Missing & Murdered Indigenous People (MMIP)

Native American and Alaska Native women are murdered at rates more than 10 times the national average in some counties; Indigenous people go missing at dramatically disproportionate rates; and for decades, these cases received inadequate investigation, were poorly tracked in national databases, and fell through the jurisdictional gaps between tribal, federal, and state law enforcement. Congress responded with two landmark 2020 laws: Savanna's Act (34 U.S.C. §§ 20331–20336) — named for Savanna LaFontaine-Greywind, a pregnant Native woman murdered in Fargo, North Dakota in 2017 — which requires the Department of Justice to develop and implement an updated protocol to identify, report, and respond to cases of missing and murdered Native women; and the Not Invisible Act of 2020 (25 U.S.C. §§ 5701–5705) — which created a joint DOI/DOJ Advisory Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Peoples with direct input from survivors and tribal leaders. These statutes also responded to the longstanding jurisdictional complexity in Indian Country: whether a perpetrator is Indian or non-Indian, whether the crime occurs on or off reservation, and whether the victim is tribal or not determines which law enforcement agency (tribal police, BIA, FBI, state, local) has jurisdiction — a system so fragmented that many cases fall through the cracks entirely. The 2022 Tribal Access Program (TAP) expansion and DOJ's MMIP initiative have begun to address chronic underreporting to national crime databases.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 34 U.S.C. § 20331 (Savanna's Act) — Requires DOJ to update and implement the Justice for Native Peoples protocol with tribal input; protocol must address how law enforcement agencies should respond to cases involving missing or murdered Native women; DOJ must consult with tribal leaders, advocates, and survivors in developing the protocol; protocol must address data collection, coordination across agencies, and culturally appropriate victim services
• 34 U.S.C. § 20332 — Requires DOJ and Interior to develop and implement an online interactive dashboard to track data on missing and murdered Native women and review data trends
• 34 U.S.C. § 20333 — Requires FBI to report annually to Congress on missing and murdered Native American women, including number of open cases, number of cases forwarded for prosecution, and cases where jurisdiction was declined
• 25 U.S.C. § 5701 (Not Invisible Act) — Establishes a joint DOI/DOJ Advisory Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Peoples; committee composed of tribal leaders, law enforcement, service providers, and survivors; committee identifies and makes recommendations for improving coordination and response to cases of missing and murdered Indians
• 25 U.S.C. § 5702 — Advisory Committee membership: includes representatives of federally recognized tribes, tribal justice officials, urban Indian organization representatives, BIA law enforcement, State law enforcement, medical examiners, sexual assault advocates, crime victims advocates, and at least one person who has personally experienced violence or has a missing family member
• 25 U.S.C. § 5704 — Reporting: the Advisory Committee must submit a report to Congress within 2 years of establishment with recommendations; DOJ and DOI must respond to each recommendation
• Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorizations — VAWA 2013 restored tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian perpetrators of domestic violence and dating violence on tribal lands (filling a gap from Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 1978, which had limited tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians); VAWA 2022 expanded tribal jurisdiction to include sexual violence, stalking, sex trafficking, and assault of tribal law enforcement officers

How It Works

The root cause of inadequate response to MMIP is jurisdictional fragmentation. Under federal Indian law:

• If an Indian person commits a crime against another Indian in Indian Country: tribal or federal jurisdiction (Major Crimes Act for serious crimes)
• If a non-Indian commits a crime against an Indian in Indian Country: historically only federal jurisdiction (and historically, federal prosecution was declined at high rates)
• If an Indian commits a crime against a non-Indian in Indian Country: federal jurisdiction
• If the crime occurs outside Indian Country: state jurisdiction

This means tribal police — who are first responders — often cannot investigate or prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians on their own lands. The FBI has historically had insufficient field agents and local knowledge to fill this gap. The result: perpetrators who target Native women on reservations have historically faced dramatically reduced law enforcement response compared to off-reservation crimes.

VAWA 2013 addressed the most critical gap: it restored tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians for domestic violence and dating violence on Indian lands. Tribes that establish "Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ)" may now prosecute non-Indian abusers in tribal court — a landmark reversal of the 1978 Oliphant doctrine that had stripped tribes of that authority. VAWA 2022 expanded SDVCJ further to cover sex trafficking, sexual violence, stalking, child violence, and assaults of Tribal law enforcement officers. A parallel problem is data: many jurisdictions still don't report Native American missing persons or homicides to federal databases like NCIC or NamUs. The Tribal Access Program (TAP) expands tribal law enforcement access to national crime databases; as of 2026 it has been deployed in 200+ tribal communities, but gaps remain. Because more than 70% of Native Americans live in urban areas off reservations, Savanna's Act and Not Invisible Act implementation must address urban MMIP cases — where jurisdictional complexity shifts to state and local law enforcement but data gaps and cultural barriers to reporting persist just as severely.

How It Affects You

If you are a Native American family member with a missing loved one: File a missing persons report immediately with both tribal law enforcement AND local/state police AND the FBI (1-800-CALL-FBI). Enter the case in NamUs (namus.nij.ojp.gov) — the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System — which is searchable by family members and law enforcement. Contact the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (1-800-843-5678) if the missing person is under 18. The Native Women's Association of Canada runs Sisters in Spirit; in the U.S., the Sovereign Bodies Institute (sovereignbodies.com) maintains a database specifically focused on MMIP cases. Organizations like the Coalition to Stop Violence Against Native Women (csvanw.org) can provide advocacy support. If a tribe has established SDVCJ under VAWA, tribal courts may be an additional resource.

If you work in law enforcement, advocacy, or tribal government: The DOJ's MMIP Initiative launched regional coordinators in 11 U.S. Attorney districts with high concentrations of Indian Country — contact your regional MMIP coordinator for investigative support and coordination resources. The Bureau of Justice Assistance's Tribal Access Program (TAP) enables full access to national crime databases for tribal agencies that join. Submit case data to NamUs and NCIC consistently — the data gap is a policy gap, and every unreported case reduces the statistical visibility of the crisis. The Not Invisible Act Advisory Committee's annual report is the policy-facing document for resource requests and jurisdictional reform.

If you are a researcher, policymaker, or advocate: The core data problem is that the true scale of MMIP is unknown because of decades of systematic underreporting. The Urban Indian Health Institute's "Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls" report (uihi.org) is the most comprehensive data analysis available. The Government Accountability Office has issued multiple reports on FBI and BIA case clearance rates in Indian Country that document the federal capacity gap. The policy levers are: (1) expand VAWA's SDVCJ to cover more offense categories, (2) fully fund and deploy TAP to all tribal communities, (3) improve federal prosecution rates for crimes in Indian Country, (4) expand urban MMIP programming.

State Variations

MMIP response involves a complex interplay of federal, tribal, and state law. Six Public Law 280 states (California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin, Alaska) have state criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country by default — tribal law enforcement in those states must coordinate with state police rather than FBI. Several states have established state-level MMIP task forces and legislative responses independent of federal law:

• Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Washington, Oregon — State MMIP task forces; state-funded MMIP coordinators
• Minnesota — State MMIP response team; reporting requirements for law enforcement
• Washington — State MMIW task force with tribal co-leadership

Implementing Regulations

• DOJ Savanna's Act Protocol — Published by DOJ after tribal consultation; available at justice.gov

• 25 CFR Part 12 — Indian Country Law Enforcement: the BIA's regulations establishing minimum standards for federally funded tribal law enforcement programs, governing officer qualifications, authority, jurisdiction, and conduct. Key provisions:

  • § 12.1–12.2 — Responsibility and structure: the Commissioner of Indian Affairs is responsible for the BIA law enforcement function; the Director of the Office of Law Enforcement Services manages the program, ensuring law enforcement programs comply with Part 12; the Director's authority includes issuing and revoking BIA law enforcement commissions
  • § 12.11 — Applicability: every BIA or tribal law enforcement program receiving federal funds must meet the minimum standards in Part 12; compliance is not optional — failure to meet standards can result in revocation of law enforcement commissions, cancellation of the law enforcement contract, and loss of eligibility for future federal law enforcement funding (§ 12.13)
  • § 12.12 — Self-determination preserved: Part 12 standards are not intended to discourage tribal contracting under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) — tribes that contract BIA law enforcement functions retain the authority to operate their own programs as long as they meet the minimum federal standards
  • § 12.21 — Authority of BIA law enforcement officers: BIA officers are commissioned under 25 U.S.C. § 2803 (the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act), which grants BIA officers the authority of a federal law enforcement officer; this authority includes the power to make arrests, execute warrants, and carry firearms anywhere in the United States — a broader authority than most tribal officers have
  • § 12.22 — Enforcement of tribal law: BIA officers will enforce tribal laws only with the permission of the tribe; local programs are encouraged to enter agreements with tribal governments that specify which tribal ordinances BIA will enforce; without such an agreement, BIA focuses on federal criminal statutes applicable in Indian Country (18 U.S.C. § 1153, the Major Crimes Act)
  • § 12.23 — Jurisdictional limits: the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice must maintain a joint memorandum of understanding (MOU) establishing and periodically reviewing jurisdictional protocols in Indian Country; the MOU governs which agency — BIA, FBI, tribal, state (in Public Law 280 states) — has primary jurisdiction for specific offense categories and geographic areas; jurisdictional complexity is the root cause of the investigation and prosecution gaps documented in MMIP research
  • Subparts D and F — Qualifications and conduct standards: BIA officers must meet minimum training requirements set by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC); tribal officers in programs receiving BIA funding must meet equivalent minimum standards; the conduct subpart establishes rules on use of force, professional standards, and the investigation of officer misconduct

  Part 12 matters for MMIP because it is the regulatory backbone for BIA's law enforcement capacity. The fact that BIA officers have federal commission authority is what allows them to operate across jurisdictional lines that limit tribal police. However, the requirement that tribes consent to BIA enforcement of their own tribal laws means tribes retain sovereignty over how their laws are enforced — a meaningful protection that can also create friction when tribal and federal priorities diverge. The minimum standards requirement (§ 12.11) with its federal-funding conditionality is the leverage point for quality control across hundreds of tribal law enforcement programs of vastly different sizes and capacities.

• VAWA SDVCJ regulations — 25 CFR Part 845 — procedures for tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian perpetrators

Pending Legislation

• Laken Riley Act and parallel MMIP bills — Several bills would expand federal investigation resources and prosecutorial priority for MMIP cases
• VAWA SDVCJ expansion — Ongoing advocacy to extend SDVCJ to all criminal offenses on tribal lands, not just the categories covered by VAWA 2022
• MMIP database legislation — Bills requiring standardized reporting by state and local law enforcement to federal databases in cases involving Native American victims

Recent Developments

• The Not Invisible Act Advisory Committee submitted its first report to Congress in 2022, containing 43 recommendations across data collection, tribal law enforcement capacity, services, and legal reform; DOJ and DOI responses have been partial
• As of 2026, the DOJ MMIP Initiative has deployed regional coordinators, but funding constraints have limited FBI field staffing in Indian Country
• VAWA 2022's expanded SDVCJ provisions have required tribes to build court capacity to exercise the new jurisdiction; DOJ's Office on Violence Against Women provides training and technical assistance grants to support SDVCJ implementation
• The Biden administration's Indian Affairs priorities included MMIP as a centerpiece; the Trump administration's DOJ has continued the MMIP coordinator program but with reduced public profile
• Urban MMIP remains significantly underfunded relative to reservation-focused programs despite the majority of Native Americans living in urban areas