The Show for June 2, 2026: 'You're No Indian' documentary, 2026 wildfire outlook and more

Thousands of Native Americans have been disenrolled from their tribes. A new documentary claims it’s all about casino money. Plus, why one expert worries about this year’s fire season — both in terms of activity and resources.

Transcript

LAUREN GILGER: Hi, I’m Lauren Gilger, co-host of The Show, an original production from KJZZ. Every weekday, we bring you the latest news and culture from across the state. You can find much more at theshow.kjzz.org. Here’s today’s episode.

MARK BRODIE: Good morning. It’s The Show here on KJZZ 91.5 in Phoenix. I’m Mark Brodie.

LAUREN GILGER: And I’m Lauren Gilger. Coming up, how proposed rules from the US Postal Service could impact Arizonans who vote by mail.

MARK BRODIE: And will it be Hot Girl Summer this year, or Guava Girl Summer, or another new internet trend?

LAUREN GILGER: But first, the number of people being held in immigration detention centers across the country has gone way up under the Trump administration. And so has the number of people being held who have no criminal record. And now a new investigation shows more of them are being held in solitary confinement, often as a tactic to try to coerce immigrants into giving up their claims and self-deporting. Emily Bregel reported the story for the Arizona Daily Star in Tucson, and she’s on the line now to tell us more. Good morning, Emily.

EMILY BREGEL: Hi. Good morning.

LAUREN GILGER: Thank you for coming on. So, I know you and your team spoke with a lot of immigrants who are being held here in Arizona at the Eloy Detention Center. And you talked to them about their experience, and many of them said they had been held in solitary confinement. What did they say?

EMILY BREGEL: That’s right. What we heard from just detainee after detainee is that solitary confinement was used in ways that certainly overused, misused, and ways that experts told us could be unconstitutional or violating detainees’ rights. And that example you gave of using either the threat of solitary or a placement in solitary to coerce someone into really abandoning their immigration claim and self-deporting, that’s a practice experts say is unconstitutional.

LAUREN GILGER: Right. So that’s one reason these folks told you they thought they had been put into solitary confinement. But there were others, right? Like minor infractions. There were instances in which people would say that they had mental health concerns or suicidal thoughts, and they would be put into solitary confinement.

EMILY BREGEL: Absolutely. We spoke to, well we’ve spoken to dozens of detainees over the past about seven months, but 10 detainees who spent significant amounts of time in solitary told us that some of those reasons were things such as language misunderstanding sometimes, complaining about conditions in detention, refusing to self-deport, minor infractions that experts say don’t rise to the level of the type of punishment that solitary is. Actually, the UN considers 15 days in solitary confinement to be tantamount to torture. And so some of the minor violations include not cleaning up their cells, hanging clothes on a bunk bed, or trying to cover up the air conditioning vents because it’s too cold. And finally, we also talked to a number of people dealing with suicidal thoughts, depression, for some due to the trauma they experienced in their home country. And one woman in particular that I talked with regularly over the last seven months, she spent three days, 24 hours a day, in a cell the size of a parking space after she admitted to having suicidal thoughts right after she arrived at Eloy. Now, that trauma of being locked in a small room like that with only a box to sleep in and a toilet, that for her, she said, was another trauma. She had fled Iran after she was basically kidnapped off the streets by government agents, held in a cold cell for days while she was violently interrogated and sexually assaulted. So, being basically exposed to a very similar situation in the country she fled to, that was another trauma for her.

LAUREN GILGER: Wow. Yeah, her story is so striking. I was interested in that as well because of the back story, right? Like, she was a dissident. She came here. She said she was sexually assaulted by government agents there, and then comes here. She was screened by a psychologist when she got to Eloy, right? Is that common practice?

EMILY BREGEL: Yes, everyone is supposed to get an intake medical and mental health exam, at least soon after arriving at Eloy. That doesn’t always seem to happen. But in this case, she met with a psychologist right after arriving and said what how she described to me was that, "I finally felt that maybe this is a professional, maybe this is someone I can trust and feel safe with." She hadn’t told anyone about the sexual assault yet. And so she was honest about what she was going through. But she said the quote-unquote treatment was definitely felt like a punishment to her that harmed her far more than helping her. And that’s one thing I want to point out, too, that I think there’s a kind of broad misconception that people in ICE detention are there for some crime they committed. But this is civil detention. It legally is not supposed to be a punishment. ICE says itself no one is there as punishment for a crime. And in fact, more than two-thirds of people in immigration detention have never been convicted of a crime. ICE itself says that 75% of detainees at Eloy have no threat level. So, this idea that, you know, this is a punishment that people deserve, it’s just not, you know, maybe you try to make that argument for prisons, although many people would argue there’s no cruel and unusual punishment anywhere. But in ICE detention, no one is supposed to be getting a punishment in that setting.

LAUREN GILGER: Right, that is something that gets lost in this conversation about immigration detention and immigration proceedings in general, right? They are civil, not criminal. I wonder, I mean, that also means, right Emily, that the immigrants who are being held there have to be treated in a certain way. You said ICE recognizes that, but what does the law say?

EMILY BREGEL: Yes, so the law says, and the ACLU is actually filing a lawsuit over this regarding a California detention center, but the conditions in ICE detention cannot amount to a punishment. And in their case, they were saying solitary confinement was being used to punish people for those types of minor infractions that we also heard from people at Eloy. And the United Nations says that if someone is confined alone in a cell for at least 22 hours a day without meaningful human contact, that is solitary confinement. I should say that ICE and CoreCivic deny using solitary confinement. They call it segregation, and they say that it’s distinct from solitary because detainees still have all the privileges that they would have outside of solitary. One, people, experts certainly say this is solitary, this meets the definition by any standard of what solitary confinement is. And detainees all told us that they have restricted privileges while they’re in solitary, often communication devices, they can only shower three days a week. For Narges, the Iranian dissident we talked about earlier, she didn’t get any shower. She spent 24 hours a day in that tiny cell. So, people would argue that solitary is not happening in ICE detention.

LAUREN GILGER: Last minute here, Emily. Tell us a little bit about the oversight mechanisms that should be in place and maybe are not anymore.

EMILY BREGEL: That’s one of the main reasons for concern here that at the same time as we see the number of people, and again, largely people without any criminal history, being held in detention, we see the oversight going away. There are three DHS internal oversight agencies that already were problematic but at least provided some kind of check, some sort of opportunity for people to file complaints from detention. Those have all, actually one has been completely shut down and the others basically gutted with just a handful of staff left. So, the concern is that as we see more and more people going into ICE detention with far less oversight, that we’ll see people unnecessarily put into solitary with real risks to their mental health and physical health.

LAUREN GILGER: Yeah. Okay, we’ll leave it there. Emily Bregel reported the story for the Arizona Daily Star in Tucson. Emily, thank you very much for your reporting here. I appreciate it.

EMILY BREGEL: Thank you for having me.

MARK BRODIE: The US Postal Service has proposed new rules that lay out how it would implement President Trump’s executive order dealing with mail-in voting. Among other provisions, states would have to send the feds a list of every voter who will be getting a ballot in the mail for some federal elections. There are also rules about the kinds of barcodes envelopes would need. There are legal challenges to the president’s executive order. A judge last week declined to block the order, saying it was premature, while another federal judge in Boston is hearing arguments today in a separate case. With me now to talk about these new rules and the reaction to them is Dion Nissenbaum, senior national reporter with Votebeat. Dion, good morning.

DION NISSENBAUM: Good morning, Mark. How are you?

MARK BRODIE: Doing all right. Thanks for being here. So, let’s take a quick step back. What exactly, let’s remind everybody what the president’s executive order on mail-in voting was about, like what did it say?

DION NISSENBAUM: Right. So, the president issued an executive order in March that sought to lay out a number of efforts to address the concerns he has around voter fraud. And it essentially tried to get the Postal Service to enact new rules that would require each state to submit full lists of everybody that wanted to vote by mail. And it also tries to lay out some uniform standards by which each state has to create these ballots. As you mentioned, barcodes and other things that each state would have to do and the Postal Service would be required to implement. It also has some requirements for citizenship, but that’s not addressed in the Postal Service regulations.

MARK BRODIE: Okay. So, in terms of the lists, is this something that like counties, for example, like in Arizona, each of the 15 counties would have to submit a list to the state, who would then submit a list to the federal government about who is actually getting a ballot?

DION NISSENBAUM: Yeah, the specificities in the order are not exactly clear and it’s created a lot of confusion for local elections officials. What it does sort of spell out is that 60 days before a federal election, this wouldn’t affect primary elections, but before a general election, each state would have to submit a list of everybody that has requested an absentee ballot. And then that would have to be approved by the Postal Service. And if you’re not on that approved list, it appears to give the Postal Service the ability to deny voters to receive a ballot. Basically, if you’re not on that list, it says that the Postal Service doesn’t have to send you an absentee ballot.

MARK BRODIE: Are there rules laid out for what would constitute someone being disqualified?

DION NISSENBAUM: Well, if you’re not on the list, you’re not you’re disqualified. So, each state, Arizona would have to send in a list of everybody that’s requested an absentee ballot 60 days before the election. And if you’re not on that list, then it can be rejected. So, you know, it’s interesting because a lot of states have rules that, you know, you can request absentee ballots much closer to the election. So, if you have to submit this list 60 days beforehand, and you’re a voter in Arizona that suddenly has a work trip that comes up a month before the election and you need to vote by mail, then this appears to block you from being able to vote absentee.

MARK BRODIE: Are there other provisions in here that could potentially conflict with state laws in various places?

DION NISSENBAUM: Yeah, so the other element of this is that it tries to lay out these uniform standards for each state that would have to be met before you could send out a ballot. So, there’s this requirement for new barcodes, both in the mail that goes to the voter and then in the ballot that goes back to the elections officials. And talking to local elections officials about this, especially in small counties and rural counties, that could create some new burdens. It certainly creates what people usually refer to as an unfunded federal mandate, that you have to, you know, it’s new costs on every elections agency that the federal government isn’t paying for.

MARK BRODIE: Well, and interestingly, one of the other things that you heard from some folks is that the vendors they work with can’t create the barcodes or don’t have the capacity to do them. So, like, you know, we’re in what, June now, and by November, these municipalities or counties would have to find new vendors and either end and/or start a new contract with somebody who can do these.

DION NISSENBAUM: Yeah, you know, I think I think the timeline here for the November election makes this very challenging on a practical level to actually implement. If you’re a small county with a small number of elections officials and you’ve got a vendor that doesn’t have barcodes, you’ve got to try and implement this. And we’re still in the proposal phase of this. There’s supposed to be 30 days of comment before it even moves forward. And, you know, if you’re under these rules, you’re supposed to notify the federal government 90 days before the federal election if you are going to submit to this new process, and then submit the list within 60 days. It’s just such a tight timeline, it seems on a practical level it’s going to be really difficult for a lot of places to meet.

MARK BRODIE: Right. So, Dion, just a minute or so left here. I mentioned there are a couple different lawsuits going on. Is it possible that these rules could be blocked from taking effect for this election?

DION NISSENBAUM: Yeah, the hearing is underway in Boston right now. I think it’s almost over. It is very possible that the court could block it. You know, one of one of the major issues here is the constitutional question that overrides all of these executive orders issued by the president. As you probably know, the Constitution bestows upon Congress and the states the ability to regulate elections, not the president. And that’s kind of been an underlying issue here. The courts blocked President Trump’s first executive order on voting because of that issue, and it seems possible that the courts will do the same for this one.

MARK BRODIE: Sure, it’ll be interesting to see how that plays out going forward. All right, that is Dion Nissenbaum, senior national reporter with Votebeat. Dion, thanks so much. I appreciate it.

DION NISSENBAUM: Thanks for having me.

MARK BRODIE: Good morning. It’s The Show on KJZZ 91.5. I’m Mark Brodie.

LAUREN GILGER: And I’m Lauren Gilger. Coming up, a new documentary looks at the issue of disenrollment from Native American tribes and its connection to casino money.

RYAN FLYNN: And the motivation being the fewer members in the tribe, the bigger piece of the pie those that remain.

MARK BRODIE: We’ll hear from the director and producer about the rise of tribal disenrollment over the last decade. But first, state and federal agencies across Arizona have put fire restrictions in place as the danger of wildfires increases with hot and dry conditions. Firefighters in California are already battling several wildfires there, and there have been some fires in Arizona this year already as well. My next guest worries about what this fire season will look like, both in terms of fire activity and the people available to fight them. Dave Calkin is principal of Calkin Wildfire Consulting. Until last April, he was a senior research scientist with the US Forest Service. He joins me, and Dave, when you look at all the various conditions out there, what do you see region-wide coming up this fire season?

DAVE CALKIN: Yeah, I mean, we’ve suffered through historically low snowpacks throughout most of the Interior West, significant droughts on the coastal states, and some unusually warm spells throughout.

And the "super El Niño," I’m not a meteorologist, but it seems like that could add fuel to the fire, if you will. So, we’re set up in conditions that could lead to a very bad fire season. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it will. There’s been plenty of years where there’s been drought, but the ignitions just didn’t happen, or they didn’t happen at the wrong place at the wrong time, and we didn’t see bad fire years.

But the conditions are there such that we could experience a really bad fire year, and there’s a lot of reasons to be concerned beyond just the fire weather and the climate and the drought.

MARK BRODIE: Well, and it sounds like, based on some of your writings, that one of the reasons to be concerned beyond sort of the the nature of what’s going on outside is the potential response of firefighters. It sounds like there are fewer of them and fewer teams, and the response is maybe not what you would like it to be.

DAVE CALKIN: You know, the number of firefighters, primary firefighters, has remained relatively stable over the last five to 10 years and maybe it’s actually increased over time. But what hasn’t kept pace is kind of the infrastructure, the incident management teams, the overhead positions, the people that are typically associated with federal wildland management organizations — like the Forest Service, BLM, Park Service — that aren’t primary firefighters, but they engage in fire management.

A lot of the incident management team leadership comes from that group of people, and those are the people who have left the agencies over the last year and a half like myself.

Further, you know, it’s not just this episodic event with this administration. The number and participation in incident management had been declining significantly over the last decade at a time when we need even more of those folks around.

MARK BRODIE: When you talk about people leaving the agency, leaving this sort of this line of work with the federal government, how much experience has walked out the door and what kind of impact might that have?

DAVE CALKIN: We really don’t know is the biggest challenge, I think. Fire management is really complex. People participate in it from all sorts of different areas. There’s a large number of retirees, there’s volunteer firefighters, there’s municipal firefighters who all come in and work in the system.

The thing that has me concerned is the management of this system, and that’s where we know we’ve lost people. We don’t know how many, but we do know that the number of incident management teams is somewhere between 35 and 38, which is considerably less than five to 10 years ago. And really importantly, the way we’ve gotten to 38 staffed teams is by these teams sharing resources. So, there may only be one safety officer amongst three teams.

The other thing we know is when we hit scarcity, when we really get busy, the quality of our decisions goes down. And at that very time when we’re getting the busiest we can be, the decision quality goes down and people become even more fatigued, and it’s kind of a cycle of exhaustion in the system, and that’s when bad outcomes happen.

MARK BRODIE: I’m curious what you make of the comments that the Interior secretary made not that long ago talking about how suppression was going to sort of be the strategy, at least for now, with dealing with wildland firefighters.

DAVE CALKIN: Yeah, this is kind of contradictory, it might seem at first glance. It would seem that if you tried really hard and made fires as small as possible, there’d be less of it there and you’d need fewer people. The reality is the times when fires escape is when fires are really hard to put out.

And so there are very few incidents where we’ve decided to be really unaggressive that causes significant problems. It causes a lot of political attention, but they’re really rare events. So, when somebody like the secretary or the chief of the Forest Service come out and say we’re going to be even extra aggressive this year, it actually increases scarcity. Even though there might be a little bit less of fire on the ground initially, there’s going to be more exhaustion.

And there’s a couple of reasons. First, the system itself is designed to fill every legitimate order. So, when there’s still resources around, if you call for a resource, you will get it. When a secretary or a chief says we are going to be very aggressive this year and make all fires go away as quickly and aggressively as we can, that suggests to the people order as much resources as you can because it is politically damaging to your career if you didn’t do everything you possibly could.

So, we overorder initially, and that starts the system down a cycle of scarcity. More resources are used than necessary, and that makes them tired and unavailable for other fires. And we get later into the season, fatigue increases, and as we said earlier, that’s when decision quality goes down and the likelihood of accident goes up.

The other thing it says is if you’re a local manager and you have fire resources at your location, you should hold on to them because if a fire occurs and you don’t have resources available, then you’re going to have a bad outcome and you’re going to get blamed.

And we saw this last year, when the same kind of tone came out of the secretary and the chief of the Forest Service, of we are going to suppress every fire as aggressively as we can. And what happened though was, even though we had half as much fire as we has historically had on the Forest Service lands, we spent a record amount of money on suppression.

So, a very quiet year and we spent a lot of resources. We exposed firefighters to the hazards of the environment, and we had very little fire on the ground. What happens when we have a lot of fire on the ground? That’s what I’m worried about.

MARK BRODIE: So, you mentioned how expensive last year’s fire season was. Are you confident that the resources are in place to deal with whatever comes this year, especially after what was spent on fires in 2025?

DAVE CALKIN: No, not at all. Given the tone of these orders from leadership and the potential of a really busy fire year, I think we are going to get fatigued resources that will influence the quality of the decisions being made.

I think our incident management teams are going to be spread thin, and our largest incident management teams, instead of managing one large complex fire, they’re going to be asked to manage three or four at the same time.

Our smaller teams that are used to managing fires that maybe get up to a couple of thousand acres and have 100 people on them are going to be asked to manage fires much larger than that with more challenges, more resources.

And then the other challenge in here is many people in the system who are higher up will reach a pay cap where they no longer are financially incentivized to participate in fire management. And given the morale of the workforce, the likelihood that they’ll volunteer their time to participate in the system is probably lower than it’s ever been.

MARK BRODIE: Dave Calkin is principal of Calkin Wildfire Consulting and is a former senior research scientist with the U.S. Forest Service.

MARK BRODIE: Maricopa County Sheriff’s officials say two people have drowned in the Salt River this year, including a recent ASU grad who died on Memorial Day. The river is a popular spot for recreation, especially tubing. And while drownings in the desert may seem counterintuitive, my next guest says they can happen but are preventable. Berenice Pelayo is an Arizona native, and says she lives pretty close to the Salt River. The recent deaths there prompted her to post on her TikTok about how to stay safe on the river. She joins me.

Berenice, do you have a sense of, first off, how many times you’ve actually been to the Salt River?

BERENICE PELAYO: I can’t even count how many times I’ve been to the river. Typically, I actually paddleboard, but I’ve also been tubing as well.

MARK BRODIE: OK. And how often do you see where somebody is maybe having trouble with the river, maybe underestimating it, having some kind of trouble where they’re in the water?

BERENICE PELAYO: I’d say nine out of 10 times. When I visit, there’s always, you know, newbies on the river. You can tell it’s their first time tubing, and they don’t know when the currents are coming up, they can catch you by surprise. And so, unfortunately, I’ve seen quite a few people flip over. Some think it’s fun, other people start freaking out. So, yeah, I’ve seen a little bit of both.

MARK BRODIE: Why do you think it is that people struggle or maybe don’t really understand what it is that they’re getting into here?

BERENICE PELAYO: Well, yeah, definitely. The river is marketed as a lazy river, something that’s very relaxing and fun, and it definitely can be. But there’s parts where the current really does pick up, and I don’t think people are aware of how fast the current can take you and how strong it can be.

Even if on the surface it looks like it’s a light current, it can really push your tubes off to the side, and there’s exposed branches and trees that can definitely be dangerous and catch on to your tube or your clothes.

MARK BRODIE: So, you think in some cases at least people think they’re like getting into a tube in a lazy river like at a hotel or something when this is an actual river.

BERENICE PELAYO: Definitely, I do think that there’s that misunderstanding.

MARK BRODIE: So, what kinds of things in your opinion maybe should people know and maybe can they do to make sure that they stay safe while they’re doing this? Because it is after all supposed to be fun.

BERENICE PELAYO: Yes, it definitely can be fun, while just keeping a few things in mind. For example, we talked about the current being pretty strong. Knowing that the river can be shallow in some parts, it can be 3 to 4 feet, but in other parts it can easily be around 6 feet. So, knowing that it’s a little deeper on some parts is very important.

Also, I see people wearing flip-flops or Crocs when they’re tubing, and those will slip right off with the current if you fall off. So, having water shoes with straps is a great way to keep yourself a little bit safer, a little bit more protected.

And also keeping all of your personal items attached to your tube or your paddleboard, whatever you’re on, because if you flip over and your items go flying, people’s first reaction is to try to get their speaker, their phone, their keys, or their food bag or cooler. But if it’s attached, it’ll just make it a lot better and give you that time to react and worry about yourself first.

MARK BRODIE: I would imagine also that being a capable swimmer would be helpful in a situation like that.

BERENICE PELAYO: Definitely, yeah. That’s a huge one. A lot of people that don’t know how to swim or aren’t the strongest swimmers, again, underestimate the river, and so they don’t go in with a life vest, and I would personally say that’s a big no-no to go on the river not knowing how to swim without a life vest. I would suggest it for of course everybody, but especially those that don’t know how to swim.

MARK BRODIE: So, this is something that you have talked about on social media before, right? Like you’ve put tips sort of on TikTok for how to stay safe on the river. What prompted you to do that?

BERENICE PELAYO: Yeah, I had thought about doing that before and sharing some of my tips, but what prompted me to share that recently was after hearing the college graduate that went to the river and, unfortunately, drowned during his visit.

It just was so sad to hear that somebody so young and who had just completed a big milestone in his life, that that happened to him tragically. And then after I posted that, I learned that there was another incident during Memorial Day weekend, which is so unfortunate to hear.

MARK BRODIE: What kinds of feedback have you gotten on that video?

BERENICE PELAYO: I’ve gotten mixed feedback. A lot of people were grateful to hear some extra tips to be prepared going to the Salt River. Other people also shared their own stories. I was actually taken aback with how many stories people were open to sharing of their own incidents at the river, whether they saw somebody else having an accident or themselves, and decided never to return.

There’s also some feedback about how I didn’t address drinking on the river, which is something I followed up with later. I just didn’t want to make any assumptions about the case that prompted me to create that video. I just wanted to share some general advice for new visitors.

MARK BRODIE: What do you like about going on the Salt River? You’ve mentioned you do more paddleboarding than tubing, but what do you like about doing it?

BERENICE PELAYO: Yeah, I love going out on the river. It’s just such a nice environment to be in. People are very friendly, and it’s nice to get away from the day-to-day life and escape and to be in nature, put my phone down and just enjoy the water and the views. It’s an amazing trail to be on, whether you’re paddleboarding or you’re tubing, and maybe even catching a sight of the wild horses. That’s pretty nice.

MARK BRODIE: Have you ever had situations where you’ve been in situations that made you feel a little unsafe or made you a little nervous?

BERENICE PELAYO: Yeah, not to myself, but I did have a moment that I was scared for somebody else. I was on my paddleboard, and pretty soon after getting on, there was a place where the current is just pushing you against the other side of the river pretty quickly.

And I got closer to the opposite side of the river, and I could see that there was a man struggling. He was under some branches, so it was kind of hard to see him. I didn’t see him until I got really close. And then I noticed he was also carrying his child. He had flipped off either a paddleboard or a tube, and the current had taken it. So, he was just holding on to branches and paddling to keep himself afloat. And that was pretty scary, and thankfully his family and friends were able to help him out and grab the child from him.

MARK BRODIE: Berenice Pelayo, thank you so much for taking the time to chat. I appreciate it.

BERENICE PELAYO: Thank you so much, Mark.

MARK BRODIE: Good morning. It’s The Show on KJZZ 91.5. I’m Mark Brodie.

LAUREN GILGER: And I’m Lauren Gilger. In 2019, Megan Thee Stallion released the viral song "Hot Girl Summer," and an annual trend was born. Since then, we’ve had Brat Summer, Guava Girl Summer, Barbie Summer. The spin-off list goes on. Each trend reflects the cultural vibe and economic reality of the moment. So, what is in store for summer of 2026? Here to offer her own well-informed predictions is The Show’s own resident pop culture expert Amanda Kehrberg, a PhD student at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Good morning, Amanda.

AMANDA KEHRBERG: Good morning, Lauren.

LAUREN GILGER: Okay, quite a title. I appreciate that. Okay, so let’s start with some of this history, right? This brief history of the kind of quote-unquote girl summer. This began, as I said, in 2019 when we had that song from Megan Thee Stallion. Tell us about this.

AMANDA KEHRBERG: So, that was, yeah. Hot Girl Summer even before the track dropped had already gone viral as this idea in July 2019. And it came to frame this this kind of summer that was about really like self-confidence, going out, and and just sort of being the vacation yourself almost. Like you could just kind of wear whatever you want. It was these really like neon, often bright colors. But in many ways, unbothered, but in a really effortlessly hot way. That’s what’s kind of funny. If you look at all of them, they tend to have like look really cool but look like you’re not trying.

LAUREN GILGER: The hardest thing to do.

AMANDA KEHRBERG: Exactly. But they all have kind of a different aesthetic and cultural take on that. So, if you move on then, we’ve got Charli XCX. Same thing again, like an album drops and that comes to define this summer trend of Brat Summer. Yes, yes. No one saw that neon green coming at the time.

LAUREN GILGER: It was quite a green.

AMANDA KEHRBERG: Yes. Or this this sense of being kind of like messy and chaotic, but in a self-aware way. So, we have this kind of like raccoon-eyed like cigarettes and and white tank tops and just like just let it all hang out, stay out too late, like very different vibe to Hot Girl Summer, which almost the Barbie versus like Wednesday to a degree. That’s like a leap but yes. And then we have all of these extremely self-care wellness-focused like clean girl type summers with slightly different focuses. So like, Tomato Girl Summer. I still would love to have that one. I want a Tomato Girl year, frankly. That’s that’s like living like you live in the Mediterranean. You’re walking around in these flowy linens, you know, your hair is just effortlessly waving in the in the sunlight. You’re going to the farmers market, you’re eating well, you’re doing all the right things, you’re probably doing your affirmations every day, I know I need to do that, and eating more tomatoes, I assume.

LAUREN GILGER: And eating more tomatoes. Last summer was Guava Girl Summer. I kind of missed this one, what’s that?

AMANDA KEHRBERG: Okay, so Guava Girl Summer did not have as strong of a cultural vibe as much as an aesthetic vibe. So, it was very much like the colors of tropical fruits put into makeup trends. So, it was very like dewy, very again, like wellness, it definitely falling under the banner of wellness, self-care, but with this kind of like warm orange coral glow that’s sort of supposed to speak to tropical vacation, but just for the whole time.

LAUREN GILGER: Okay, all the time. So, each of these trends, it does seem, Amanda, kind of hits on the cultural moment in a way, like reflects us back to ourselves in a way that only internet trends can.

AMANDA KEHRBERG: Yes, exactly. They all kind of take the temperature of the room. Like, is it hot? Is it tropical? I think what’s really interesting is how they tend to come together in a way that that really speaks to the way digital culture forms, where it’s this kind of push and pull, moments of of resistance, ideas bubbling up organically from communities talking to each other through, you know, TikTok, Instagram Reels, whatever, and brands trying desperately to figure out what exactly the clear trend is and how they can also help establish and push it so that they’re there. So, there’s a push and pull between retail and popular culture that ends up kind of situating what exactly is going to be the moment.

LAUREN GILGER: Yeah, let’s not forget the "what can we sell you" aspect of this. That’s part of it. All right, so it is, you know, Memorial Day was the kick-off to a summer, unofficial kick-off to summer here. What do you think? What are your predictions for a 2026 Girl Summer? What are we looking at?

AMANDA KEHRBERG: I will say, I really wanted some kind of like herald, and Megan Thee Stallion did just walk the runway at Miami Swim Week, so I think that’s that’s as good of a symbol of the start of summer as we’re going to get. This summer’s really interesting because I haven’t seen a real coalescence on what exactly the clear trend is for this summer. Aesthetically, we’re seeing trends like a kind of unbothered party girl makeup, so so you know, do the smoky eye and then kind of let it look like you slept on it and just got up the next morning and went to another party. Which I ran into people who’d gone to a party at 9:00 AM the other day, and then they were having a very late brunch, and they’re like, "Well, now we get to go to two parties." So, that’s you’re they’re doing that summer.

LAUREN GILGER: They’re doing that summer. Unbothered party girl, okay, okay.

AMANDA KEHRBERG: I mean, we’re thinking of like the big media events happening this summer, we’ve got World Cup, there’s lots of kind of big concerts going on, there’s, you know, some big kind of beloved shows coming back this summer. Yes. Oh my god, no. In terms of media, it’s such a good summer, and I think that really connects to how it’s going to be kind of a home body summer for a lot of people. Um, you have, you know, get to the theaters for Christopher Nolan’s big movie, The Odyssey, which fashion is predicting will will get us into more of a like flowy Greek dress aesthetic. Maybe some cool flip-flops. World Cup, of course, also fashion predictions will be in jerseys just kind of hanging out with our our party girl makeup. And then we have Ted Lasso coming back which is so exciting. The Vampire Lestat, a new show from Mindy Kaling called, I think oh, Not Safe For Work. Yeah, so it’s, yeah, it’s it’s such a really, really, really good summer for television. It’s very exciting. Definitely not what we grew up with where it was like and and now all TV is gone.

LAUREN GILGER: Yeah, so so big media home body, right, was the word there. And we’re looking at, you know, an expensive economy, like that always plays a role here. People maybe not traveling as much.

AMANDA KEHRBERG: Exactly, plays such a big role. Right now we’ve got I think the eighth highest gas prices in the nation in Arizona. 45% of people said they’ll be having at some kind of summer travel plans, which is the lowest since 2020. Okay. Okay, so what’s your summer going to be, Amanda?

AMANDA KEHRBERG: My summer is Hobby Girl Summer. Oh, I love it. I’ve also seen one one one ad call it Side Quest Summer, and I was like, okay, that’s kind of the same sort of thing. We’re not on the main quest line, we’re saving some money, we’re doing some side quests. We’re maybe, you know, I bought a paddleboard, speaking of, at Costco years ago and I just got it out for the first time this past month, like.

LAUREN GILGER: Oh man, paddleboarding, music lessons.

AMANDA KEHRBERG: Yes, yes, trying some cello. I’m doing doing the hobbies, staying at home, doing those aspirational hobbies, it’s time.

LAUREN GILGER: I’m going to have the tired mom summer. I think that’s a good one. That is Amanda Kehrberg. Amanda, thank you so much for coming in. I appreciate it.

AMANDA KEHRBERG: Thank you.

MARK BRODIE: Good morning. It’s The Show on KJZZ 91.5. I’m Mark Brodie.

LAUREN GILGER: And I’m Lauren Gilger. Nearly 11,000 people have been disenrolled from 80 different Native American tribes around the country in the last decade-plus. And that means a lot of things. People are disconnected from their community, their identity, their history, and their tribal benefits, including what can be major casino revenue. A new documentary exposes the practice of tribal disenrollment and just how big of a problem it’s become. I spoke more about the film with director Ryan Flynn and producer Santana Rabang, who was herself disenrolled from the Nooksack Tribe in the Pacific Northwest.

RYAN FLYNN: I found out about this issue of disenrollment when I was trying to understand how much an individual tribe member gets from their casinos, and you know, that that number changes, sometimes it’s nothing, sometimes it’s $100,000 a month.

But that’s where I came across disenrollment. And there were there were people saying they had empirical evidence, i.e. DNA tests, anthropological records, saying that they did belong, and being kicked out anyway. And the motivation being the fewer members in the tribe, the bigger piece of the pie those that remain get from casino and other revenues.

LAUREN GILGER: Right. OK, so describe what that disenrollment process looks like because, as you mentioned, you know, many folks will say they have, you know, very clear evidence of belonging to a certain tribe but still be disenrolled.

RYAN FLYNN: We went to conferences that are set up to teach people how to disenroll their own tribal members. And the mechanisms are often different, you know, but one of the things that we hear from people that haven’t been disenrolled yet, will say, "Oh, well, it could never happen to me."

And one of the things that we hear from people that have been disenrolled, they say, "Oh, I thought it could never happen to me. You know, I know who I am. I grew up on this reservation. Everybody’s known my family for generations."

Disenrollment can happen regardless of evidence, regardless of empirical truth that you belong. It really seems that in some of these tribes, if they want you out, you’re out, regardless of the information we have. You know, one family was forced to exhume their ancestors, take DNA tests, they passed those tests, and they were still kicked out anyway.

LAUREN GILGER: Wow, exhuming their own ancestors, that’s wild. So, I mean, obviously the implications of this are large, and we want to talk about those in a moment.

But let me turn to you, Santana, and talk about your own experience being disenrolled. Like, this happened to you. Tell us about the process and what this felt like.

SANTANA RABANG: So, my disenrollment started back in 2012, and I was about 17 at the time, and I’m going to be 31 here in a couple of weeks, so I was really raised throughout this political fight within my community.

And, you know, at first, I think for me personally, I didn’t believe it, you know. I couldn’t believe something like this was possible, and it really took a long time for it to settle in, like this is real, this is, this is happening, because, you know, in such small-knit communities, you have people that, you know, aren’t necessarily blood related but you still consider them your relatives, you know, your friends, your family.

And so I didn’t think that the people that I grew up with that were on the opposing side were capable of doing something like this. And so it took a while for it to kind of dawn on me, and then once it did, it kind of like hit me like a ton of bricks. You know, as I got older, I became, you know, more vocal in the fight and I just did everything that I could to be vocal about, you know, belonging and this is who I am and and this is where I come from.

But it was definitely one of, and is still, the most traumatic experience I have ever gone through in my life, and it still, you know, impacts me till this day. It’s still something that I struggle with, for sure.

LAUREN GILGER: Yeah. So, I mean, this is not just you though, right? Like, this turns out to be a very big problem that’s happening within Indigenous communities within tribes across the country, right? Tell us a little bit, Ryan, about the context here and the motivation for tribes to do this.

RYAN FLYNN: Yeah, disenrollment has spread like a wildfire. It’s only 20% of tribes have done it, but any tribe is one election away from the tribal council shifting gears. We start hearing it as, you know, membership audits, enrolment audits. These are the whisperings that start.

But, you know, at first glance, it looks like it’s 11,000 people that have been disenrolled. But then it's their children and their children’s children. In addition, you know, disenrollment takes other forms. There are enrollment moratoria where you are not allowed to get into the tribe because enrollment is closed. You can be a rightful member, have all your paperwork, but because you missed the deadline in 1989, they won’t let you in.

You know, what crime can you commit that would justify a punishment that affects your grandchildren? You know, so being disenrolled is a generational thing. The thing that really strikes me about disenrollment is if you are wrongfully removed because you have all the objective evidence that you belong, you can’t go to a state court, you can’t go to a federal court, because the tribe itself, as an entity, is effectively its own nation. If you were to appeal your disenrollment, you’re going back to the people that just kicked you out and are now benefiting from it.

LAUREN GILGER: Right. So, in terms of protections or legal remedies, was there anywhere that your family could go, Santana?

SANTANA RABANG: No. I mean, we tried our best to, you know, fight it through the court system in Nooksack. But like Ryan said, we ended up having to face the people that, you know, made the decision in the first place. And so it didn't feel like there was any anywhere we could go

LAUREN GILGER: Yeah. So, when it comes to casino revenue, how much can a tribe benefit by disenrolling even just some of the people in the tribe?

RYAN FLYNN: So, if you have 1,000 people and everyone is getting a check for $1,000 a month, if you kick out half of the people, those that remain, everyone doubles their income. You know, that’s the sick math of disenrollment.

And these are, in many cases, they’re cousins. You know, in some cases, it’s a civil war, sometimes armed, of cousins, of family members, of kin against kin, fighting each other over, you know, these resources.

But every tribe is different, every casino is different. And, you know, I want to be clear, the casino isn’t inherently a bad thing. But when you see a large population density and that can support, you know, a multibillion-dollar casino operation, that’s where the data shows where these disenrollments are happening.

LAUREN GILGER: Yeah. So, let me ask you lastly, Santana, about I guess the big picture here. Like, what do you think this does to not just your family, not just your tribe, but to Indigenous people in general in this country? Like, there was a quote in the film about going extinct basically if we continue to do this to each other.

SANTANA RABANG: Yeah, I mean, I really think it just takes us back, you know. I feel like we’ve made so much progress as a people in terms of protecting who we are and where we come from. Our culture, our way of life has constantly been under attack due to the impacts of colonization, and we’re still under attack even till this day.

And with Indigenous people, it just feels like we’re doing it to each other. We’re basically just doing what the colonizers did to us.

LAUREN GILGER: All right, we’ll leave it there. Santana Rabang, Ryan Flynn, producer and director of the new film “You’re No Indian,” joining us to talk about disenrollment. Santana, Ryan, thank you both so much for coming on The Show. Thank you for taking the time to talk to me about this. I appreciate it very much.

RYAN FLYNN: Thank you so much.

SANTANA RABANG: Thank you.

MARK BRODIE: Thanks for listening to The Show’s podcast. The Show is produced by Sativa Peterson, Nick Sanchez, Amber Victoria Singer, Athena Ankrah, and Ayana Hamilton. The Show was created by John Hoban. Our executive producer is Amy Silverman. You can find more of The Show and sign up for our newsletter at theshow.kjzz.org. You can also find us on Instagram @kjzztheshow. Thank you.

KJZZ's The Show transcripts are created on deadline. This text is edited for length and clarity, and may not be in its final form. The authoritative record of KJZZ's programming is the audio record.

>> RSVP FOR AN UPCOMING LIVE EVENT FROM THE SHOW