Page 15 – Must Read Alaska

Alaska House Education Committee Tackles Cyberbullying and Funding Issues

Politics

-

February 24, 2026

Alaska House Education Committee Tackles Cyberbullying and Funding Issues

The Alaska House Education Committee delved into pressing issues facing the state’s schools, from innovative student engagement programs to legislative proposals aimed at combating modern bullying and stabilizing funding. The meeting, chaired by Co-Chair Rep. Andi Story (D – Juneau) and Rep. Rebecca Himschoot (NA – Sitka), blended celebration with policy deliberation, highlighting both successes in local education and the challenges posed by technology, declining enrollment, and special needs services.

Addressing the Digital Battlefield – HB 240 Targets Cyberbullying and AI Impersonation

The committee’s legislative agenda kicked off with House Bill 240, sponsored by Rep. David Nelson (R – Anchorage), which seeks to mandate school districts to adopt policies against digital harassment and non-consensual digital impersonation. This bill arrives at a critical juncture, as advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and social media have amplified bullying tactics, particularly among youth. Nelson opened by painting a stark picture of the evolving threats: “As technological advances in artificial intelligence and the proliferation of social media have made clear, school children are now susceptible to new methods of bullying and harassment.” He emphasized how deepfakes and impersonations disproportionately affect women and children, urging the need for updated frameworks to empower schools.

Staffer Donna Fox Page provided a detailed sectional breakdown, explaining how the bill amends existing statutes under AS 14.33 to require policy adoption, integrate training, enhance reporting, protect against false accusations, and define key terms. The effective date is set for January 1, 2027, allowing districts time to prepare. A poignant moment came from student testimony by Alexandra (last name withheld due to her minor status), an Anchorage high schooler who shared her experiences with online torment. “Bullying doesn’t happen in the hallways or in the cafeteria anymore. It happens on many social media platforms like Instagram, Snapchat, or TikTok,” she testified, describing how fabricated images and accounts erode mental health and classroom focus. “It impacts how you walk into school the next day, how you focus in class, and how you see yourself.” Alexandra’s plea was straightforward: “We’re not asking for anything extreme. We’re asking for rules that reflect the world we actually live in.”

Committee members engaged deeply, raising concerns about scope, constitutionality, and implementation. Rep. Schwanke (R – Glennallen) highlighted the rapid evolution of synthetic media, sharing a personal anecdote about AI-generated faces and voices, and questioned whether the policy should extend statewide. Nelson agreed on the need for broader AI legislation in the coming years. Representative Underwood brought emotional weight, referencing recent tragedies: “Just in the last seventy-two hours, I have read and heard two different mothers’ testimonies about their children no longer being with us because of AI bullying.” She advocated for action at state and federal levels to save lives.

Co-Chair Story inquired about outreach to districts like Anchorage and the Alaska Association of School Boards (AASB), noting potential overlaps with existing model policies. Deputy Director Kelly Manning from the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) clarified that while statewide bullying guidelines exist and are being updated for online elements, AI-specific harassment like deepfakes isn’t explicitly covered yet. “We do have statewide policy around bullying and harassment and our e-learning materials… are being updated to include information regarding online bullying and harassment,” Manning said, but admitted the “fast-changing landscape” demands more.

Rep. Dibert (D – Fairbanks) flagged First Amendment issues: “Have you looked into freedom of speech when it’s online—if that’s going to affect this?” Nelson acknowledged this hadn’t been fully explored, signaling a need for legal review. Rep. Eischeid (D – Anchorage) sought clarity on definitions, asking if something as innocuous as an emoji could qualify as harassment. Page distinguished intentional impersonation from symbolic expression, noting emojis likely wouldn’t meet the threshold.

The discussion underscored a balance between urgency and caution. With no public testimony, the bill was set aside for refinements, including definitional tweaks and constitutional safeguards. Unresolved issues include statutory cross-references for digital harassment, district adoption rates, and off-campus jurisdiction. This part of the meeting revealed a committee committed to protecting students in an increasingly digital world, where virtual harms spill into real-life trauma.

Stabilizing the Fiscal Foundation – HB 261: Reforms Average Daily Membership and Funding Formulas

Shifting gears after a brief recess, the committee examined House Bill 261, sponsored by Co-Chair Story, which proposes reforms to Average Daily Membership (ADM) calculations, school size adjustments, and intensive needs funding to provide stability amid declining enrollment. Story framed the bill as essential for predictable budgeting, especially in rural areas: “In a school district with around eighty kids, losing four students is about $300,000… Small schools are delicate… losing that in the first year is significant.” She highlighted nationwide trends of fewer children, urging Alaska to prioritize stability to boost retention and planning.

DEED School Finance Manager Lori Weed dissected the updated fiscal note, projecting a $147 million impact. She explained the methodology: “We did have to generate new ADM numbers… taking the previous three-year average as defined in the bill and comparing those to this year’s preliminary count for SY26.” The bill replaces hold-harmless provisions with a three-year ADM average, selecting the greater of the average or current count per school. Weed estimated the alternative high schools component at about $5.8 million, due to removing minimum ADM thresholds and interactions with host schools. For intensive needs, she isolated roughly $43 million to use the greater of prior averages or current counts.

Co-Chair Story sought confirmation: “With the exchange of hold harmless for the three-year average… you looked at each of the 53 districts… result is a net addition of funding—is that correct?” Weed nuanced it as school-level dependent, noting some districts might lose absent hold-harmless, while others gain. Current hold-harmless costs about $12 million in state aid, potentially offsetting part of the new note.

Rep. Schwanke requested walkthroughs for districts with large increases and decreases to demystify the “cascading” formula effects. Story floated ideas like grandfathering hold-harmless districts or a rural stabilization fund, criticizing “chaotic backwards funding.” Data sources were clarified: preliminary FY26 OASIS data for current counts, with SY23-25 for averages.

The bill addresses broader challenges, including alternative programs and intensives, amid enrollment drops. Story anticipated the fiscal note could rise if declines accelerate, as averaging cushions losses. With time short, the bill was set aside for further analysis, including DEED scenarios and policy explorations for rural schools.

Overall, it reflected a proactive stance on evolving educational demands, with follow-ups slated for Wednesday’s session. As Alaska grapples with these issues, the committee’s work underscores the delicate balance between innovation, protection, and fiscal responsibility in serving the state’s diverse student population.

FY27 Budget Insights: Scrutinizing Alaska’s Revenue Strategies

Politics

Todd M Lindley

-

February 24, 2026

0

FY27 Budget Insights: Scrutinizing Alaska’s Revenue Strategies

The House Finance Committee convened on February 20 to scrutinize the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC) and the Department of Revenue’s (DOR) proposed FY27 budget. The meeting, chaired by Co-Chair Andy Josephson (D – Anchorage), highlighted the fund’s role in generating two-thirds of the state’s unrestricted revenue, while addressing investment strategies, governance, and fiscal discipline amid economic uncertainties. Marking the 50th anniversary of the Permanent Fund’s creation, discussions balanced historical gratitude with forward-looking challenges, including inflation proofing, active management debates, and budget adjustments.

Part 1: APFC Overview – Celebrating Legacy While Navigating Investment Realities

The APFC presentation, led by Executive Director and CEO Devin Mitchell alongside Chief Investment Officer Marcus Frampton, began with a nod to the fund’s origins. Mitchell emphasized the visionary decision by Alaskans in 1976 to establish the fund through a constitutional amendment. “The fact that we have this resource is because the people that lived in Alaska in 1976 elected to save money for us rather than spending it on themselves,” Mitchell said, noting that 75,588 voters—67% of the electorate—approved the measure in a “landslide.” This amendment mandated saving at least 25% of certain revenues, investing them, and making earnings available to the general fund unless otherwise specified.

Mitchell illustrated the fund’s growth through a counterfactual: without reinvestment and statutory frameworks, the fund would hold just $20 billion today, compared to its actual $86 billion as of the latest financial statements. Breaking it down, principal stands at $59.1 billion (constitutionally protected), with the Earnings Reserve Account (ERA) and unrealized gains adding layers of complexity. He highlighted $17 billion in unrealized gains, explaining the distinction between total return (more volatile but higher on average) and statutory net income (realized returns available for spending).

Governance drew scrutiny, with Rep. Allard (R – Eagle River) seeking confirmation on board appointments. Mitchell reiterated: “We have six trustees, two of which are members of the cabinet, and four of which are appointed by the governor on four-year staggered terms… all of them… are appointed by the governor at this point.” Representative Hannon inquired about Acting Commissioner Janelle Earle’s role, which Mitchell affirmed as standard practice.

Investment strategy discussions revealed a shift from conservative fixed income in 1976 to a diversified portfolio targeting risk equivalent to 80% equities and 20% fixed income. Frampton addressed a recurring public question posed by Co-Chair Schrage (NA – Anchorage): why not simply index to the S&P 500? “Index and passive investing is a very sound investment approach,” Frampton acknowledged, but warned of recency bias. He cited Nevada’s passive model as “valid,” but stressed diversification’s necessity, noting three decades where the S&P 500 returned near zero. “If you did a back test with a 5% POMV, it would be fairly devastating to be only S&P 500,” he said.

Performance metrics showed the fund beating its benchmark by 30 basis points over 10 years and 16 over five, net of fees. Frampton was transparent about recent underperformance: a deliberate underweight in mega-cap tech stocks amid high valuations hurt short-term results, but he anticipated recovery as cycles shift. On fees, he noted APFC’s inclusive reporting makes it appear “expensive” compared to peers, yet it’s “on the extreme efficient side.” Private equity, comprising 17% of the portfolio, drew focus for its 20% carried interest, but Frampton highlighted outsized returns, like 60% in 2021 versus the S&P’s 30%.

The CPI + 5% target was framed as probabilistic—achievable about half the time with fiscal discipline. Mitchell reported $114 billion in total earnings generated, with $97 billion realized, funding dividends and services. Under the Percent of Market Value (POMV) draw—5% of the five-year average balance—the FY27 draw is $4 billion, keeping the effective rate below 5% due to growth.

ERA sufficiency sparked debate. With $6.6 billion spendable after segregating the FY27 draw, Mitchell credited foregoing inflation proofing in FY25 and FY26. “We’re either $500 million behind… if you include the $4 billion as inflation proofing or $4.5 billion behind if you did not,” he said, disagreeing with prior legislative labeling of a transfer. He advocated rules-based inflation proofing to balance generations.

Other highlights included discontinuing the underperforming Alaska-focused private equity program (residual $100 million exposure), economically driven proxy voting, and modest AI adoption for efficiency, not core investing. Mitchell welcomed oversight: “Having as many eyes looking at the corporation and the permanent fund as possible is always going to be for the betterment of our state.”

Part 2: DOR’s FY27 Budget – Technical Tweaks Amid Broader Fiscal Pressures

In the FY27 budget overview, Acting Commissioner Janelle Earls, supported by Division Operations Manager Adam Bryan and agency leaders, outlined DOR’s mission to “collect, distribute, and invest funds for public purposes.” Organized into four divisions, four corporations/authorities, and oversight of items like shared taxes (revenues redistributed to municipalities), the budget emphasizes restricted “other state funds” from entities like APFC and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC).

Key adjustments included Treasury Division’s reduction of a vacant position and salary tweaks. For the Alaska Retirement Management (ARM) Board, Earls noted $150,000 for external legal counsel on private investments, passed through from the Department of Law. A significant discrepancy emerged: the ARM Board requested $34-37 million more in service fees than the governor’s budget, tied to amortization assumptions for unfunded liabilities targeting full funding by 2039. Treasury Director Pam Leary explained: “The one that was adopted by the ARM Board was partially adopted in the Governor’s budget… I believe the difference… is about $37 million.” The chair favored the ARM Board’s cautious approach but deferred to actuaries.

ARM Board incentives rose $13.6 million for external manager profit-sharing, contingent on $54 million outperformance. “Fees would only be paid from the retirement funds if external managers outperformed market benchmarks,” Earls clarified.

The Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) Division sought $611.6 million for cloud hosting a new application system, plus postage increases—a figure flagged for scope clarification. The Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority added $298,500 for merits and inflation.

AHFC achieved UGF savings: $685,000 via debt service from dividends and $490,000 from vacant positions. For APFC, Earls highlighted restoring a single appropriation structure (split last year), fully funding incentives (previously at 75%), and minor IT/subscription increases. Fee authority saw a net $8 million reduction based on historical spend, with facilities adjustments including $66,000 for non-state-owned spaces and $32,000 for Juneau’s Michael J. Burns building—owned by the fund, not the state. Representative Hannon questioned the setup: “We’re just shuffling money between ourselves… this must be something that we do every year.” Earls confirmed the appropriation mechanics.

Child support inquiries revealed no agency fees for enforcement under Title IV-D, though courts may impose civil fees. Anchorage office costs for APFC were detailed at $71,100 last year, aiding recruitment.

The session adjourned without votes, but action items included reports on inflation proofing, fees, performance, and clarifications on budget items like the PFD hosting increment.

Overall, the meeting reinforced the Permanent Fund’s centrality—generating 66% of unrestricted revenue—while stressing disciplined management. As Mitchell reflected, the fund transforms “one-time resource revenue into… a renewable resource generating revenue from the world’s economy.” With FY27 draws and budget tweaks in focus, Alaska’s fiscal stewards aim to sustain this legacy amid volatility.

Defending Parental Rights: South Carolina vs. Alaska

Politics

Jon Faulkner

-

February 23, 2026

2

Defending Parental Rights: South Carolina vs. Alaska

While South Carolina is passing common-sense bi-partisan legislation protecting parental rights, Alaska’s legislature appears to be doing the opposite. Rather than support Alaska families, some critics argue, Alaska’s Senate Bill 90 moves Alaska in the wrong direction.

By a vote of 116-1, this week South Carolina’s Parental Rights bill passed the House reinforcing a principle most Americans agree with: parents are the best protectors of their children and must be entrusted to nurture their education and well-being.

House Bill 4757, known as the Parental Rights Act, passed with 100% support from Democrats and only a single Republican “Nay” vote.

In a press release by “Moms for Liberty” the organization praised the legislation, stating, “For many families, this bill represents more than policy. It represents partnership. It strengthens communication between schools and parents and ensures families remain informed and engaged in decisions impacting their children.”

While opinion polls show strong nation-wide majority support for the 2025 U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding parental consent in Mahmoud v Taylor, Alaska seems strangely out-of-step.

Senate Bill 90, sponsored by Senator Cathy Giessel, does not serve Alaska’s youth or the parents of kids enrolled in public schools, many believe. Rather, by making it easier for school health officials to withhold information from parents, the bill expands school district control and replaces parental care with that of health administrators. Jim Minnery, of Alaska Family Council, summarized the concerns of Alaskan parents this way:

“Many teachers, principals, counselors and school board members are abusing their positions of authority by actively undermining the inherent right of families and faith leaders to direct the upbringing of their children. Instruction, from people we tell our children to honor, that implicitly endorses specific ideologies regarding gender or sexuality is not a neutral educational matter. It is a subject of core spiritual significance”.

Key provisions of the South Carolina Bill include:

Affirm and enumerate the fundamental rights of parents to direct the upbringing, education, healthcare, and general welfare of their children.
Require schools to implement these rights through written policies.
Provide parents greater access to educational records, curriculum, lesson plans, and guidance evaluations.
Require schools to provide at least five days’ notice and obtain affirmative parental consent before students participate in certain activities (e.g., those related to gender, sexuality, or sensitive topics).
Raise the age for minors to consent to non-emergency medical treatment from 16 to 18, strengthening requirements for parental consent.
Repeal or amend sections allowing certain health services to minors without parental consent.
Establish administrative procedures to investigate and resolve alleged violations of parental rights.
Address protections around children’s biometric data and other areas of parental authority.

For the full official text and status, check the South Carolina Legislature’s site: H.4757.

Read Senate Bill 90 here: Alaska Senate Bill 90.

Statistics Show: Alaska Produces Olympians

The Social

Jon Faulkner

-

February 23, 2026

2

Statistics Show: Alaska Produces Olympians

Newsflash: In spite of its small population, Alaska produces a disproportionate number of elite winter athletes.

According to The Action Network, which tracks U.S. Winter Olympians by their place of birth, Alaska has produced 24 total Winter Olympians garnering 5 winter Olympic medals—placing Alaska#4 in the U.S. for Winter Olympians per capita.

Statistics compiled by The Action Network consider only place of birth—not declared residency—for their data so many notable Olympians such as Tommy Moe and Kikkan Randall were not included. Action Network’s statistics focus exclusively on International Winter Olympics and do not include Paralympics / Special Olympics or Indigenous Games equivalents that would likely boost Alaska’s numbers higher.

According to Kathy Morris, a researcher for The Action Network, 24 total “Alaska born” winter Olympians have won five medals (0 gold, 2 silver, 3 bronze)—translating to 32.58 Olympians per million residents. Vermont tracks #1 with 64.96 Olympians per million. Morris cites Alaska’s long winters and love of outdoors as contributing factors. “With its snow-covered landscape and deep connection to winter sports, Alaska is basically an Olympic training ground disguised as a state,” she stated.

Notable Alaskan-born Olympians include:

Hilary Kirsten Lindh – Silver Medalist in Alpine Skiing; competed inOlympics in 1988, 1992, and 1994

Gabrielle Rose “Rosey” Fletcher –Bronze Medal in Snowboarding; competed inOlympics in 1998, 2002; and 2006

Jarret John “JJ” Thomas – Bronze Medal in Halfpipe; competed in 2002 Olympics.

Kerry Pauline Weiland – Silver Medal in Ice Hockey; competed in 2010 Olympics.

Pamela Kristine “Pam” Dreyer— competed inOlympics in 1988, 1992, and 1994

According to an official statement released by Morris,Action Network is a sports media site that publishes original content about sporting events and the athletes who compete in them. You can see the full ranking here.

HJR 23: A Step Towards Fiscal Responsibility in Alaska

Politics

Todd M Lindley

-

February 23, 2026

2

HJR 23: A Step Towards Fiscal Responsibility in Alaska

JUNEAU, Alaska — On February 21, 2026, the Alaska House State Affairs Committee delved into House Joint Resolution 23 (HJR 23), a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at reshaping how the governor initiates the state’s annual budget process. Sponsored by Representative Jubilee Underwood, the measure seeks to mandate that the governor submit a balanced operating budget without relying on draws from the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) as anticipated revenue, elevating existing statutory requirements to constitutional status.

The discussion highlighted ongoing fiscal challenges in Alaska, where volatile oil revenues have long strained state finances. Underwood introduced the resolution by emphasizing its focus on procedural clarity rather than dictating spending levels. “At its core, HJR 23 is about institutional design and long-term stability,” she asserted, arguing that it would provide voters with a structured framework to ensure fiscal discipline from the outset.

Staff member Buddy Witt elaborated on the proposal’s mechanics. He noted that current statutes already require a balanced budget submission, but HJR 23 would constitutionally prohibit including CBR funds in revenue projections for the initial budget. “What HJR 23 does is it basically says, yes, the governor must submit a balance sheet,” Witt explained. “And those expenditures in that budget may not exceed the anticipated revenue. But the big thing that it does, it says that anticipated revenue cannot include the CBR.”

This constraint addresses a historical reliance on the CBR, established in 1990 by voter approval of Article IX, Section 17 of the Alaska Constitution. The fund, which collects revenues from resolved mineral disputes post-July 1990, serves as a rainy-day account for state operations during deficits. With a current balance of approximately $2.9 billion, the CBR has been tapped repeatedly, including recent controversies over a $50 million investment in private equity, which critics argue undermines its liquidity for emergencies. Since its inception, the fund has received about $5.6 billion in deposits and earned $1.9 billion in revenues, but draws totaling $5.1 billion have highlighted Alaska’s structural deficits amid fluctuating oil prices.

Committee members probed potential loopholes and implications. Representative St. Clair questioned revenue projection sources, with Witt clarifying that the executive branch retains discretion. Representative Vance raised concerns about governors sidestepping the rule via supplemental budgets, which Witt acknowledged could complicate the amendment’s legal classification. Representative McCabe inquired about timelines, prompting Underwood to express hope for a November 2026 ballot appearance. “That would be the hope. Yes. If it gets through on time, this would be on 2026 ballot for our next go around,” Underwood stated.

Vice Chair Story asked if the governor’s required 10-year fiscal plan must also balance, with Witt confirming the amendment targets only the initial submission. He committed to researching other states’ practices, where 45 states constitutionally or statutorily require governors to submit balanced budgets, often with stricter provisions than Alaska’s current setup. For instance, most states prohibit deficit carryovers, a flexibility Alaska maintains under statute. Chair Carrick sought historical precedents of deficit budgets paired with revenue measures, leading to an action item for Underwood’s office to investigate past administrations.

Representative Himschoot drew parallels to local governance, citing her assembly experience with mandatory balanced budgets. Underwood echoed this from her school board tenure: “At the end of the day, though, it still had to be balanced.”

Public testimony revealed mixed sentiments. Larissa Fonov from Wasilla strongly supported the measure for fiscal stability. “I believe a constitutional requirement to start the annual budget process with a budget that balances without draining our savings will ensure a more stable fiscal future,” she stated, urging swift passage. “And ask you to pass it out of your committee as quickly as possible.”

In opposition, Ed Martin Jr. from Kenai argued the resolution misplaces focus amid a structural deficit. “We’re becoming dependent on additional money out of the CBR,” he asserted. “But the plain and simple fact is what you really should be focusing on is what I just provided to you and what happened with our past revenue commissioner and the $50 million. That has been taken out of the CBR. That’s the focus you should be making right now. Where is the money going and where is it coming from? I gave you a solution that will help Alaska into the future,” Martin said.

Ryan Sheldon from Talkeetna endorsed HJR 23 as practical. “I won’t belabor my point, but as a businessman, at least, seems like a pretty common-sense thing to operate within the margins of what your expected income is going to be for a fiscal year as opposed to planning on, you know, using any other maybe, savings or any ad accounts would be it,” he testified.

Alaska’s budget process, governed by statute rather than strict constitutional mandates, requires the governor to submit a balanced proposal by December 15 for the fiscal year starting July 1. Unlike 44 states where legislatures must pass balanced budgets, Alaska allows deficits to be addressed via reserves like the CBR. Recent budgets have drawn heavily on savings, with Governor Mike Dunleavy’s FY2027 plan projecting $1.5 billion from reserves amid calls for new revenue measures like a seasonal sales tax.

If advanced, HJR 23 could mark a significant step toward curbing CBR dependency, aligning Alaska more closely with national norms for fiscal restraint. As debates continue, the resolution underscores broader tensions in managing the state’s oil-dependent economy.

Echoes of Miracles: From 1980 Upset to 2026 Glory in USA Men’s Hockey

The Social

Todd M Lindley

-

February 22, 2026

2

Echoes of Miracles: From 1980 Upset to 2026 Glory in USA Men’s Hockey

In the frigid air of Lake Placid, New York, during the 1980 Winter Olympics, a ragtag group of American college players etched their names into sports lore with the “Miracle on Ice.” Coached by Herb Brooks, the U.S. team, with an average age of just 21.7 years, faced the seemingly invincible Soviet Union on February 22—amateurs against professionals who had dominated international hockey for decades. The Soviets led 3-2 entering the third period, but Mark Johnson tied it on a power play, and captain Mike Eruzione fired the go-ahead goal midway through. Goalie Jim Craig made crucial saves as the clock ticked down, securing a stunning 4-3 victory. “Do you believe in miracles? Yes!” exclaimed broadcaster Al Michaels as the final horn sounded. Two days later, the U.S. clinched gold with a 4-2 comeback over Finland, rallying from a 2-1 deficit in the third.

Fast-forward 46 years to the exact date, February 22, 2026, at Milano Cortina’s Santagiulia Arena. Team USA, now stocked with NHL stars and boasting an average age of 28, captured their first men’s hockey gold since 1980 by edging Canada 2-1 in overtime. The Americans entered undefeated, navigating a grueling path: a tense overtime win over Sweden in the quarterfinals thanks to Jack Hughes’ goal, followed by a dominant 6-2 semifinal rout of Slovakia. Their preliminary round included victories that showcased depth, setting up the dream final against archrival Canada.

https://youtu.be/8c47m212Mkk?si=uk_4VAM_yVeZAV59

Gold medal Olympian Jeremy Swayman, the 27-year-old from Anchorage, Alaska, backed up starter Connor Hellebuyck. Swayman honed his skills at South Anchorage High School and the University of Maine, earning the 2020 Hobey Baker finalist nod and Mike Richter Award. Drafted by the Boston Bruins in 2017, he claimed the NHL’s William Jennings Trophy in 2022-23 and starred at the 2025 World Championship with a gold medal and stellar stats. Though Hellebuyck stole the show in the final with 40 saves, Swayman’s presence added hometown pride for Alaskans.

The gold-medal clash was a defensive masterpiece. Matt Boldy opened scoring at 6:00 of the first, flipping the puck past defenders for 1-0. Canada equalized late in the second when Cale Makar snapped a shot far corner. The third period was scoreless, with both netminders—Hellebuyck stopping 19 shots in the frame alone—thwarting chances. Overtime lasted just 1:41: Zach Werenski stripped Nathan MacKinnon, feeding Jack Hughes, who wristed it between Binnington’s legs for the winner. The team honored late player Johnny Gaudreau, skating his jersey in celebration.

As captain Dylan Larkin reflected post-game, “Sharing in this unbelievable experience of being an Olympian, representing your country—but to share it with your family, because you can’t do it yourself.” This victory, bookending the Miracle’s anniversary, reignites American hockey passion and a North American rivalry.

Alaskan Cyclist and Team USA Secure Gold at Pan Am Games

The Social

Jon Faulkner

-

February 22, 2026

2

Alaskan Cyclist and Team USA Secure Gold at Pan Am Games

By JON FAULKNER

The USA Cycling Track Team Pursuit team of Olivia Cummins, Olympian Kristen Faulkner (Homer, AK), Bethany Ingram, and Emma Louise Jimenez Palos won Gold on Thursday, February 19, 2026 at the Pan Am Games in Santiago, Chile. The USA team beat Canada in the qualifying round of the 4,000 meter race and Mexico in the finals to bring home the Gold medal. This was the first competition for these riders to race together as Team USA.

View this post on Instagram

On Saturday, February 21, 2026, Kristen Faulkner won Gold in the final round of the Cycling Track Individual Pursuit against fellow Team USA rider and 2025 Pan Am Gold medalist Emily Ehrlich. Faulkner caught Ehrlich in the 4000 meter head-to-head race about three quarters of the way through the race for the automatic win. This was Faulkner’s first international competition in the Individual Pursuit and secures her an automatic berth representing the U.S. in the World Cycling Championships in 2026.

View this post on Instagram

Rig Recovery Advances Amid North Slope Spill Response

The 907

Todd M Lindley

-

February 21, 2026

2

Rig Recovery Advances Amid North Slope Spill Response

In the wake of the January 23, 2026, overturning of the drilling rig Doyon 26 on Alaska’s North Slope, response teams have made substantial headway in cleanup and deconstruction efforts, as detailed in recent updates and official reports. The incident, which occurred on a gravel road approximately 6.5 miles northwest of Nuiqsut, involved the massive rig—nicknamed “The Beast” for its nearly 10 million-pound weight—tipping over during transport for ConocoPhillips operations. This led to a spill of about 4,000 gallons of diesel and 600 gallons of hydraulic oil onto the tundra, accompanied by a brief fire that was swiftly contained by emergency responders. Fortunately, all personnel were accounted for, with no serious injuries; eight individuals received treatment at nearby clinics and were released. Nearby infrastructure, including pipelines roughly 202 feet away and the community’s natural gas supply, sustained no damage, and the seasonal fuel haul proceeded without interruption.

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) Situation Report 3 (SitRep 3), issued on February 4, 2026, provides a comprehensive snapshot of the early response. Under a Unified Command led by Doyon Drilling, Inc. and including the EPA, DEC, North Slope Borough, and Iñupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, efforts focused on source control, with no ongoing leaks observed. Initial actions included delineating the spill area using visual, infrared, and aerial methods, deploying sandbags to curb migration, and constructing a snow fence to contain contaminated snow. By then, crews had recovered 111 gallons of product through water flushing and vacuum trucks. The site, within critical habitat for polar bears, caribou, Arctic foxes, muskox, and ptarmigan, showed no wildlife impacts, though an Arctic fox and collared muskox were spotted. Air monitoring was established, and weather challenges—like below zero temperatures and blowing snow—delayed some activities. The report outlined a three-phase plan: Phase 1 for containment and mitigation, Phase 2 for rig inspection and removal, and Phase 3 for final remediation. Resources at risk were noted, but no threats to waterways, like the nearby Nechelik Channel tributary, or the community were identified.

By February 19, 2026, Phase 2 had advanced significantly, with over 2,475 gallons—more than half the estimated spill—recovered. Approximately 30% of the rig had been deconstructed, starting with the derrick, and parts were loaded for transport via a newly built ice road and pad to minimize tundra damage. Site evaluations continue in real-time, with deconstructed components slated for cleaning and recycling. No immediate risks to air quality, water sources, wildlife, or infrastructure persist, and a third-party investigation into the cause is ongoing.

ConocoPhillips has adapted swiftly, shifting operations to the Doyon 142 rig, which shares a similar modular design, to limit delays in exploration and development. This pivot highlights ERD’s role in sustainable growth. “This project opens a new era we call ‘growth without gravel’ where we can use extended reach technology to access 60 percent more acreage from a single pad, dramatically reducing our footprint,” said Erec Isaacson, president of ConocoPhillips Alaska.

Stakeholders emphasize collaborative efforts to ensure full recovery, with ongoing monitoring and public updates via the Unified Command. As Alaska’s oil industry navigates environmental and operational hurdles, this incident serves as a reminder of the Arctic’s challenges, yet also of the sector’s resilience and commitment to safety.

Who’s Really Calling the Shots in Alaska?

Columns

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR

-

February 20, 2026

5

Who’s Really Calling the Shots in Alaska?

By MARCUS MOORE

If you thought Alaska’s destiny was in the hands of Alaskans, think again. The 2024 IRS filings paint a picture that is both stark and troubling: the state’s political and economic landscape is increasingly being steered, not by our local industries, communities, or elected leaders, but by an intricate web of out-of-state progressive donor networks. Networks that aren’t content with writing checks, they are buying influence, shaping narratives, and redirecting our state’s future from resource-driven growth to grant-dependent activism.

We’ve been warning about this for years, but now the numbers are out in black and white.

The “Alaska Influence Pipeline” report, along with IRS Form 990 filings from 2024, reveals that millions of dollars from national progressive funds, primarily connected to Arabella Advisors (which rebranded as Sunflower Services in late 2025) flow through nonprofit intermediaries to finance a highly coordinated anti-development campaign in Alaska.

And make no mistake, this is not just about “climate awareness” or “social equity.” This is about reshaping Alaska’s economic priorities in ways that serve donors in D.C., New York, and Silicon Valley, not the people who actually live here in our state!

The Mechanics of Influence: How Out-of-State Money Moves In

The system is vertically integrated, sophisticated, and, frankly, scary in its efficiency.

Here’s how it works:

National Funders — Arabella Advisors (Sunflower Services), New Venture Fund (NVF), Tides Foundation, Sixteen Thirty Fund, NEO Philanthropy, Hopewell Fund, and Western Futures Fund, collect and pool donations from major philanthropic players like George Soros, Hansjörg Wyss, and foundations such as Ford and Hewlett. InfluenceWatch reports Arabella alone raised $6.5 billion from 2005–2021.
Pass-through Grants —These national funders then funnel millions into Alaska-based advocacy groups via annual grants, explicitly earmarked for anti-development campaigns. 2024 numbers alone are staggering: NVF gave over $625,000, Tides $523,000, Sixteen Thirty $728,000. Layer on support from Hopewell and NEO Philanthropy, and you see a funding structure designed to endure.
Local Recipients — Groups like, United Tribes of Bristol Bay ($325,000 from NVF), Alaska PIRG ($208,000 from Tides), The Alaska Current ($100,000 from NVF), and 907 Initiative (funded by multiple sources) receive these grants and direct them toward litigation, voter mobilization, and media campaigns. Workforce training for Alaskan oil, mining, or construction? Not a dime.
Indirect Control —Through these grants, national donors influence elections, policy debates, and public opinion. Voter mobilization efforts like Get Out the Native Vote ($150,000 from Tides) target Indigenous communities with messaging that aligns with anti-fossil fuel agendas, leaving real Alaskan voices marginalized.

It’s an elaborate puppet show, with Alaska caught in the middle. And the strings are long, reaching far beyond Juneau.

Who’s Really Pulling the Levers?

The leadership and boards of these organizations read like a who’s who of progressive philanthropy.

Arabella Advisors / Sunflower Services: Founded by Eric Kessler. Current CEO Himesh Bhise oversees operations post-2025. Former CEO Sampriti Ganguli. Board Chair Gail Steans. Senior leaders include Bruce Boyd and Allan Williams.
New Venture Fund: President Lee Bodner (formerly Arabella MD). Board includes Thomas Gibian (Chair/Secretary), Akilah Massey, Katherine Miller (Treasurer/Vice-Chair), Chuck Redmond, and Adam Eichberg.
Tides Foundation: CEO Janiece Evans-Page. Officers include Diane Peters (Chief Legal), Karen Caldwell (CFO), Sajit Joseph (Chief Digital). Board Chair Brickson Diamond.
Sixteen Thirty Fund: President Amy Kurtz. Board includes Dara Freed (Treasurer), Douglas Hattaway (Secretary), Eric Kessler (Director), Jeff Cherry, and Latoia Jones.
Hopewell Fund: President Anna Brower. Board Chair Lee Bodner. Directors include Andrew Schulz and Marissa Padilla.
NEO Philanthropy: President Michele Lord (retiring Dec 2026). COO Erin Ballard. CFO Su Hyun Lim. Board Co-Chairs Kerrien Suarez and Kristen Ruff.
Western Futures Fund: President Michael Hennesy, Secretary Christopher Hirsch, Treasurer Jeremy Krones.

The overlap is telling. Many of these players rotate through boards or maintain advisory roles across multiple organizations. The result? A near-monopoly on progressive funding influence, perfectly orchestrated to maintain a constant anti-development narrative.

Alaska’s Local Recipients: The Frontline

These national networks don’t just fund abstract policies—they fund people and groups directly shaping our state’s economy. Here’s the roster of key 2024 recipients:

United Tribes of Bristol Bay: $325,000 from NVF for anti-mining campaigns.
Alaska Wildlife Alliance: $100,000 from NVF, blocking resource extraction.
Spruce Root / Sitka Conservation Society / Alaska Sustainability Initiative: $50–100K from NVF; anti-development advocacy.
Alaskans for Posterity: $200,000 from NVF, $200,000 from Sixteen Thirty; political messaging.
AEDC Advocacy Fund: $190,000 from NVF; legislative influence.
907 Initiative: Multiple funders, including WFF; campaigns targeting Sen. Dan Sullivan.
Alaska PIRG: $208,000 from Tides; regulatory opposition.
Media Outlets: The Alaska Current ($100,000 from NVF) amplifies anti-development narratives.
Voter Mobilization: Get Out the Native Vote ($150,000 from Tides) and Alaska Progressive Donor Table ($302,500 from Sixteen Thirty).
Other Policy Groups: Better Jobs for Alaska, The Alaska Center, Alaska Jobs Coalition, ACLU of Alaska Foundation, all receiving layered funding to maintain continuous campaigns.

And don’t overlook tribal utilities like Puvurnaq Power Company ($301,757 from NVF) and Atmautluak Tribal Utilities ($100,000 from NVF), framed under “climate-transition” projects, subsidized by grants rather than market-driven development.

The Timeline That Matters

It’s not just who is funding whom, it’s when. 2024 marks a ramp-up in preparation for the 2026 Senate races:

Early 2024: NVF disperses $625,000, including $325K to United Tribes of Bristol Bay.
Mid-2024: Tides grants $523,000. Includes $150K to Get Out the Native Vote and $208K to Alaska PIRG.
Late 2024: Sixteen Thirty Fund disperses $728,000. WFF revenue surges to $8.7M, funding 907 Initiative’s attacks on Sen. Dan Sullivan.
Ongoing 2024: NEO and Hopewell layer grants to groups like 907 Initiative and ACLU of Alaska to sustain campaigns.

Alaska has been under the Arabella network’s radar since at least 2020, including ranked-choice voting campaigns funded via Sixteen Thirty. 2024 demonstrates escalation: this is no longer occasional influence; it’s a full-on takeover of the local political narrative.

Who Feels the Impact?

The report and public filings suggest influence on three fronts. Politicians, Communities, and the Economy.

Politicians: Sen. Dan Sullivan is the primary target. 907 Initiative, funded by Tides/Arabella/WFF, launched campaigns like “Doormat Dan” and “Yes Man Dan” highlighting his pro-fossil fuel stance and votes on health care, attempting to paint him as out of touch with Alaska. Progressive ads have hit him on ACA subsidies and Medicaid cuts. Other lawmakers face pressure from Alaska Center and Progress Alaska on renewable energy and tax policies.
Communities: Indigenous leaders in Bristol Bay are courted via grants, which the report argues suppress local voices in favor of donor-driven agendas. Groups like SalmonState are allegedly used to weaponize issues like salmon protection against development.
Economy: Funding is carefully structured to prioritize litigation, delays, and narrative shaping over job creation or infrastructure development. The “chilling effect” is real: permitting challenges, populist pressure, and lawsuits deter companies, shift economic priorities away from local industries, and leave Alaska increasingly reliant on grant money instead of investment.

The Ironic Twist

These networks loudly decry “outside corporate influence” in Alaska politics, yet every dollar sustaining their anti-development campaigns comes from national, often anonymous donors. Millions of dollars from billionaires and foundations in New York, California, and abroad dictate which projects live or die in Alaska. This is ideological outsourcing at its finest, and the 2024 filings prove it in cold, hard numbers.

I’ll finish my Rants with “Its Alaska’s Choices,” what’s at Stake

Let’s be honest. Alaska is at a crossroads. Every grant, every lawsuit, every voter mobilization effort has consequences. The 2024 IRS filings reveal a system where local autonomy is steadily ceded to donors with philosophical agendas. Workforce development in oil, gas, mining, and construction? Ignored. Infrastructure projects? Delayed. Our economy? Shifted from local initiative to grant dependence.

If you care about Alaska’s future, its jobs, its communities, its self-determination, you need to understand who is really calling the shots. National progressive donor networks have been quietly reshaping our debate for years, and 2024 marks a decisive escalation.

The question now isn’t whether Alaska can resist this influence, it’s whether we WILL sit back and let it happen in silence. It’s time to wake up. We’ve been telling you this was coming. Now, the numbers prove it.

Marcus Moore aKa Rants @AlaskanRants

Alaska House Education Committee Tackles Cyberbullying and Funding Issues

Defending Parental Rights: South Carolina vs. Alaska

HJR 23: A Step Towards Fiscal Responsibility in Alaska

Rig Recovery Advances Amid North Slope Spill Response

Who’s Really Calling the Shots in Alaska?

About us

The latest

Americans Across the Country Gather to Read the Entire Bible Out Loud This Week

Opinion: Why We March for Life

Opinion: Alaska GOP Needs Better Political Strategy