The Indigenous World 2026: Argentina

Written on 22 April 2026. Posted in Argentina

Argentina is a federal country made up of 23 provinces and one autonomous city (Buenos Aires, the capital). According to data from the 2022 census, it has a total population of 45,892,285 million people. This latest census counted 1,306,730 people in private homes who identified themselves as Indigenous or descendants of Indigenous Peoples, accounting for 2.9% of the total population in this type of housing. In turn, the census results established the existence of 58 Indigenous Peoples.

They legally have specific constitutional rights at the federal level and in most provincial states. In addition, a set of international human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), among others, are in force and form part of the constitutional framework. ILO Convention 169 has supra-legal status (it does not form part of the body of constitutional law) and was ratified in 2000. It has been in force as an international treaty since 2001. In Argentina, the UN Declaration and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are in force with normative effect.

This article is part of the 40^th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. Find The Indigenous World 2026 in full here

Adverse context, absence of public policies

The political context in Argentina is clearly unfavourable for the recognition and implementation of the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The policy setbacks have been documented in a special report;^[1] however, it is important to emphasize the deinstitutionalization that has resulted from the relocation of the National Institute of Indigenous Affairs (INAI) within the state organizational chart and its blurring, within a state framework that ignores the existence of Indigenous Peoples.

Alongside a rolling back of the national state, powers are being transferred to the provincial level, which enables local discretion (for example, to exploit Indigenous territories, recognize/disregard those territories, or recognize/disregard legal entities, as in the case of Neuquén). This dynamic contributes nothing to achieving a minimum level of protection for Indigenous rights at the national level. The absence of public policies is being felt as territorial dispossession intensifies; when a strategy of stigmatization/criminalization is pursued (as in the cases of Facundo Jones Huala and Pablo Colhuan Nahuel, remanded in custody in Chubut, or as in the detention of leaders of the Wichí community of Misión Chaqueña in the province of Salta); or when their territories are exploited and contaminated.

This political scenario is exacerbated by the current government's express decision to ignore the historical demands of Indigenous Peoples. The national-level silence in response to their demands and lack of attention leaves implementation of the regulatory framework, the formulation of public policies and respect for their rights in the arbitrary hands of the provinces. At the same time, rights violations are being reported in numerous provinces, such as Salta, Tucumán, Neuquén, and Chubut, to name but a few. The provincial contexts mirror the national one, creating a situation that further weakens Indigenous communities, who lack contacts within the state through which to channel their demands.

2025 was marked by a rolling back of the state—in all areas, including those related to Indigenous Peoples—and the promotion of investments, some of which directly affect and impact Indigenous territories. The inclusion of a series of hydrocarbon and mining projects (e.g., the Vaca Muerta Sur oil pipeline, lithium projects such as Hombre Muerto and Río Tinto) in the large investment incentive regime (known as RIGI) is thus an example of the premise on which this government operates: an unpopulated territory, the non-existence of Indigenous communities and, therefore, an absence of rights, as well as a stubborn political decision to ignore historical claims.

Disputes over rights

2025 was marked by tensions and disputes over rights. Most notable were the struggle for territory and the management of natural resources, in addition to other rights that are relevant due to their close connection with the possibility of enjoying those already mentioned, such as legal status or free, prior and informed consultation and consent.

In the city of Neuquén, on 20 July 2025, violent repression took place at the government headquarters. The Mapuche communities had been holding a peaceful protest for several days to demand the granting of legal status to four communities. This demand, far from being abstract, is based on obligations assumed by the province, which has repeatedly undertaken to make it possible to enjoy this constitutional right. Time and again, we have witnessed state failures to comply, legitimate demands for conditions that will allow rights to be exercised, and violent actions by security forces that repress any hint of protest.

To explain these events, some relevant aspects of the context must be taken into account. The “Vaca Muerta” hydrocarbon field, and the entire oil industry that is expanding around it, requires a cleared territory. Not only is it a sacrificial territory but it also has to be an empty area that does not hinder production and does not require safeguards for those who still resist and coexist alongside the exploitation. The Mapuche communities have become a thorn in the side of oil exploitation which, in the case of Vaca Muerta, has reached its peak. Legal status is necessary for them to be recognized by the state, to exercise their right to consultation and to enjoy a set of rights, including their territorial rights.

In the province of Salta, the Wichí Misión Chaqueña community is protesting against the illegal clearing of their ancestral territory. As a result, they are being harassed by the businessman who wants to fence off and cut down trees, and their leaders have been prosecuted and imprisoned by the justice system, which disregards their rights and protects the economic interests of those who claim to have acquired territories that could not have been sold, precisely because they are Indigenous territories.

Indigenous communities across the country are mobilizing to stop evictions, which have been on the rise since the repeal of Territorial Emergency Law 26,160. This is the case in Neuquén (the Mapuche communities of Lof Xinkikew and Lof Melo, in Villa La Angostura); in Tucumán (the Mamani de Trancas family in Tafí del Valle); and in San Juan (the Huarpe Salvador Talquenca community in Encón), to name but a few examples of provinces where conflicts are taking place. The demand is clear: respect Indigenous rights, stop further territorial dispossession and address conflicts in accordance with national and international regulations.

Judicialization with mixed results

These violations of rights inevitably lead to litigation. The judicial responses obtained are highly variable, with a tendency towards criminalization. It is, however, worth highlighting a ruling from July 2025 that upheld an environmental injunction precisely so that Indigenous communities could enjoy their rights, rights that had been violated so many times. This was the case of the Supreme Court of Justice of Jujuy, which ratified the right of the Indigenous communities of Salinas Grandes and Laguna de Guayatayoc to public environmental information. This injunction was filed by the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN) and the aforementioned Indigenous communities in order to access information on lithium and borate mining claims on their territories.

The Indigenous communities of Salinas Grandes have been fighting for decades to be heard. They were the first to formulate a consultation protocol in the country, a protocol that was never respected by the provincial authorities. Their struggle led them not only to resist the onslaught of lithium exploitation—the white gold found in the territory of the Indigenous communities in the north of the country—but also to oppose the province's constitutional reform, with negative results that led to the persecution and criminalization of the communities.

It is for this reason, and because of this long history of resistance and action against state powers, that this decision is so important. It recognizes the right of communities to receive reliable environmental information, as provided for in the National Constitution, international treaties and, in particular, the Escazú Agreement.

However, the judiciary has also become the executive arm of political power in order to discipline and intimidate. Two cases demonstrate this policy. The first is that of the Mapuche Pailako community. In January 2025, this community was evicted from Los Alerces National Park in the province of Chubut. More than four years after the community—whose members are descendants of former settlers—decided to reclaim their territory, and after a long legal battle, the Federal Court of Comodoro Rivadavia finally upheld the eviction and authorized it, invoking the very Need and Urgency Decree that had repealed another decree extending the Territorial Emergency Law. This is the first case in the country in which the effects of this repeal are palpable: it opens the door to evictions by clearing the legal landscape of the law that ordered their suspension.

The second is the case of Facundo Jones Huala, a Mapuche longko (chief) who has been relentlessly persecuted by the state, and whose remand in custody was ordered on 10 June 2025. It was determined that his imprisonment would take place in a prison in the city of Rawson, in the province of Chubut, almost 1,000 kilometres from the city of Bariloche where his family lives. The arrest warrant came from the highest levels of government. Without any previous warrant for his arrest, without being caught in any criminal act, without his lawyers being aware of any open legal proceedings, he was simply deprived of his liberty. What was the justification for this political/legal decision? He was the alleged perpetrator of public intimidation, incitement to violence, apology for crime and unlawful association. It should not be forgotten that the RAM (Ancestral Mapuche Resistance), an organization of which he is a member, was placed a few months ago on the list of terrorist organizations proscribed in the country.

The judicial route remains an appropriate strategy for defending rights but it has to be understood that achieving a favourable outcome requires more than simply good arguments and good litigation. The legal field is often compromised by the political, and aligned with its interests, and legal claims therefore do not find a propitious place in which to remedy their demands. Even in the case of favourable rulings, their enforcement is a constant challenge, and those convicted often resist complying with the content of rulings that protect Indigenous rights.

Different forms of state violence

Evictions, raids, and repression are the violent forms that state actions take in response to the demands of Indigenous Peoples. Violence prevails over dialogue and the building of relationships that could reconcile the interests of different sectors. Despite the strenuous attempts by Indigenous communities and organizations to create spaces for dialogue, these are frustrated by the actions of different state bodies, which opt for intimidation and threats against a backdrop in which Indigenous rights become obstacles to the policies they are seeking to implement.

In Esquel, Chubut province, in February 2025, a woman living in a Mapuche community was remanded in custody on suspicion of being responsible for a fire on a ranch near the town of Trevelin. After a series of violent raids, a suitable scapegoat linked to the Pillan Mahuiza Mapuche community was found, attributing responsibility for the events to a person close to them in order to implicate a group of Indigenous communities in the region. In a crude and grotesque display, and taking advantage of the presence of the provincial governor, it was loudly announced that one of those responsible had been arrested. At that time, two months of preventive detention were ordered so that the prosecution could continue its investigation of the case. There was, and still is, no evidence to prove the involvement of the woman, who is now a victim of state persecution and violence. At a hearing held a few days ago, it was decided to release her, precisely because the prosecution was unable to gather the required evidence. Who will compensate the woman detained for the damage caused, her suffering, her anguish, being deprived of her liberty and accused of such acts?

Almost a year later (January 2026), Mapuche communities are once again being linked to the fires ravaging Patagonia. Organizations and communities are responding by denouncing the state’s neglect, the lack of prevention policies and the state’s apathy, which once more resorts to the argument of arson to avoid responsibility for events which, yet again, strip communities of their territories.

In April 2025, the violent eviction of the Kolla Cueva del Inca community in the province of Jujuy highlighted a long-standing territorial conflict with hotel entrepreneurs. In this case, despite the fact that the community is recognized by the provincial government and has had legal status since 2001, the justice system is protecting the businessmen and, ultimately, tourism interests prevail over Indigenous territorial rights.

In Las Lomitas, in the province of Formosa, near the community of Campo del Cielo, in April 2025, a blockade of Provincial Route 28 led to a serious confrontation with injuries to both the Pilagá community members and police officers. It should be emphasized that the roadblock was the result of the desperation of communities, who saw their homes, animals and crops flooded while the state stood idly by and did nothing to mitigate the damage. State violence, then, by action and by omission. Not only does the state ignore the basic rights of Indigenous communities but, when demands are made, it orders the security forces to repress them.

These examples illustrate the different forms of violence that the state exercises over Indigenous communities, whether through the use of force or through the judiciary, persecuting and harassing them. It is striking that, in such dissimilar cases, the result is the same: a lack of protection, the violation of rights, arbitrariness and violence.

Resistance and offense, the greatest challenges

Against a backdrop of constant harassment—whether due to ignorance or rejection, criminalization, dispossession through evictions, or other issues—resistance is one of the ways to continue demanding and protecting the rights that have been achieved. The struggle for rights has become one of the central issues for Indigenous communities, who are aware of the dangerous rollback in public policies that is currently affecting them.

This situation has grown worse under the current government, which openly disregards Indigenous rights. Indigenous communities are now under threat, with few tools to stop the government's onslaught, very little room for political negotiation, and a national and provincial level of government that is totally insensitive to their demands and does not fear violating the Constitution in order to strengthen an economic and productive model that is far removed from Indigenous Peoples.

Institutional designs, the state matrix, and constitutions always have a claim to continuity and a vision for the future. But it is in concrete policies and political decisions that their impact and capacity for transformation are played out. Although it seems that we are witnessing a failure of legislative changes, these are still essential to push for transformations in other dimensions. They are clearly not enough, however. It seems that creativity and greater proactivity are needed to reverse a trend that demonstrates historical continuity. Reversing course is not impossible but it requires precise political strategies, unity and dialogue.

The challenges are multiplying. Courses of action can, however, be taken to reverse adverse situations. In Mendoza, by means of Resolution 130/25, the Mining Directorate of the Ministry of Energy and Environment set out the consultation process without first consulting Indigenous communities. The consultation created scenarios of supposed participation without the communities being able to influence the final decisions.

Following an appeal lodged by the Malalweche Territorial Identity Organization, Resolution 139-EyA ordered the revocation of Resolution 130 and the initiation of a dialogue process with the communities. The Indigenous organization and the communities are calling for a provincial law to regulate consultation in different areas of the state, in accordance with international standards set out in both ILO Convention 169 and rulings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

This revision of criteria that were adopted without consultation by the province of Mendoza provides some important lessons. It shows how a claim organized by Indigenous communities and their organizations can have such an impact that an adopted measure is reversed. The decision, at the administrative level, to review a resolution that deviates from the entire regulatory framework is a sign that Indigenous Peoples can demand to be heard and bring about change from that position. This single example shows that there are paths to follow, despite the difficulties ahead.

Silvina Ramírez is a lawyer and doctor of law. She is a postgraduate lecturer at the Faculty of Law of the University of Buenos Aires (UBA), the University of Palermo (UP) and other universities in Argentina and Latin America. She is a founding member of the Association of Lawyers of Indigenous Law (AADI). She is a member of the Executive Committee of CEPPAS (Centre for Public Policy for Socialism) and a member of the editorial team of the Infoterritorial news portal (a CEPPAS project) on territorial conflicts and Indigenous Peoples (www.infoterritorial.com.ar). She is a member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for Comparative Studies in Criminal and Social Sciences (INECIP), Argentine representative of the Latin American Network of Legal Anthropology (RELAJU) and member of the Latin American Group for Studies on Legal Pluralism (PRUJULA). Contact: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This article is part of the 40^th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. Find The Indigenous World 2026 in full here

Notes and references 

^[1] Ramírez, Silvina. Los Pueblos Indígenas en la Argentina de la derecha libertaria. Argentina: IWGIA, 2025. https://iwgia.org/es/recursos/publicaciones/5818-2025-los-pueblos-ind%C3%ADgenas-en-la-argentina-de-la-derecha-libertaria-de-silvina-ram%C3%ADrez.html

Tags: Human rights