The House of Commons of Canada adopted Jordan’s Principle in 2007 to ensure First Nations children have equitable access to government services. In February 2025, Ottawa tightened the rules on what qualifies and the effects were swift.Figures filed at a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing in January 2026 show that in Ontario, funding for educational supports under the principle was drastically cut after the change. In a six-month period, it fell from $122 million in 2024 to $1.2 million in 2025. The number of approved requests dropped precipitously, from 2,608 to 66.Families, service providers and communities across the country have been scrambling to pay for essential services such as educational assistants, crisis teams, speech therapy and suicide-prevention programs.Meanwhile, public attention has been fixed on the approved requests that look hardest to defend, such as modelling headshots and gaming consoles.So does Jordan’s Principle need to be restructured, or does it need sustained funding? Perhaps the answer is both.A child caught between governmentsJordan’s Principle honours Jordan River Anderson, a First Nations child from Norway House Cree Nation in Manitoba. Jordan was born in 1999 with a complex medical condition requiring substantial support. Because the federal and Manitoba governments disputed who should pay for his care at home, he spent his life in a Winnipeg hospital instead of at home with his family. He died in 2005, at age 5. Advocates fought to make sure no other child would face the same fate. The result was Jordan’s Principle, which aims to guarantee First Nations children have substantively equal access to public services. Its core rule is settle who pays later; first provide the service.Since 2007, the principle has changed in scope. The federal government’s early definition was so narrow that, the tribunal later found, not a single case was approved under it. In a landmark 2016 ruling, the tribunal ordered the government to stop applying that definition. Later rulings widened Jordan’s Principle further, ensuring that it operates on the basis of substantive equality and extends to children living both on and off reserve.As access widened, costs associated with Jordan’s Principle skyrocketed. Approved funding rose for several years, reaching $1.72 billion in 2023-24. Concerns about misuse surfaced, with federal officials pointing to requests for items like snowmobiles and glow sticks. In January 2025, Jordan’s father, Ernest Anderson, posted a video on Facebook saying the program was no longer serving his son’s memory. Weeks later, the federal government tightened eligibility criteria, citing evidence of misuse.Amid this debate, the focus shifted from prioritizing the health of First Nations children to justifying drastic cuts in services. Coverage fixated on outlier requests, ultimately leading to a reproduction of what scholars call “fiscalized racism.” That narrative invites taxpayers to question where their dollars go.Yet many accusations of misuse failed to account for the full context of certain requests. In one case described before the tribunal, Indigenous Services Canada denied a physician-recommended fridge and generator needed to store medication for a child with cystic fibrosis on Walpole Island. The child died without ever receiving them.The problem isn’t a handful of inappropriate requests. It’s that profound gaps in services for First Nations children, and Indigenous communities more broadly, persist across Canada. As a result, when Jordan’s Principle opened up, the government was inundated with requests to help mitigate some of these systemic inequities. While some may be hard to fit within the scope of Jordan’s Principle, most of these requests are justified and long overdue.The era of reconciliationThe tightening in eligibility criteria for Jordan’s Principle has taken place in what’s been called the “era of reconciliation.”In theory, reconciliation aims to repair the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada and hold governments to account. In practice, as Anishinaabekwe researcher Eva Jewell argues, it often serves “to manage the conscience of a settler public,” projecting an image of Canadian benevolence while the systems causing harm stay intact. Cree poet and scholar Billy-Ray Belcourt has described reconciliation as “stubbornly ambivalent in its potentiality.” After all, none of the seven calls to action pertaining to Indigenous health care in the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada have been fulfilled. Against this backdrop of performative reconciliation, the narrowing of access to Jordan’s Principle does not seem all that surprising.Jordan’s Principle todayIn February, Indigenous Services Canada committed $1.55 billion to Jordan’s Principle through to March 31, 2027. The money is meant to steady the program for a year, but concerns remain. According to departmental records obtained by APTN News, the new funding is about $90 million less than the program spent in 2024-25, and $174 million less than it spent in 2023-24.Cindy Blackstock, executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, has warned that a fixed allocation will not suffice when it comes to supporting ongoing health-care needs. Others point out that the new eligibility rules still exclude important services for communities. Many questions also remain about the 140,000 backlogged requests. Delays in funding, which can last anywhere from 12 to 24 months, threaten critical care windows.When a program like Jordan’s Principle makes room to meet long-standing needs, it can become an easy target that is cast as a money pit. However, ensuring equity for all people in this country — given the past and present impacts of settler colonialism — comes with a cost. As Jewell points out, reconciliation must move beyond symbolic gestures to create fundamental transformation.The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.