Tracker
What Tribal Nations have decided about hyperscale data centers, and what they are building themselves.
Nations on the Record
- Saying no15
- Saying yes2
- Studying3
- Tribally owned, no position4
Pins mark seats of government, not the extent of homelands or territory.
- Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Fort PeckMT, saying no, recorded in Issue 002
- Cherokee NationOK, saying no, recorded in Issue 002
- Fallon Paiute Shoshone TribeNV, saying no, recorded in Issue 003
- Hualapai TribeAZ, saying no, recorded in Issue 004
- Kickapoo Tribe of OklahomaOK, saying no, recorded in Issue 002
- Mohawk Council of AkwesasneNY / ON / QC, saying no, recorded in Issue 002
- Pyramid Lake Paiute TribeNV, saying no, recorded in Issue 003
- Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa IndiansMI, saying no, recorded in Issue 004
- Seminole Nation of OklahomaOK, saying no, recorded in Issue 002
- Shoshone-Bannock TribesID, saying no, recorded in Issue 003
- Sturgeon Lake Cree NationAB, saying no, recorded in Issue 002
- Tonawanda Seneca NationNY, saying no, recorded in Issue 002
- Walker River Paiute TribeNV, saying no, recorded in Issue 003
- Winnebago Tribe of NebraskaNE, saying no, recorded in Issue 004
- Yerington Paiute TribeNV, saying no, recorded in Issue 003
- Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians / Colusa Indian CommunityCA, saying yes, recorded in Issue 002
- Woodland Cree First NationAB, saying yes, recorded in Issue 002
- Caddo NationOK, studying, recorded in Issue 002
- Muscogee (Creek) NationOK, studying, recorded in Issue 002
- Northwestern Band of the Shoshone NationUT, studying, recorded in Issue 002
- Forest County Potawatomi CommunityWI, tribally owned, recorded in Issue 002
- Hoopa Valley TribeCA, tribally owned, recorded in Issue 002
- Kátł'odeeche First NationNWT, tribally owned, recorded in Issue 002
- Prophet River First NationBC, tribally owned, recorded in Issue 003
20 of 20 Nations · current to Issue 004, September 21, 2026
- Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Fort PeckMTIssue 002, the issue that recorded Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck
- Cherokee NationOKIssue 002, the issue that recorded Cherokee Nation
- Fallon Paiute Shoshone TribeNVIssue 003, the issue that recorded Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe
- Hualapai TribeAZIssue 004, the issue that recorded Hualapai Tribe
- Kickapoo Tribe of OklahomaOKIssue 002, the issue that recorded Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma
- Mohawk Council of AkwesasneNY / ON / QCIssue 002, the issue that recorded Mohawk Council of Akwesasne
- Pyramid Lake Paiute TribeNVIssue 003, the issue that recorded Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
- Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa IndiansMIIssue 004, the issue that recorded Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
- Seminole Nation of OklahomaOKIssue 002, the issue that recorded Seminole Nation of Oklahoma
- Shoshone-Bannock TribesIDIssue 003, the issue that recorded Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
- Sturgeon Lake Cree NationABIssue 002, the issue that recorded Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation
- Tonawanda Seneca NationNYIssue 002, the issue that recorded Tonawanda Seneca Nation
- Walker River Paiute TribeNVIssue 003, the issue that recorded Walker River Paiute Tribe
- Winnebago Tribe of NebraskaNEIssue 004, the issue that recorded Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska
- Yerington Paiute TribeNVIssue 003, the issue that recorded Yerington Paiute Tribe
- Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians / Colusa Indian CommunityCAIssue 002, the issue that recorded Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians / Colusa Indian Community
- Woodland Cree First NationABIssue 002, the issue that recorded Woodland Cree First Nation
- Caddo NationOKIssue 002, the issue that recorded Caddo Nation
- Muscogee (Creek) NationOKIssue 002, the issue that recorded Muscogee (Creek) Nation
- Northwestern Band of the Shoshone NationUTIssue 002, the issue that recorded Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation
A position here is an action on the public record as of the issue named beside it, not a permanent characterisation of a Nation. Positions change, and the brief reports it when they do.
Tribally Owned Data Infrastructure
Nations that own, operate, or are developing the infrastructure themselves. Owning a data center is not a position on hyperscale development, and this register does not read as one.
- Forest County Potawatomi CommunityWIIssue 002, the issue that recorded Forest County Potawatomi Community
- Hoopa Valley TribeCAIssue 002, the issue that recorded Hoopa Valley Tribe
- Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians / Colusa Indian CommunityCAIssue 002, the issue that recorded Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians / Colusa Indian Community
- Woodland Cree First NationABIssue 002, the issue that recorded Woodland Cree First Nation
- Kátł'odeeche First NationNWTIssue 002, the issue that recorded Kátł'odeeche First Nation
- Prophet River First NationBCIssue 003, the issue that recorded Prophet River First Nation
Where the Line Gets Drawn
There is no settled definition of a hyperscale data center. These are the thresholds Tribal governments and legislatures have written into actual instruments, and they differ by a factor of five. A project can sit above one line and below another in the same season.
- 20 MW
- New York StateResponsible Data Center Development Act, awaiting signatureIssue 004
- 50 MW
- Sault Ste. Marie, OntarioProposed interim control bylawIssue 004
- 100 MW
- Hualapai TribeCouncil resolution defining hyperscaleIssue 004
This page therefore records what a Nation did and, where a figure is published, how large the facility is. It does not sort Nations into hyperscale and not.
Correction
September 29, 2026
Until this date the tracker had one axis, and every Nation sat somewhere on it. The Hoopa Valley Tribe, which runs the data center serving its own fiber-to-the-home network and Acorn Connected, its Tribal internet service provider, was listed as Saying yes. On a page about hyperscale development that reads as though the Nation welcomes what other Nations here are opposing. It does not, and the brief's own reporting said so.
A Tribal leader raised it. The record has been split into two registers so that owning infrastructure is no longer recorded as agreeing to hyperscale development, and three further Nations moved for the same reason once the test was applied consistently: the Forest County Potawatomi Community, the Kátł'odeeche First Nation, and the Prophet River First Nation.
The counts here therefore no longer match those printed in Issue 004. A coming issue will restate them.