Sen. Dan Sullivan won a commitment from Adam Telle, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the US Army Corps of Engineers, to accelerate federal efforts to mitigate the growing threat of glacial lake outburst flooding in Juneau.
During a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee confirmation hearing, Sullivan emphasized the urgent need for federal assistance to mitigate the recurring summer floods caused by the Mendenhall Glacier.
The glacial outbursts, which have become increasingly destructive in recent years, damaged over 200 homes in 2024 and caused millions in property and infrastructure losses.
“This is a unique challenge,” Sullivan said, noting that the Corps is uniquely qualified to help. He recalled initial Corps estimates that a solution might take up to 10 years to develop, a timeline he characterized as unacceptable.
“Can you commit to me, and really importantly, the citizens of Juneau, Alaska, that the Corps is going to bring its best minds in a very rapid way to help address this unique challenge?” Sullivan asked.
Telle responded by acknowledging the complexity of glacial outburst floods and committed to addressing the issue promptly.
“The Corps of Engineers was made to solve tough problems,” Telle said, pledging to work with Sullivan and Juneau “in an expedited manner.”
Telle also affirmed his intention to carry out President Trump’s executive order, Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential, which directs federal agencies to accelerate critical infrastructure and permitting projects in the state, including the port in Nome.
Sen. Sullivan’s engagement with the Corps and federal agencies on the Juneau flooding issue spans several months and includes efforts ranging from emergency response coordination to securing funding and pushing legislative action:
In August, Sullivan visited flood-affected areas in Juneau and initiated emergency response coordination with FEMA. From September through November, the Corps visited Juneau multiple times to assess damage and provide technical insight.
In October, President Joe Biden approved a major disaster declaration following advocacy from the Alaska delegation. In December, Sullivan secured a provision in the American Relief Act to fund a Corps study on glacial flooding. And in March, the Corps allocated $4.75 million toward a feasibility study to develop long-term solutions.
Sullivan has also written several times to the Office of Management and Budget requesting additional funding and prioritization of permitting resources to address the challenges specific to Alaska’s geography and climate.
The Mendenhall River floods, triggered by sudden releases of water from a glacially dammed lake, represent a relatively new threat to valley neighborhoods in Juneau.
Senate Bill 64, a contentious piece of legislation aimed at eroding the integrity of Alaska’s election laws, failed to advance out of the House Finance Committee this session following strong public outcry and unified resistance from House Republicans.
The bill, championed by Senate Democrats, faced intense scrutiny during a flurry of legislative activity in recent weeks. Alaskans from across the state submitted public testimony, written comments, and direct appeals to lawmakers, expressing concerns that the bill’s provisions would diminish — not enhance — election security in a state that already has a reputation for lax election security.
Among the most debated elements of SB 64 were proposals to eliminate the witness signature requirement for absentee ballots, create a permanent absentee voter list, expand ballot collection and harvesting practices, and authorize widespread use of unsecured ballot drop boxes.
House Republicans argued that these measures would significantly weaken existing safeguards designed to ensure voter identity and ballot integrity.
“Election integrity is a very real issue,” said Rep. DeLena Johnson of Palmer. “Judging from the number of Alaskans making their voices heard over the past several days, this issue needs much further assessment and better solutions than SB 64 can provide.”
Rep. Jamie Allard of Eagle River offered a sharp rebuke of the bill: “This bill greases the skids for all mail-in elections like Anchorage has. SB 64 is the biggest hoax that the Democrats have promulgated so far this year — and that is saying a lot since there are some other bills that are contenders.”
Critics also emphasized the rushed timeline of the legislation.
“Rushing a nonpartisan bill through at the last minute isn’t how the legislative process is meant to work,” said Rep. Frank Tomaszewski of Fairbanks. “I’m glad we’ll have the chance to take a closer look at SB 64 next year.”
Beyond procedural concerns, opponents also saw the bill as a partisan attempt to institutionalize policies that would benefit one side of the aisle.
“Instead of focusing on commonsense improvements that both sides could support, Democrats insisted on packing the bill with their full wish list—including permanent vote-by-mail, unlimited ballot drop boxes, and the elimination of witness signatures,” said Rep. Sarah Vance of Homer.
Longtime political figure and election expert Randy Ruedrich also submitted a formal statement to the House Finance Committee on May 15, warning that SB 64 lays the groundwork for statewide mail-in voting systems similar to those already adopted by the Municipality of Anchorage, a point made by Rep. Allard as well.
“Mail-in voting has been found to create significant voter fraud in other states,” Ruedrich stated. “The bill would establish permanent absentee-by-mail ballot distribution, which sends an absentee ballot to a voter’s old temporary address. As long as these ballots are returned, the state must continue sending ballots to that address — potentially to unauthorized agents.”
He also highlighted the removal of the witness signature requirement as a dangerous step.
“The witness signature affirms the identity of the voter,” he said. “Democrats say the witness signature is inconvenient. Well, so are voter ID, voter registration, and voting itself.”
Ruedrich further criticized the bill’s impact on military voters and other Alaskans temporarily out of state, arguing that SB 64 would “destroy the Alaska right to vote” for those who can’t return to their prior physical residences, such as military personnel or students.
“This Democrat ploy will eliminate our registered enlisted personnel who have viewed Alaska as their only home during decades-long military careers,” he said.
While the bill is now effectively on hold, House Republicans have emphasized their commitment to secure and transparent elections. The Republican caucus pledged to continue working on election reform measures that have broad public support and that maintain voter trust.
The bill’s prime sponsor, Sen. Bill Wielechowski of Anchorage, will push the bill forward in 2026, but has lost his quest to enact the fraud-enhancement changes to Alaska’s election laws prior to the 2026 election.
A curious ballet around the Alaska LNG Project has been unfolding on the international stage with some of America’s allies in Asia.
It’s raising questions about whether the pipeline will at last find the funding that it needs after so much song and dance. It is a story some four decades long. The difference now, though, is that President Donald Trump is showing potential investors abroad both the carrot and the stick, i.e., the threat of tariffs.
Early into his administration, the president began to pressure Asian countries into exploring Alaska’s ample energy reserves. Whether the approach will bear fruit is yet to be determined.
Last week, the Ministry of Energy of Thailand asked two major energy companies, Ego and PTT, to engage the United States in discussions about LNG development in Alaska.
Assuming Thailand commits to investing in gas exploration and production, the country could import between 3 Mt/year and 5 Mt/year of LNG through the proposed 800-mile pipeline. But that might be assuming a lot.
In March, the Taiwanese state-owned CPC Corporation entered into an agreement with the administration of Gov. Mike Dunleavy to buy Alaskan LNG if the pipeline ever gets built. “It is a bridge connecting the future prosperity of both Alaska and Taiwan,” Dunleavy said.
That, however, could be a big “if,” and the fine print is notable.
What Taiwan actually inked was a non-binding letter of support. That is far from anything like a concrete commitment to the completion of the beleaguered LNG project.
Japan and South Korea have also joined Taiwan and Thailand in exploring potential investment opportunities in the $44 billion natural gas project.
Many of these countries could indeed benefit from buying Alaskan fuel, as it would likely be cheaper than acquiring it from other sources, like those in the Middle East. Such a collaborative endeavor would also be consistent with Trump’s broader energy agenda.
The issue of commitment, or a lack thereof, remains. South Korea’s Industry Minister Ahn Duk-geun has merely agreed to establish a “working-level group” to discuss the project, which has spooked investors for nearly as long as Alaska has been part of the Union.
However, all that could change in June, when the Trump administration’s National Energy Dominance Council will hold a summit in Anchorage with the LNG project as the centerpiece. Delegations from both Japan and Korea will be present.
The main reservations of potential Asian partners with regard to a long-term commitment will likely center on the pipeline’s big price tag and its sustainability. Japan recently reaffirmed its goal of aggressively expanding its nuclear power capabilities by 2030.
“We can use renewable power to the maximum, and we will restart nuclear power, the safe one, as much as possible,” Japanese Industry Minister Yoji Muto told reporters late last year.
South Korea has likewise made huge investments in nuclear power with a $100 million financial pledge in February to businesses in the sector. Just this week, Taiwan announced that it would restart its atomic plants in a major energy policy shift that indicates growing concerns over geopolitical instability.
A long-term commitment to developing and importing Alaskan LNG might not make a great deal of sense to countries that plan on leaning into nuclear power in the near future. So the question is whether the Trump administration thinks it can convince them that there is more to gain than lose from buying American.
Pedro Gonzalez writes news and opinion at Must Read Alaska.
The Alaska Department of Law filed a formal request for a hearing to challenge the Alaska Superior Court’s recent determination that the Department of Fish and Game acted in bad faith by adopting and implementing an emergency regulation for bear removal in support of the Mulchatna caribou herd.
The court’s May 12 ruling followed a temporary restraining order issued earlier, halting predator control efforts initiated under a regulation adopted by the Board of Game.
The emergency measure by the Board of Game was aimed at reducing predation by bears on the declining Mulchatna caribou herd, a critical resource for rural subsistence users in western Alaska, which has been dramatically reduced in the past decade. In 2016, the herd was estimated at around 27,000 caribou. As of 2025, the population is around 15,000 caribou, well below the department’s minimum population objective of 30,000.
Attorney General Treg Taylor defended the State’s actions, stating that the Fish and Game operated within its legal and constitutional boundaries. He emphasized that the agency followed all applicable laws and judicial directives, asserting that the characterization of the State’s conduct as bad faith was unfounded.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commissioner Doug Vincent-Lang echoed this defense, characterizing the accusations as harmful to the department’s credibility.
He highlighted the program’s support among local communities and its early signs of success, including increased calf survival rates. Vincent-Lang underscored the Department’s compliance with the Court’s orders and affirmed the State’s intent to seek legal remedies to resume the program.
“As the filing and affidavits show, neither I nor the Department acted in bad faith in authorizing predator control activities to rebuild the Mulchatna caribou herd,” said Vincent-Lang. “Such accusations are baseless and attack the credibility of the Department. Our predator control program, supported by local users, communities, advisory committees, and the Alaska Federation of Natives, had already shown success with improved calf survival and herd growth.
Stopping this effort in its third year puts that progress — and our commitment to rural subsistence users—at risk. We are complying with the newly released order but will pursue legal avenues to restore this program, which is clearly authorized under Alaska’s intensive management statute.”
The controversy centers on a five-hour hearing held on May 6, during which the Superior Court declined to evaluate the legitimacy of the emergency regulation, citing jurisdictional limitations.
The court’s May 7 Order explicitly stated that it did not prohibit predator control efforts and did not address the validity of the emergency regulation itself.
On May 9, the State informed both the court and plaintiffs of its intent to proceed with bear removal activities under the still-active emergency regulation. These efforts were halted once the court issued the temporary restraining order.
In its May 12 ruling, based solely on the limited record from the May 6 hearing, the court concluded that the State acted in bad faith. However, the State argues that the court’s decision was premature and based on an incomplete record, without evidence or examination of the emergency regulation process.
Emergency regulations in Alaska are governed by distinct statutory provisions and remain valid for 120 days. The State maintains that plaintiffs had not formally challenged the regulation’s legality through the current case or separate legal action. The court also did not evaluate the Board of Game’s emergency finding before concluding that the State’s actions were irrational and arbitrary.
The State’s latest filing seeks a hearing to present excluded information, including the statutory authority for the emergency regulation, the subsistence importance of the Mulchatna caribou, and whether the emergency regulation’s validity was ever properly before the Court.
A decision on whether the court will grant the requested hearing remains pending.
Updated: Why West provoked and prolongs Russia-Ukraine war?
Thirty-five years ago, this spring, Mikhail Gorbachev, then President of the Soviet Socialist Republic, was awarded an Honorary Doctorate in Humanities from the University of Alaska Southeast. Then-UAS Chancellor Marshall Lind invited Soviet Ambassador Yuri Dubinin to accept this award on Gorbachev’s behalf.
Dubinin arrived at Juneau with an entourage of six Soviet officials. Back then, I taught Russian Studies and archaeology at UAS and was assigned to accompany the delegation. In fact, Dubinin was the first Soviet ambassador to visit Alaska, post-World War II.
Dubinin was the Soviet ambassador to the United States during much of the turbulent 1980s’ perestroika period. In a Washington post piece, he described himself as a “popularizer of perestroika”—the radical reform efforts of Gorbachev. Dubinin also oversaw opening the Russian embassy to news conferences under Gorbachev’s initiatives.
In Alaska, the mid-1980s through 1990s and early 2000s was an enthusiastic period of the Soviet/Russian–Alaska relationships in nearly all cultural, educational and governmental spheres. I was a busy person, translating, almost daily, for all involved in the Russian-Alaska affairs; the enrollment in my Russian language classes at UAS was over the limit, with a long waiting list. Indeed, it was a promising hope to end Cold War tensions and begin a new era of mutually productive and friendly relationship between two great nations.
Nevertheless, whether under Soviet/Russian leadership of Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov, Gorbachev, Yeltsin or Putin, the U.S. and West never stopped its Cold War policies of undermining USSR/Russia. In the late 1970s, President Jimmy Carter provided military and logistical support to the Afghan Mujahideen, the precursor to the Taliban, thereby provoking Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
In fact, every successive U.S. president continued covert and overt interference in countries on Russia’s southern borders, including former Soviet Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirgizstan, Tadzhikistan and Turkmenistan, and Georgia and Ukraine.
The ideological architect of the strategy to contain the Soviet Union during Carter presidency was Zbigniew Brzezinski—the U.S. national security advisor and antagonist of the Soviet regime. Indeed, Ukraine played a pivotal role in the so-called Brzezinski Doctrine, which identifies the country as key to preventing Russian–European economic and political integration. Still today, the U.S. foreign establishment is rife with Brzezinski proteges and anti-Russian Cold War ideology.
With Ukraine, because of Brzezinski’s anti-Russian ideology, the West made a major strategic bet that eventually failed. The crippling sanctions against Russia since 2014 were expected to crater the Russian economy, resulting in a popular uprising and leading to the replacement of Vladimir Putin with a pro-Western leader. The hope was that this wishful dream would lead to a pro-Western globalist taking control of the Kremlin, resulting in a boon for Wall Street, as Russia is the richest country in the world in terms of natural resources.
With the growing demand for natural resources, Russia represents a rich investment opportunity in the unforeseen future. However, these Western sanctions against Russia completely failed. In 2024, European Union’s GDP grew 1.7%, while Russia’s grew 4.2%.
Soon after the dissolution of the Soviet Union—as early as 1993—President Bill Clinton started pushing for NATO expansion in Europe, including Ukraine, to which many strategically thinking American sociologists and historians strongly objected. This is how the slippery road to the current crisis might escalate into potential nuclear conflicts.
After gaining its independence in 1991, Ukraine could expect a bright future. At that time, Ukraine (with exception of Russia) was the largest country (territory) in Europe, with a population of nearly 52 million citizens, and sixth largest GDP in Europe. Today, Ukraine population is under 30 million citizens with lowest GDP per capita in Europe (per capita GNI of US$3,540).
Having vital industrial and agricultural sectors, a favorable climate, and fertile land, the country needed effective anti-corruption reforms, a certain level of autonomy for its regions with large Russian ethnic populations, and, most importantly, neutral status with no membership in any military blocs to become one of the most prosperous European states within its 1991 borders.
Instead, billions of dollars from the U.S., Canada, other Western countries, and George Soros poured into Ukraine—not to boost its economy but to reformat public opinion, which overwhelmingly favored neutral status and opposed joining NATO. This influence from the West helped to instigate the “Orange” revolution regime change in 2004, and then “Maidan” in 2014, which was directly coordinated by then-Vice President Joe Biden with Victoria Nuland from the White House in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv.
The new Ukrainian government, selected by Washington and the West, immediately declared its intention to join NATO. In fact, if not for this 2014 coup, there would be no annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by Russia in 2014, no war today in East Ukraine, and no risk of potential nuclear World War III.
In short, the U.S. and Western policies of using Ukrainians as cannon fodder to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia denigrates and contradicts the fundamental spirit and soul of America itself. While claiming to adhere to Western/Judeo-Christian values, the U.S. and European Union provoked and continues to fund a prolonged war between two nations that have lived together for over three centuries and are bound together by close historical, linguistic, religious, economic, cultural, and family ties.
No one can predict how the Russian-Ukrainian/West conflict will end; but one thing is certain that the Russian government and people do not take ultimatums very well. Recent pledges and demands of the European Union to accelerate and increase military assistance to Ukraine will only prolong this war. Indeed, as drums of World War III keep banging, those who are not among decision-makers or on the battlefields should, at least, try to clear the smog of this war.
Alexander Dolitsky was born and raised in Kiev in the former Soviet Union. He received an M.A. in history from Kiev Pedagogical Institute, Ukraine in 1976; an M.A. in anthropology and archaeology from Brown University in 1983; and enrolled in the Ph.D. program in anthropology at Bryn Mawr College from 1983 to 1985, where he was also lecturer in the Russian Center. In the USSR, he was a social studies teacher for three years and an archaeologist for five years for the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. In 1978, he settled in the United States. Dolitsky visited Alaska for the first time in 1981, while conducting field research for graduate school at Brown. He then settled first in Sitka in 1985 and then in Juneau in 1986. From 1985 to 1987, he was U.S. Forest Service archaeologist and social scientist. He was an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Russian Studies at the University of Alaska Southeast from 1985 to 1999; Social Studies Instructor at the Alyeska Central School, Alaska Department of Education and Yukon-Koyukuk School District from 1988 to 2006; and Director of the Alaska-Siberia Research Center from 1990 to 2022. From 2006 to 2010, Alexander Dolitsky served as a Delegate of the Russian Federation in the United States for the Russian Compatriots program. He has done 30 field studies in various areas of the former Soviet Union (including Siberia), Central Asia, South America, Eastern Europe and the United States (including Alaska). Dolitsky was a lecturer on the World Discoverer, Spirit of Oceanus, and Clipper Odyssey vessels in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic regions. He was a Project Manager for the WWII Alaska-Siberia Lend Lease Memorial, which was erected in Fairbanks in 2006. Dolitsky has published extensively in the fields of anthropology, history, archaeology and ethnography. His more recent publications include Fairy Tales and Myths of the Bering Strait Chukchi, Ancient Tales of Kamchatka, Tales and Legends of the Yupik Eskimos of Siberia, Old Russia in Modern America: Living Traditions of the Russian Old Believers in Alaska, Allies in Wartime: The Alaska-Siberia Airway During World War II, Spirit of the Siberian Tiger: Folktales of the Russian Far East, Living Wisdom of the Russian Far East: Tales and Legends from Chukotka and Alaska, and Pipeline to Russia: The Alaska-Siberia Air Route in World War II.
As Republicans move forward with a sweeping budget reconciliation bill aimed at funding President Donald Trump’s legislative priorities, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski is emerging as a vocal opponent, urging caution on efforts to dismantle former President Joe Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act.
According to Politico, Murkowski is advocating for a more measured approach to rolling back the IRA’s “clean energy” subsidies, which are now a primary target in the GOP’s proposed budget cuts. The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022 without any Republican support. Murkowski voted no to the bill back then and Vice President Kamala Harris broke the 50-50 tie to pass the spending bill, which is estimated to cost more than $1 trillion by 2032 and up to $4.7 trillion by 2050. While Republicans are seeking significant savings to fund their agenda, Murkowski is warning that an overly aggressive repeal could have long-term consequences, particularly for energy projects in Alaska.
“Taking a big hammer to these credits isn’t the way,” Murkowski reportedly said to Politico, pushing for what she described as a “cautious and conscientious approach.”
Her words come at the same time Moody’s has downgraded the United States’ long-term issuer and senior unsecured credit ratings from Aaa to Aa1, stripping the US of its last top-tier credit rating; Fitch had done so in 2023, and Standard & Poor had in 2011. Moody’s cited the rising US debt burden, now over $36 trillion, persistent fiscal deficits, and political polarization as key reasons for the downgrade. Federal deficits are expected to reach nearly 9% of GDP by 2035, driven by increased interest payments, rising entitlement spending, and low revenue generation.
Murkowski’s defense of the Inflation Reduction Act landed just as House Republicans are preparing to vote on a reconciliation package that would eliminate billions in subsidies for electric vehicles, household energy efficiency improvements, and clean hydrogen and nuclear energy development.
The “Big Beautiful Bill,” as it’s known, also proposes ending the transferability of energy tax credits, which allows companies to sell the tax credits, and includes provisions to limit foreign, particularly Chinese, entities from benefiting.
Murkowski is with a small group of Republicans working behind the scenes to salvage the IRA’s “clean energy” provisions. In April, she and three other GOP senators asked Senate Majority Leader John Thune to protect certain tax credits tied to “clean energy” technologies.
The senator has previously expressed concern about retaliation from the Trump administration and remains one of the more liberal members of her party. Earlier this week she said she would work to block the bill’s provision that cut funding to Planned Parenthood, as she remains a staunch supporter of abortion on demand.
According to an April 2025 CNBC report, Brendan Duval, CEO of Glenfarne Group, noted there is “quite a lot of inquiries from India,” in being an investor and possibly buyer of Alaska gas.
Glenfarne is the company that has the contract to build and majority own the proposed gasline project that is moving quickly due to aggressive work by Gov. Mike Dunleavy and President Donald Trump.
India could become a potential partner alongside Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
However, no concrete deals or agreements with India have been reported, unlike Taiwan, which signed a non-binding letter of intent in March 2025 to purchase six million metric tons of LNG annually, or Thailand, which is negotiating for up to five million tons.
The interest from India appears to be part of broader Asian engagement spurred by Trump’s push for the project and tariff policies.
Fox business writer Charles Gasparino wrote on X on Thursday: “SCOOP: According to people close to the White House the deal w Japan is still not ready to be announced. Could be a week or so away. Negotiations center on Japan buying from the Alaska LNG pipeline. India is there, my sources say.”
Later, he wrote: “BREAKING: @SecScottBessent confirms my reporting that trade deals w India and Japan are on deck with, and as I reported last week, India being the likely first. Story developing.” The negotiations appear to be with the White House, according to MRAK sources.
Meanwhile, interest from the Trump Administration continues to build.
“We are thinking about a big LNG project in Alaska that South Korea, Japan [and] Taiwan are interested in financing and taking a substantial portion of the offtake,” Sec. Bessent told reporters in April. The agreement would help meet Trump Administration goal of reducing the US trade deficit.
“You can imagine the geopolitical enhancements whether it’s for tariff or military reasons — Taiwan is really, really focused on getting that signed up,” Duval told CNBC in an interview. Taiwan has also offered to invest directly in Alaska LNG and supply equipment, said Duval, who will attend the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference June 3-5.
The India interest has not been widely reported but is sure to emerge as a topic at the conference, a meeting that has attracted top energy representatives from Japan, Korea, Thailand, and Taiwan, as well as Interior Sec. Doug Burgum, Energy Sec. Chris Wright, and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.
A new report released by the Alaska Small Business Development Center highlights a shift in the challenges and outlooks faced by small businesses across the state in the first quarter of 2025, driven largely by inflation, rising operating costs, and political uncertainty.
The findings stem from the SBDC’s 2025 Quick Pulse Survey, which followed up on an initial survey conducted at the end of 2024. Of the 958 businesses that participated in the earlier survey, 273 — nearly 29% — responded to the new round of 13 questions issued in April. The new round of questions was issued due to the center’s sense that business conditions had shifted and that the 2024 report might not reflect attitudes in 2025.
While the 2024 survey focused heavily on workforce challenges and client acquisition, the 2025 data shows a dramatic shift in business concerns. The top three challenges cited in the new survey were:
Increase in the cost of goods/inflation
Operating costs
Political uncertainty
This marks the first time political uncertainty has cracked the top three challenges in the survey’s eight-year history, even during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, it had never placed in the top 10, according to the SBDC.
The shift in concerns may indicate that Alaska’s small businesses are moving from a growth-focused mindset to one more centered on economic survival. Rising costs, often linked to volatile global marketplace, replaced prior concerns such as attracting customers and hiring qualified employees.
“The difference this year appears to be rooted in the nature of the disruption,” the report notes. “While the COVID-19 crisis was health-related, the current pressures stem from global economic policies and trade tensions.”
The financial outlook of business owners has also taken a sharp turn. After four consecutive years of increasing optimism, the percentage of businesses expecting their financial situation to be “good” or “very good” in the next 12 months dropped from 60% at the end of 2024 to just 46% in early 2025.
This was the lowest level of optimism since the manufactured Covid pandemic crisis in 2020.
One of the most telling changes was in how businesses are preparing for the year ahead. For the first time since 2021, there was a noticeable uptick in the number of businesses planning to seek outside capital, rising from 32% to 36%. However, unlike the pandemic-era surge, which was driven by federal relief programs and investment in growth, today’s interest in capital is viewed as a defensive move to help maintain operations in the face of mounting costs.
The SBDC noted that Alaska’s unique economic and geographic challenges, including remote location, small population, and labor shortages, continue to exacerbate broader economic issues. High shipping costs, already a longstanding issue, are now colliding with inflation and global trade disruptions, making it even harder for some small businesses to remain competitive.
“The 2024-2025 comparison reveals a significant shift toward uncertainty in Alaska’s small business outlook. Positive sentiment has declined sharply, with businesses reporting “Good” or “Very Good” conditions falling from 60% to 46%. Most notably, neutral responses (“Neither Good nor Poor”) jumped by 10 percentage points to reach 41%, indicating businesses are increasingly hesitant to make definitive forecasts. Negative sentiment nearly doubled from 8% to 14% in the first few months of 2025. This is the highest level of negative sentiment since the height of the COVID pandemic in 2020 and indicates that businesses are struggling to adjust to the new economic headwinds,” the report says.
Hiring qualified help remains a challenge. A substantial portion of businesses (22%) cite a lack of qualified applicants as the primary challenge, highlighting the need for skilled workers in Alaska’s small business sector. Another 15% struggle with compensation, noting that they cannot offer competitive pay to attract talent. Other challenges include seasonal issues (13%) and inconsistent workloads (14%), which create uncertainty and make long-term hiring decisions difficult.
“This is becoming a more pressing issue as Alaska’s population continues to decline in the 18-65 year old range, reducing an already limited population of potential workers,” the report says. One respondent lamented that “Everyone wants $30/hour but brings no experience to the table.”
Pacific Dataport, Inc., a satellite middle-mile provider based in Anchorage, has officially launched its Nome Gateway, a major step in expanding broadband access to some of the state’s most remote communities.
The new gateway leverages Starlink’s low-earth orbit satellite technology to deliver the company’s Aurora LEO enterprise “backhaul service” to internet service providers serving the North Slope and Northwest regions.
The Nome Gateway is a notable infrastructure achievement for the region, offering more than 10 gigabits per second (a unit of measurement for data transfer rate) of satellite capacity to local ISPs.
It’s the largest commercial satellite capacity ever deployed in a single location globally, the company said. The gateway is designed to meet the growing demands of remote learning, telemedicine, and emergency response in rural Alaska.
By integrating Starlink’s high-speed, low-latency LEO technology into its service platform, Pacific Dataport is providing ISPs with the tools needed to offer reliable broadband to areas where traditional infrastructure is often infeasible due to harsh climate and rugged terrain, the company explained. The gateway also acts as a resilient backup network, helping maintain continuity of service in the event of weather-related or other disruptions.
The collaboration between Pacific Dataport and Starlink combines local expertise with global satellite innovation, creating a scalable and redundant system that can adapt to the evolving needs of Alaska’s underserved regions. The Nome Gateway supports critical connectivity for institutions such as schools, healthcare facilities, tribal organizations, and emergency responders, fundamentally changing how remote Alaskan communities engage with essential services.
This new deployment builds on Pacific Dataport’s broader mission to close the digital divide across the state. In addition to the Nome Gateway, the company continues to develop and operate infrastructure projects like Aurora 4A, a dedicated micro-GEO satellite launched in 2023 with partner Astranis that is designed specifically to serve Alaska’s unique geographic and connectivity needs.
As broadband demands grow, Pacific Dataport plans to replicate the Nome Gateway model in other parts of Alaska, extending service to more rural areas from the Arctic Circle to the Aleutian Islands.
