A New Era for Repatriation? Evaluating the 2024 NAGPRA Changes

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was enacted in 1990 to return Native American human remains, sacred items and funerary objects to their rightful tribal communities. Yet, over three decades later, repatriation has been slow—only 48% of reported human remains have been returned (Yan, 2025). The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) sought to address these delays with major updates to NAGPRA, which took effect on January 12, 2024.  Nearly two years later, their impact is becoming clearer. 

NAGPRA’s original shortcomings allowed museums to delay repatriation with minimal consequences. Communication with tribes was inconsistent, and many human remains were labeled "culturally unidentifiable" to avoid return. The 2024 updates aimed to fix these issues by strengthening tribal authority, eliminating the “culturally unidentifiable” loophole, and setting strict deadlines for compliance (Yan, 2025). Museums must now obtain tribal consent before exhibiting human remains, and a single line of evidence—such as oral histories—is sufficient to prove cultural affiliation (Yan, 2025). 

These changes also reinforce penalties for noncompliance and emphasize collaboration. Under the revamped rule, institutions must complete updated inventories within five years, provide annual reports, and consult with tribes at every step. A key addition is the requirement that museums and universities prove they have the right to retain items, shifting the burden of proof away from tribes (National Park Service, 2024). This removes a major barrier that previously allowed institutions to retain remains and objects indefinitely. 

In response, many museums have taken steps toward compliance. The American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) closed certain Native American exhibitions and reassessed its policies, completing eight repatriations by mid-2024 (Yan, 2025). The new regulations also prompted other institutions, including universities, to reevaluate their collections. The changes emphasize “clear, consistent, and timely” consultation with tribal representatives, a shift from previous practices that often-left tribes without answers for years (Taft Law, 2024). While these efforts mark progress, many tribal representatives remain skeptical, questioning whether these efforts signal lasting change or short-term reactions to regulation. Additionally, these new deadlines can put strain on the tribes. According to Dena Sedar, NAGPRA Manager at the University of Denver, “It can be hard when you’re on a timeline and needing to contact all these tribes, and they’re getting inundated with all these different requests and information from museums.  In a way, it is good that institutions and museums have to move in a more timely manner, but it also is adding a lot of pressure to tribes.” She goes on to explain that while some museums and institutions may have the resources to meet the new NAGPRA timelines, many tribes do not. “Sometimes, tribes only have one staff member that does NAGPRA, or they might not have a full-time person.” The 2024 updates “turned up the pressure for institutions, but that also had a spillover effect on tribes.” Museums argue that new deadlines—such as the five-year inventory requirement—strain limited resources, but critics say prioritization, not funding, has been the real issue (Yan, 2025). 

For some Indigenous leaders, the changes are welcome but long overdue. Shannon O’Loughlin of the Association of American Indian Affairs praised the elimination of the “culturally unidentifiable” category, emphasizing the role of public scrutiny in holding institutions accountable (Yan, 2025). However, frustration persists. The Shinnecock Nation, for example, waited decades for a response to their repatriation requests, receiving notice from AMNH only in late 2023. Attorney Tela Troge summed up the mixed emotions: “This is great. But NAGPRA has been the law for 33 years, and we’re just receiving this notice four days ago?” (Quoted in Yan, 2025). 

Challenges remain. While NAGPRA now applies to more institutions, it still excludes non-federally recognized tribes. New enforcement measures, including fines for non-compliance, exist, but how strictly they’ll be applied is uncertain. Museums can also request deadline extensions, potentially delaying progress further (Yan, 2025). The updated regulations mandate the return of human remains and associated funerary objects by 2029, but given past delays, it remains unclear whether institutions will meet this timeline (Taft Law, 2024). 

The 2025 NAGPRA changes have spurred long-overdue action, but real progress requires more than policy updates. It demands a shift in institutional priorities and acknowledgment of past harm. As Elizabeth Solomon of the Massachusetts Tribe at Ponkapoag stated, “It needs to continue with building reciprocal, meaningful relationships with Indigenous communities. Only then can we talk about repair.” (Yan, 2025). Whether these revisions fulfill NAGPRA’s original intent remains to be seen, but Indigenous communities will continue to hold institutions accountable in the pursuit of justice . 

Photo Courtesy of US National Park Service

References: