During the forced removal of Muscogee (Creek) people from their ancestral lands in the Southeastern U.S., tribal members carried the embers and ashes of their town fires with them, determined to re-establish the flames in the new communities they planned to build in what’s now known as Oklahoma. Those fires still burn today in places on the Muscogee Reservation.
By the Fire We Carry
By Rebecca Nagle
352 pages, hardcover: $30
Harper, 2024.
In By the Fire We Carry, Cherokee journalist Rebecca Nagle documents the interwoven stories of tribal land dispossession, forced removal, a murder in a small tribal community, her own family history and three recent and consequential Supreme Court decisions about tribal jurisdiction over lands in Oklahoma. Two of them, Murphy v. Oklahoma and McGirt v. Oklahoma, centered on crimes on land that the state of Oklahoma argued was no longer part of the Muscogee and Cherokee Nations’ respective reservations. In both cases, the Supreme Court upheld the tribes’ arguments in a historic win for tribal sovereignty. But shortly after came Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, in which the Supreme Court sidestepped a century of federal Indian law and gave states jurisdiction to prosecute crimes on tribal lands when the perpetrator was non-Native and the victim was Native. The connections Nagle makes span generations and offer insight into our current political turmoil, at a time when a second Trump administration is testing the limits of executive authority and the law.
In a conversation with High Country News, Nagle discusses how the U.S. still wields its power of empire, what impact the Trump administration could have on tribal sovereignty, and the enduring weight of history.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
High Country News: In this book, you don’t just focus on the 20-year histories of these three Supreme Court cases but also tell the stories of the Muscogee and Cherokee nations before the U.S. existed. Why did you decide to take such a long view?
Rebecca Nagle: One of the big takeaways that I wanted people to have was how much history informs our present. I also wanted people to get a sense of how history repeats itself, and how things like a lie that tribal land is lawless get used over and over again, or the excuse that, “Oh, this is actually what’s best for Native people.” I wanted people to be able to see and identify those patterns.
One of the big takeaways that I wanted people to have was how much history informs our present.
When I found out about the McGirt decision and saw the implications that my tribe’s reservation would be recognized again, it was a really overwhelming emotion of relief, of joy, but there was also a lot of sadness, because I knew how much my ancestors, and Cherokee ancestors in general, had sacrificed to reach this moment. I think that a lot of other tribal citizens felt that the day that we were celebrating the Supreme Court decision. I think we all felt that weight of history. And I wanted the reader to feel that weight of history — to understand this isn’t a simple story of, “Yay, the tribes won!” There’s a lot that’s implicated in that victory and a lot that was lost for that rare legal victory to happen.
HCN: In the book you hold multiple difficult truths at once, like how George Jacobs’ death — which caused so much pain for his community — was the origin of the Murphy case and also resulted in a historic win for tribal sovereignty. Similarly, the truth of your ancestor, John Ridge, who signed a treaty that resulted in forced removal of the Cherokee people. It was against their wishes, and also what he thought he had to do to save his nation. How did you navigate that? It can be so easy to collapse these tensions to make for a simpler narrative.
RN: Absolutely. As a journalist, my North Star is the truth. And I think the truth is complicated. I don’t think we can tell the whole story of the McGirt victory without talking about the crimes and the tragedy that it originated in. And I think the same is true for my ancestors. I was sort of raised to think one thing, but I went back through the historical records and really tried to look at it for what it was. There’s a lot that we can learn from the desperation of my ancestors and their decision to sign that treaty. We can learn just how violent U.S. policy was at that time, that they would make a decision like that. There’s a cultural impulse to tell stories where there are clear heroes and clear villains, and victories like McGirt come from a good place, and things are clean-cut. I think that history is actually quite messy. I wanted a book that reflected that reality.
HCN: In the aftermath of the McGirt decision, the state of Oklahoma pushed a narrative of chaos and disruption in the criminal justice system, which some national outlets then repeated without much discernment. Can you talk about the role of the media — including the lack of Indigenous representation in newsrooms — and how that shapes the public’s understanding of things like tribal sovereignty?
RN: I think that it’s a really big hindrance to our rights as Indigenous nations and to our sovereignty. Less than a fraction of a percent of the people staffing newsrooms are Native. Coverage of Indigenous issues very often fails to meet the standards of journalism. It doesn’t have context, or a depth of knowledge of what’s going on. They send reporters who’ve never been on a reservation to do reporting about criminal justice on tribal land. It creates an environment where you can tell lies about tribes, and people will think that it’s true.
And unfortunately, that’s what happened. In the wake of McGirt, (Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, R) made some very bold and outlandish claims about the number of criminal cases that could be prosecuted moving forward. I did some digging around with a fellow reporter, Allison Herrera, and Oklahoma’s claims fell apart completely. But they were still repeated and cited by prominent outlets like the Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Oklahoma then cited those articles in their briefs, and some of that inaccurate information was actually in the (Castro-Huerta) Supreme Court decision. And so it was this tornado of disinformation that made it all the way up to the Supreme Court. Normally, we think that the Washington Post is a check on bad information, but not when it comes to tribes, which should be an embarrassment for them.
HCN: We’re in a moment of major law and policy change under a new administration. What are some lessons from your reporting that apply to our current moment?
RN: We talk about it as a problem that originates with Trump, instead of a problem that originates with some of the flaws in our democracy. And I think the treatment of Indigenous nations is a glaring example of that, because we’ve never had any kind of constitutional amendment or reform to change those laws and to change those policies. To dispossess Indigenous people of their land, the U.S. government gave itself a lot of power over people who are not U.S. citizens. That power of empire is embedded in our Constitution, because our country wanted to take Indigenous land. We still see it manifested in deportation and shutting down asylum and separating families at the border and banning Muslims from entering our country. If we really don’t want these types of policies to be enacted, there are some bigger questions about our democracy that as a society we haven’t even begun to ask.
If we really don’t want these types of policies to be enacted, there are some bigger questions about our democracy that as a society we haven’t even begun to ask.
HCN: Given that, do you have any specific concerns about potential attacks on tribal sovereignty under a second Trump administration?
RN: Everything has the capacity to get worse. A lot of tribal programs, whether it’s (the Indian Health Service) or tribal courts, tribal law enforcement, rely on federal dollars. There’s a lot specifically at stake for tribes under Trump. The remaking of the federal judiciary has a profound impact on tribes, because our cases are federal; they don’t go through state court. And, unfortunately, the courts — dating back to before Trump — have not been reliable sources for justice for tribes. Even when the law is clearly on the tribe’s side, courts have a very bad habit of bending and breaking the rules to satisfy the state or non-Native residents. One of the things that’s really shocked me is how often our government institutions ignore the law when it comes to tribes and how hard tribes have to fight for just the law to be followed. Those weaknesses in our democracy have been there for a long time.
We welcome reader letters. Email High Country News at editor@hcn.org or submit a letter to the editor. See our letters to the editor policy.
This article appeared in the April 2025 print edition of the magazine with the headline “The flaws in our democracy.”
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
