Donna M. Loring is a Penobscot Nation elder ,Vietnam veteran, author and former state legislator. This is a personal opinion and not that of the Penobscot Nation, any organizations or boards that she is affiliated with.

For decades, the Wabanaki Nations have asked the state of Maine for one thing above all others: recognition of our inherent sovereignty. Not favors. Not carve-outs. Not special permissions. Simply the same respect for self-government that every other federally recognized tribe in this country enjoys.

That request has been consistently denied.

Gov. Janet Mills’ relationship with the Wabanaki Nations has long been described as rocky, and for good reason. While her administration has supported certain cultural and symbolic measures, it has repeatedly refused to address the central issue at the heart of state-tribal relations in Maine: sovereignty. That refusal has remained remarkably consistent even as the governor has recently allowed tribal gaming legislation to move forward.

To some, this appears to be progress. To those of us who have spent our lives working within Maine’s state-tribal system, it feels more complicated.

We asked for sovereignty. We got i-gaming.

Economic development matters. The Wabanaki Nations deserve access to modern economic tools, including gaming, just as other tribes across the country have long enjoyed. But gaming is not sovereignty. Revenue is not self-determination. And economic permission does not replace political recognition.

In announcing her decision to allow the i-gaming bill to become law, the governor offered a detailed list of actions her administration has taken affecting the Wabanaki Nations. Those measures, many of them long overdue, are familiar to those of us who have worked in this space for decades. They represent incremental progress, and some have had real value. But listing accomplishments is not the same as resolving the core issue that defines the state-tribal relationship in Maine.

None of those actions address the fundamental question of sovereignty. They do not alter the legal framework that places the Wabanaki Nations in a category unlike any other federally recognized tribe in the country. They do not restore inherent authority over our own lands, laws or governance. And they do not change the fact that, in Maine, tribal rights remain conditional on state approval.

Progress should be measured not by how long a list is, but by whether it changes the underlying relationship. On that measure, the central issue remains untouched.

What is troubling is not simply that the governor has shifted her position on gaming, but that this shift comes without any movement on sovereignty itself. Maine remains unwilling to recognize the inherent authority of the Wabanaki Nations over our own governance. In effect, the state is willing to permit economic activity while keeping the fundamental power relationship unchanged.

That distinction matters because gaming permissions are, by their nature, conditional. Unlike sovereignty, they exist within state-controlled frameworks that can be adjusted over time. This is not a hypothetical concern. Maine has a history of reshaping gaming policy after the fact through regulation, amendment or redistribution once the larger political moment has passed.

The timing of this shift also invites reflection. As the governor prepares for a campaign for the United States Senate, the appearance of being supportive of tribal economic development carries political significance. I do not claim to know intent. But history has taught the Wabanaki Nations to be cautious when economic accommodation is offered without structural change.

This is not reconciliation. It is transaction. And transactions, unlike sovereignty, are reversible.

If Gov. Mills were to serve in the U.S. Senate, she would be in a position to shape federal Indian policy grounded in the recognition of tribal sovereignty. Her long-standing resistance to that principle in Maine raises legitimate concern about how she might approach those responsibilities on a national stage.

Gaming may bring revenue. Sovereignty brings dignity, stability and self-determination.

The irony of this moment is difficult to ignore. After generations of advocacy and good-faith negotiation, the state has once again chosen economic permission over political recognition.

We did not ask for gaming instead of sovereignty. We asked for recognition of our sovereignty, full stop. Until that is recognized, any economic progress offered remains incomplete, and any partnership remains unfinished.