reservation. As a result of this interaction, the tribe, 

according to tribal officials, feels involved in the decision to potentially 

install towers on the reservation to help monitor and better secure the 

border. In the past, these types of decisions would have occurred without 

consulting the tribe, according to tribal officials. Border Patrol sector 

officials—who staff the sector responsible for border security on the 

Indian reservation—stated that the sector has never enjoyed a better 

level of communication or mutual understanding with the tribe and much 

of this can be attributed to the level of coordination with the tribe, 

particularly the regular meetings held between Border Patrol agents and 

tribal officials.

Although Border Patrol and tribal officials reported positive aspects of 

coordination, officials from seven of the eight tribes we contacted reported 

coordination challenges related to border security. According to tribal 

officials, the Border Patrol does not consistently communicate to the 

tribes information that would be useful in tribal law enforcement efforts to 

assist in securing the border. Specifically, officials from five of the eight 

tribes we reviewed reported coordination challenges related to not 

receiving notification and information from federal agencies, including the 

Government-toGovernment Agreements 

Could Assist DHS and 

Tribes with Improving 

Their Border Security 

Partnerships
Page 12 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

Border Patrol, regarding federal law enforcement activity on their 

respective reservations. The following examples illustrate these 

coordination challenges.

• Officials from one of the tribes in our review reported that they are not 

given advance notification of Border Patrol law enforcement actions, 

such as independently patrolling the reservation or the deployment of 

undercover surveillance teams, occurring on their reservation. These 

officials reported that they would be in a better position to support 

federal agencies with border security efforts if they received 

information regarding planned federal law enforcement actions in a 

more timely manner. Border Patrol officials from the sector stated that 

the Border Patrol notifies tribal law enforcement of its own operations, 

as well as joint operations, which often involve tribal law enforcement, 

on the reservation. However, the Border Patrol does not provide 

detailed information on its patrol schedule and dates and times of 

operations, among other enforcement activities, to non-lawenforcement entities.

• A tribal official from another Indian reservation stated that there are 

numerous law enforcement agencies with different enforcement 

objectives working on the reservation and that there have been a few 

instances in which a tribal law enforcement unit and another federal 

agency were tracking the same suspects unaware of each other’s 

presence. These situations, according to tribal officials, were 

problematic because the agencies were concerned that the overall 

operation would fail because of the lack of notification by each agency 

of its respective operations. Although a Border Patrol official with 

border security responsibilities on this Indian reservation was not 

aware of the Border Patrol being involved in such incidents, according 

to tribal officials, when tribal officials and the Border Patrol work 

together, they can complement each other and act as force multipliers 

by utilizing their respective resources. We have previously reported on 

the importance of deconfliction and coordinating to prevent law 

enforcement entities from unknowingly interrupting each other or 
Page 13 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

duplicating each other’s efforts.15 Moreover, CBP reports that in some 

areas along the border, surveillance and response capabilities are 

limited, so the success of its border security initiatives depends on 

leveraging intelligence and partnerships with federal, state, local, and 

tribal governments.16

• Officials from a third tribe in our review reported that although the tribe 

provides information to federal agencies, these agencies do not 

consistently provide information, particularly information related to 

tribal members, to the tribe. For instance, in 2009, Border Patrol and a 

county sheriff’s deputy responded to an incident involving two 

individuals who tried to illegally cross the border on tribal lands. 

Although the tribe was conducting operations in the area and could 

have responded to this incident, tribal officials stated that they did not 

receive information about the illegal crossing from the Border Patrol. 

Border Patrol officials from the sector with responsibility for this Indian 

reservation were not able to confirm Border Patrol involvement in this 

incident.

Further, according to Border Patrol officials, in some cases, coordination 

challenges with tribes have affected the Border Patrol’s ability to patrol 

and monitor the border so as to prevent and detect illegal immigration and 

smuggling. Border Patrol officials from three of the seven Border Patrol 

sectors and 5 of the 10 stations we contacted reported coordination 

challenges related to understanding and collaborating with tribes within

tribal government rules. Specifically, officials from two sectors that include 

Indian reservations and corresponding stations reported coordination 

challenges related to tribal government rules that hindered law 

enforcement in working together to secure the border.

 

15Deconfliction is the act of searching available data to determine if multiple law 

enforcement agencies are investigating the same target individual, organization, 

communications device, or other uniquely identifiable entity and, if so, of initiating 

coordination amongst the interested parties to prevent duplicative work or possible “blue 

on blue” situations (i.e., personnel from two or more law enforcement agencies unwittingly 

encountering each other during a law enforcement operation, such as an undercover

situation). GAO, Border Security: Enhanced DHS Oversight and Assessment of 

Interagency Coordination Is Needed for the Northern Border, GAO-11-97 (Washington, 

D.C.: Dec. 17, 2010).

16Customs and Border Protection, Northern Border Strategy (Washington D.C.: August 

2009).
Page 14 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

• Border Patrol officials from one of the sectors with border security 

responsibilities on an Indian reservation in our review stated that the 

reservation faces border threats and is vulnerable, in part, because 

the Border Patrol cannot patrol as frequently as it would like to on the 

reservation. The Border Patrol is limited, because of tribal decisions, 

in the type of border security enforcement, particularly the 

implementation of visible countermeasures, such as mobile 

surveillance systems or integrated fixed towers, it can implement on 

the reservation, according to these Border Patrol officials. Further, 

these Border Patrol officials stated that some tribal members are 

opposed to the Border Patrol’s presence on the reservation, which, 

because of the potential for volatile protests by these tribal members, 

impedes the Border Patrol’s ability to patrol certain areas of the 

reservation, including a road in a major smuggling area. As a result of 

these issues, Border Patrol officials reported that the Border Patrol 

cannot apply all of its capabilities, particularly technology, to address 

border security threats and vulnerabilities on the reservation. Tribal 

officials from this Indian reservation stated that although the Border 

Patrol is not permitted to implement border security technologies on 

the reservation because of tribal community preferences, the Border 

Patrol is able to implement technologies and checkpoints just off of 

the reservation. Border Patrol headquarters officials stated that the 

implementation of these countermeasures off of instead of on the 

reservation adjacent to the border hampers the Border Patrol’s ability 

to secure the border.

• Border Patrol officials from a sector with an Indian reservation 

reported that the tribe has negotiated with the Border Patrol via its 

tribal resolution process and other means to limit the tactical 

infrastructure the Border Patrol sector uses to support the border 

security mission on the reservation. For example, the Border Patrol is 

limited in the deployment of tactical checkpoints and must negotiate 

regarding the deployment location of vehicle-mounted radar 

systems.17

 

17Tactical checkpoints may consist of a few Border Patrol vehicles, used by agents to 

drive to the location; orange cones to slow and direct traffic; a portable water supply; a 

cage for canines (if deployed at the checkpoint); warning signs, portable booths, and 

canopies; and portable lighting. Vehicle-mounted radar systems consist of camera and 

radar systems mounted on a truck, with images being transmitted to and monitored on a 

computer screen in the truck’s passenger compartment.

According to the Border Patrol, in one case, a vehiclemounted radar system had to be moved to a tactically less 
Page 15 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

advantageous position because of tribal concerns over its location on 

a sacred mountain.

According to the Border Patrol, the tribal resolution process for 

gaining approval from the tribe to implement border security 

countermeasures is difficult to navigate, which significantly affects the 

Border Patrol’s ability to quickly respond to threats, and reduces the 

Border Patrol’s presence on the border. The tribal resolution process, 

according to Border Patrol officials, includes several steps for 

soliciting feedback and approval for all proposed Border Patrol actions 

from all of the tribe’s districts and communities. Border Patrol sector 

and station officials expressed concerns about individual community 

members, including those possibly involved in cross-border crime, 

being able to prevent passage of the resolution. These officials also 

stated that the tribe has changed the approval process without 

communicating these changes to the Border Patrol, which makes it 

difficult for the Border Patrol to adapt to the changes for both new 

projects and projects already under consideration by the tribe.

Tribal officials stated that the Border Patrol established temporary 

camps on its own initiative without gaining approval from the tribal real 

estate office, so the tribal officials had the Border Patrol remove the 

camps.18

Given these coordination challenges, written agreements between the 

Border Patrol and tribes could provide a mechanism to help resolve 

coordination issues, such as the tribes’ lack of notification and information 

from federal agencies regarding law enforcement activity on their 

However, these officials acknowledged that the resolution 

process is lengthy and can be tedious for Border Patrol officials,

particularly since the Border Patrol has deadlines it must meet to 

receive funding for projects. They also recognized that some of the 

tribal districts were not familiar with the steps required by the 

resolution process. As a result, tribal officials have established a tribal 

committee to ensure the districts and the Border Patrol better 

understand the approval process.

 

18Camps are temporary structures that include resources like tents and trailers to house 

Border Patrol agents responding to a surge of threat activity.
Page 16 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

reservations, when they emerge.19 We have previously reported on 

practices that can enhance and sustain effective collaboration, such as 

establishing common standards, policies, or procedures to use in 

collaborative efforts and the development of written agreements to 

document collaboration.20 We reported that as agencies bring diverse 

cultures to the collaborative effort, it is important to address these 

differences to enable a cohesive working relationship and to create the 

mutual trust required to enhance and sustain the collaborative effort. 

Regarding the use of written agreements to document collaborative 

efforts, we have reported on the utility and benefits of written governmentto-government agreements between U.S. government agencies and 

foreign governments or other sovereign entities to improve cooperation.21

Border Patrol headquarters officials reported that they have considered 

the potential utility and benefits of written government-to-government 

agreements with individual tribes to address border security challenges. 

In addition, DHS has entered into memorandums of agreements (MOA) 

with individual tribes on other security-related issues, which have 

benefited DHS and the tribes. For example, DHS entered into MOAs with 

These agreements, in part, provide a legal framework for improving 

partnerships, facilitate information exchange, define tasks to be 

accomplished by each entity, and establish written assurances of each 

entity’s commitments. A government-to-government agreement could 

help DHS and tribal governments to come together as partners to 

establish complementary goals and strategies for achieving shared 

results in securing the border on tribal lands.

 

19A government-to-government agreement, such as a memorandum of agreement or 

bilateral agreement, is an agreement negotiated between two sovereign entities—in this 

case, U.S. and tribal governments—with the goal of achieving mutually beneficial 

outcomes.

20GAO-06-15 and GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing 

Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 

2012).

21GAO, Nuclear Nonproliferation: U.S. Agencies Have Limited Ability to Account for, 

Monitor, and Evaluate the Security of U.S. Nuclear Material Overseas, GAO-11-920

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 8, 2011); Afghanistan: Actions Needed to Improve Accountability 

of U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan Government, GAO-11-710 (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 

2011); Money Laundering: A Framework for Understanding U.S. Efforts Overseas, 

GAO/GGD-96-105 (Washington, D.C.: May 24, 1996); and International Aviation: DOT 

Needs Better Data for Monitoring and Decisionmaking, GAO/T-RCED-95-240

(Washington, D.C.: July 11, 1995). 
Page 17 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

individual tribes regarding the implementation of the Enhanced Tribal

Card, which is a DHS program that allows all federally recognized tribes 

to work with CBP to produce a card denoting citizenship and identity that 

can be accepted for entry at the POEs. A DHS official from CBP’s Land 

Border Integration Project Management Office responsible for negotiating 

these MOAs with the tribes reported that the MOAs were designed to 

protect tribal sovereignty, as well as describe the steps the tribes must 

take to produce a card. These MOAs, according to this official, are 

binding and protect both the tribes and CBP from expending resources on 

developing the card without assurances that the card will meet the 

requirements of the program.

Both Border Patrol and tribal officials reported that a written governmentto-government agreement could benefit their border security coordination. 

Border Patrol sector officials responsible for border security on one of the 

reservations stated that the establishment of such an agreement explicitly 

describing the steps required to obtain approval for Border Patrol actions, 

including the tribe’s resolution process and mechanisms for notifying the 

Border Patrol when changes are made to the process or approval 

requirements, could help resolve challenges for the Border Patrol in 

coordinating with the tribe. Tribal officials also reported that a 

government-to-government agreement could assist with resolving 

remaining coordination challenges by supporting overall coordination and 

ensuring that coordination processes are followed. Officials from another 

tribe in our review stated that they would also be receptive to an 

agreement that shows respect for the tribe and its practices, is developed 

with tribal participation, and involves senior DHS officials with negotiating 

capabilities. Border Patrol sector officials with responsibility for another of 

the reservations in our review stated that they considered pursuing an 

agreement with the tribe, but decided instead to actively engage tribal 

council officials, law enforcement officers, and community members in 

resolving issues, a course of action that has, according to Border Patrol 

officials, been effective in gaining the support of tribal leadership and law 

enforcement. The Border Patrol sector officials noted, though, that if 

agreements with tribal officials were pursued, senior DHS officials would 

need to be involved in the negotiation of any government-to-government 

agreements because tribal leadership officials do not view the Border 

Patrol, as a law enforcement agency, as the appropriate federal 

government representative for negotiating these types of agreements. 

Officials from both of these tribes emphasized the importance of tribal 

sovereignty and the need for the federal government to interact with tribes 

on a government-to-government basis. An assessment of the utility of 

written, government-to-government agreements between DHS and 
Page 18 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

individual tribal governments to address and mitigate specific coordination 

challenges, particularly for tribes facing border security threats, could help 

DHS build on its tribal partnerships.22 Further, agreements that are 

tailored to help resolve specific challenges, such as not receiving 

notification and information from federal agencies regarding federal law 

enforcement activity on the tribes’ respective reservations could bring 

greater transparency to tribal government rules for the Border Patrol. 

Utilizing written agreements to help ensure the partners are working 

together to secure the borders could better position the Border Patrol and 

tribes to address their coordination challenges.

DHS IGA and Tribal Desk officials reported that they have taken various 

actions to coordinate with tribes on a range of homeland security–related 

issues, including border security. For instance, DHS components, 

including the Border Patrol, have tribal liaisons who manage their 

components’ tribal outreach efforts. The Tribal Desk, which is responsible 

for coordinating tribal consultation and outreach with the component 

liaisons, holds monthly teleconferences with these liaisons to discuss 

tribal issues and programs, according to IGA and Tribal Desk officials. 

DHS also has a Tribal Consultation Policy that outlines the guiding 

principles under which DHS engages with the tribal governments. DHS, 

according to DHS IGA and Tribal Desk officials, disseminated this policy 

to all federally recognized tribes and presented the policy at national tribal 

conferences. DHS’s Tribal Desk, according to DHS IGA and Tribal Desk 

officials, is working with the tribes daily to address tribal issues and 

improve its tribal partnerships. However, DHS IGA and Tribal Desk 

officials reported that the Tribal Desk does not have oversight of the 

components’ tribal outreach efforts, including border security 

coordination, because their role is one of a coordination mechanism. The 

Tribal Desk is aware of the components’ outreach to the tribes, but it does 

not have the authority to track the effectiveness of such outreach to 

determine if the outreach is occurring and if any changes to outreach 

efforts are needed. According to DHS IGA and Tribal Desk officials, each 

component, including CBP, is responsible for conducting its own tribal 

outreach and is only required to report to the leadership of its respective 

components and is not required to report to the Tribal Desk on its 

 

22Marijuana and cocaine smuggling, as well as criminals attempting to bring various 

contraband such as firearms and bulk currency across the northern and southwest 

borders are cross-border security threats that occur on Indian reservations.

Establishment of an 

Oversight Mechanism 

Could Enhance DHS’s 

Border Security 

Coordination with Tribes
Page 19 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

coordination efforts. As a result, there is no department-wide oversight 

mechanism for ensuring the effectiveness of components’ border security 

coordination with the tribes.

According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

controls should generally be designed to ensure that ongoing monitoring 

occurs in the course of normal operations and assesses the quality of 

performance over time.23 Such monitoring should be performed 

continually; ingrained in the agency’s operations; and clearly documented 

in directives, policies, or manuals to help ensure operations are carried 

out as intended. We have also previously reported that federal agencies 

can enhance and sustain collaborative efforts by, in part, developing 

oversight mechanisms—or mechanisms to monitor and evaluate their 

results—to identify areas for improvement.24

DHS, in accordance with a 2009 Presidential Memorandum on tribal 

consultation, developed an Action Plan and corresponding Progress 

Report in 2010 that described various action items designed to establish 

regular and meaningful collaboration with tribal officials, and to monitor at 

the department level tribal partnerships to protect the safety and security 

of all people on tribal lands and throughout the nation. The 2009 

memorandum requires all federal agencies to submit to OMB a detailed 

action plan of the steps the agency will take to ensure meaningful and 

timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that 

have tribal implications. As DHS was formulating the Action Plan, tribes 

recommended, among other things, that DHS develop accountability and 

tracking mechanisms to ensure that the agency is responding to issues 

that are raised through tribal consultation. The Action Plan and its 2010 

Progress Report call for the implementation of various action items 

designed to monitor and oversee DHS’s tribal coordination efforts at the 

department level, including appointing a Senior Advisor for tribal affairs to 

provide policy advice and leadership on tribal issues and determining the 

feasibility and usefulness of establishing an internal leadership advisory 

council on tribal affairs. According to the Action Plan, this intra-agency 

council, staffed by DHS IGA and composed of officials from the 

department and components, would provide ongoing advice to the 

Oversight mechanisms can 

assist with reinforcing agency accountability for its collaborative efforts.

 

23GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

24GAO-06-15. 
Page 20 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

Secretary of Homeland Security on issues and policies that affect tribes, 

including border security, as well as bringing together DHS leadership 

from across the department’s divisions and components to ensure 

consistency on policies affecting tribes. According to DHS officials, while 

DHS took steps to hire a Senior Advisor, the position was ultimately not 

sustainable because of staff turnover and a lack of funding for the 

position. DHS officials further noted that the position of Director of Tribal 

Affairs within the Intergovernmental Affairs office was established to help 

fulfill this role. Additionally, DHS officials reported that they did not 

establish an advisory council because of personnel limitations, among 

other issues. The implementation of such action items, or another 

oversight and monitoring mechanism, could better position DHS to 

assess the effectiveness of partnerships with tribes at the department 

level.

We have identified coordination challenges related to border security 

since the establishment of the Action Plan by DHS. For example, officials 

from seven of the eight tribes we contacted reported coordination 

challenges related to border security, such as the Border Patrol’s lack of 

consistent communication of border security–related information with the 

tribes. As DHS was developing its Action Plan, it received feedback from 

tribes regarding the need to establish accountability and tracking 

mechanisms to ensure that DHS is responding to issues raised by tribes. 

For example, in summarizing feedback received from tribes, DHS noted 

in the Action Plan that tribal leaders expressed frustration regarding the 

expenditure of significant time and resources engaging with a federal 

agency only to see very little response or consideration of tribal 

recommendations. However, DHS does not have a mechanism to monitor 

and provide accountability for coordination efforts, as suggested by the 

tribes and the Action Plan, to position DHS to, for example, identify 

departmental and component coordination successes as well as areas 

needing improvement, including addressing coordination challenges that 

have remained since DHS obtained feedback from tribes in developing 

the plan. An oversight mechanism, such as one or more of those 

identified in DHS’s Action Plan, could help identify and address these 

coordination challenges as well as determine which coordination efforts 

work well. Further, such a mechanism could help DHS enhance its 

awareness of and accountability for components’ border security 

coordination efforts with the tribes and better look across the department 

to determine the progress being made and the improvements needed to 

more effectively coordinate border security with the tribes.
Page 21 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

The nature and complexity of Indian reservations on or near the border, 

along with the vulnerabilities and threats they face, highlight the 

importance of DHS and tribes working together to enhance border 

security. The Border Patrol, in particular, is coordinating and sharing 

information with tribes in a variety of ways to address border security on 

Indian reservations. However, these coordination efforts could be 

strengthened. Government-to-government agreements with tribes to 

address specific challenges, such as federal agency notification to tribes 

of law enforcement actions occurring on the reservation, that have 

emerged between the Border Patrol and individual tribes could help better 

position the Border Patrol and the tribes to resolve their coordination 

challenges and better work together to secure the border. Further, DHS 

does not have a mechanism to monitor and provide oversight for its tribal 

coordination efforts—including border security—that would allow the 

agency to hold components accountable for effective coordination and, as 

a result, is not well positioned to identify areas of coordination needing 

improvement. We have reported on the importance of monitoring and 

oversight for sustaining and enhancing collaboration, and DHS’s Action 

Plan contains action items designed, in part, to assist with its monitoring 

and oversight of its tribal partnerships. A monitoring and oversight 

mechanism could yield additional information and insights on the 

effectiveness of DHS’s coordination with tribes, as well as help reinforce 

accountability when coordinating to address border security issues.

To enhance DHS-tribal coordination on border security on Indian 

reservations, including DHS’s monitoring and oversight of these 

coordination efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland 

Security take the following two actions:

• examine, or direct CBP to examine, as appropriate, the potential 

benefits of government-to-government written agreements with tribes 

facing border security threats, and

• develop and implement a mechanism to monitor DHS’s departmentwide border security coordination efforts with tribes.

We provided a draft of this report to DHS, DOJ and DOI for comment. We 

received written comments from DHS on the draft report, which are 

summarized below and reproduced in full in appendix I. DHS concurred 

with both recommendations. DOJ and DOI did not provide written 

comments to include in this report. DOJ provided technical comments via 

an e-mail received on December 7, 2012, which we incorporated as 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 22 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

appropriate. DOI provided oral technical comments on December 7, 

2012, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

Regarding the first recommendation, that DHS examine or direct CBP to 

examine, as appropriate, the potential benefits of government-togovernment written agreements with tribes facing border security threats, 

DHS concurred. DHS stated that more formalized government-togovernment agreements between CBP and tribal nations should be 

developed for substantive issues. DHS further noted that written 

agreements, subject to legal review prior to signature, will memorialize 

both the issues and solutions. DHS stated that the DHS 

Intergovernmental Affairs office will work with CBP in the coming year to 

determine how the recommendation can be implemented. We will 

continue to monitor DHS’s efforts.

Regarding the second recommendation, that DHS develop and 

implement a mechanism to monitor DHS’s department-wide border 

security coordination with tribes, DHS concurred. DHS agreed that 

developing an agency-wide program could further enhance the interests 

of the tribes and the department for border security and many other 

programs. DHS stated that, in consultation with tribes, it will convene an 

internal group to discuss the feasibility of establishing a permanent 

program or an intra-agency oversight committee to address border 

security and other issues related to interaction and program delivery with 

tribes. This action, if implemented effectively, should address the intent of 

the recommendation.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix II.

Sincerely yours,

Rebecca Gambler, Director

Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Page 23 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

Appendix I: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security
Page 24 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations
Page 25 GAO-13-352 Border Security on Indian Reservations

Rebecca Gambler, (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Dawn Locke (Assistant Director), 

David Alexander, Frances Cook, Kevin Copping, Corey Guilmette, Eric 

Hauswirth, Linda Miller, John Mingus, Robin Nye, Jessica Orr, and Jerry 

Sandau made key contributions to this report.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

(441137)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.