The Alaska Food Policy Council will host the 2025 Alaska Food Festival and Conference in Kodiak on March 28 and 29, with the opportunity to attend virtually if tickets are purchased by March 25.
Everyone is welcome! This gathering is an opportunity for those who value local food production and innovation to collaborate with others who are interested in strengthening Alaska’s food security.
“Community Table: Collaboration for a Sustainable Food Future” is the theme for this year’s event. The 2025 Alaska Food Festival and Conference is all about making Alaska’s food systems stronger by highlighting local, state, and federal food issues, providing resources, training, and networking opportunities, and connecting Alaskans, food businesses, tribal groups, and decision-makers to support economic growth and innovation.
The cost to attend virtually is $100 plus a $7.40 fee. Tickets can be purchased online here.
“We envision a stronger, more self-reliant Alaska where our farmers, fishermen, ranchers, and food businesses are better connected, supported, and equipped to grow our local and regional food systems. Alaskans know the value, and necessity, of working together. This event helps to sustain lasting networks of producers, entrepreneurs, policymakers, and industry leaders who can support each other, create new opportunities, and ensure that more Alaska Grown and harvested food makes it to our tables-strengthening our communities and our future.” – Robbi Mixon, AFPC Executive Director
This is the 8th Alaska Food Festival and Conference and the second hybrid event, with both in-person and virtual attendance options. The festivals are held every 18 months to allow accessibility to farmers, fishermen, and other food producers who may not have the same growing and harvesting seasons.
For more information visit the Alaska food Policy Council website:
That got my attention because whenever someone precedes the words “justice” or “rights” with a qualifier, it usually means that the rights are specific to a particular group of people and trump the rights of others.
One example of this would be legally forcing landlords to accept tenants by default because they are ethnic minorities or members of the LGBTQ+ group while disregarding other factors that may go into a landlord’s decision process. Or taxing white citizens more for the sins of their fathers while using the proceeds to fund programs that are intended to level the playing field for minorities that have traditionally been treated poorly.
In both of these examples (real or hypothetical), the state is attempting to right wrongs by making things worse, and the same could be said of how we approach the homeless situation.
To be clear, homelessness should absolutely not be a crime or a cause for discrimination. Being down and out is no sin and no offense to society. If lack of shelter was all we associated with homelessness, I do not think people would be jaded and cynical about the situation.
That being said, a lot of our trails, parks, and public places have become unsafe and unclean. You are liable to encounter scattered needles, razor blades, garbage, fire hazards, and deranged individuals. There is also always the threat of indecent exposure.
I have nearly stopped taking my kids to most places in Anchorage because I have seen more indecent acts in Anchorage than I have ever seen anywhere else. It is a real problem, but few in office seem to have realistic solutions.
The homelessness crisis has also imposed a heavy burden on local and state medical systems.
The last time I had to go to the emergency room due to a work-related injury, the doctor was barely able to see me because he was being run ragged by having to attend to transients and addicts. I had part of my finger missing, and someone on a gurney not far from me was shouting at the nurses, acting like a maniac, and complaining about how the Narcan made him feel sick!
I know I’m not the only one who has witnessed similar scenes of disorder. There are countless examples if you just have eyes to see and ears to hear.
We have a problem, and the problem is not that homeless people lack rights. If anything, our city and our state are remarkably tolerant of their behavior, which effectively amounts to various forms of lawlessness that we have failed to effectively prosecute. Other than cannabis, most of the drugs they are using are not legal.
On top of that, we still have laws against disorderly conduct, indecent exposure, harassment, intimidation, larceny, theft, reckless endangerment, vandalism, and a whole litany of crimes that many people in our homeless community regularly commit. When we allow them to commit those crimes and do not hold them accountable with adequate consequences, we effectively allow them special immunity to continue committing those crimes because we have a misguided view of “social justice” that does not allow any “oppressed” individual to be held accountable for the problems they cause others.
There is a way out of this, and it’s called sanity. We don’t need to criminalize homelessness, and we don’t need to give them special privileges either. We need to enforce our laws impartially. If average citizens cannot get away with doing some things, the homeless should not be allowed to get away with doing those same things.
I understand that life is hard for these people, but that is not an excuse. No excuse, however legitimate, ever got me out of a traffic ticket or a fishing violation. Why, then, would we want to make the problem worse with a homeless bill of rights?
Nolan Willis is a lifelong Alaskan, a Bristol Bay Commercial Fisherman, a licensed Professional Electrical Engineer, and the current Chair of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Alaska Section. His work experience spans the worlds of utilities, energy, communications, and naval nuclear propulsion.
President Donald Trump’s directive of March 17 ordered all records previously withheld for classification that are part of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection to be released by the National Archives. They were released Tuesday.
The new JFK files document set is over 63,000 pages long. Must Read Alaska has obviously not read them all. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard stated that more of the documents will be released soon.
Alaskan John Quick, former host of the Must Read Alaska Show podcast and now producer of a political true crime podcast, took the entire document and ran it through the paid version of ChatGPT (the most sophisticated version) artificial intelligence program. The conclusion by AI says that there were multiple entities colluding in Kennedy’s assassination, including the CIA and organized crime:
As of March 18, 2025, the records are available to access either online at this page or in person, via hard copy or on analog media formats, at the National Archives at College Park, Maryland. As the records continue to be digitized, they will be posted to the archive’s web page.
Alaska was admitted to the Union under the promise of self-governance and control over its vast natural resources. However, federal overreach has continuously eroded the state’s sovereignty, reducing it to a regulatory colony rather than an independent state.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency (2004) (ADEC v. EPA) solidified the federal government’s ability to override state regulatory decisions, while the historical expansion of federal power under NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937) provided the legal foundation for a bloated administrative state that dictates policies far removed from the constitutional structure of governance.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA (2002), announced the arrival of the major questions doctrine, a substantive canon of construction that bars agencies from resolving questions of “vast economic and political significance” without clear Congressional statutory authorization. West Virginia v. EPA provides a pathway for curtailing these abuses. What will Alaska do to restore its rightful sovereignty over its land and economy?
Adding to this crisis is the fact that the federal government controls over 60% of Alaska’s land, a situation that is not only a direct violation of the promises made at statehood but also an unconstitutional concentration of power. The federal government’s continued dominion over vast swaths of Alaska prevents meaningful resource development, stifles economic growth, and undermines state sovereignty.
A concerted effort must be made to dismantle these unconstitutional regulatory regimes, overturn unjust legal precedents, and demand the transfer of all federal lands not explicitly authorized by the Constitution to the State of Alaska.
The Legal Framework of Federal Overreach: From NLRB v. Jones to ADEC v. EPA
The foundation of federal regulatory expansion was laid in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937), where the Supreme Court drastically redefined the scope of the Commerce Clause. Prior to this decision, federal authority was limited to regulating actual interstate commerce, not the operations of individual businesses within state borders. NLRB v. Jones overturned this precedent by ruling that purely intrastate activities, such as labor disputes within a single manufacturing plant, could be federally regulated if they had a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce.
This ruling led to the unchecked growth of the administrative state, enabling federal agencies to exert direct control over economic activity that was traditionally under state jurisdiction. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) became an unaccountable entity that dictated employment and labor policies across all industries, regardless of whether their operations actually crossed state lines. This set the stage for broader federal interventions, including the disastrous ruling in ADEC v. EPA, where Alaska’s environmental policies were unilaterally overridden by a distant, unelected bureaucracy.
Why pretend Alaska has self-governance when Washington holds the ultimate veto? State agencies exist in name only, their authority a mere illusion—paper tigers against the iron grip of federal control. When over 60% of Alaska remains shackled under federal ownership, every state decision is subject to bureaucratic whim, every ambition throttled by a system designed to keep Alaska dependent. If sovereignty is just a show, why maintain the facade at all?
In ADEC v. EPA, the Supreme Court upheld the EPA’s authority to reject the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s decision regarding Best Available Controlling Technology (BACT) for pollution control. This ruling stripped Alaska of its ability to manage its own environmental regulations and imposed an unlawful precedent where state agencies are treated as mere enforcers of federal policy rather than autonomous governing bodies. The logic of NLRB v. Jones—where the federal government dictates state economic policy under the guise of commerce—was here applied to environmental regulation, further entrenching federal control over state matters.
This continuous erosion of Alaska’s sovereignty is exacerbated by the reality that over 60% of the state’s land remains under federal control. This is not just an administrative burden—it is a direct contradiction to the constitutional limits on federal land ownership. The Constitution only permits federal land holdings for specific purposes such as military installations and national defense (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17). The vast swaths of Alaskan land controlled by the federal government do not meet these criteria and should rightfully be handed over to state control.
The federal government’s control over 60% of Alaska’s land is unconstitutional yet why hasn’t Alaska developed the legal predicate and aggressively gone to battle?
The federal government’s control over 60% of Alaska’s land exceeds constitutional limits on federal land ownership under the Enclave and Property Clauses. It violates the Tenth Amendment by denying Alaska full sovereignty over its land. It breaches the Alaska Statehood Compact and violates the Equal Footing Doctrine. It ignores constitutional limits on federal retention of land set by prior Supreme Court precedent.
Alaska has the constitutional right to demand the return of these lands, sue for enforcement of the Statehood Compact, and challenge federal overreach in court under these principles.
West Virginia v. EPA: A Pathway for Reclaiming State Sovereignty
A potential turning point in dismantling this federal regulatory colonization came in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), where the Supreme Court struck down the EPA’s authority to impose sweeping regulatory changes without clear congressional authorization. This case reaffirmed the principle that federal agencies cannot unilaterally expand their power beyond the limits set by Congress and the Constitution.
Key Findings from West Virginia v. EPA:
The EPA exceeded its statutory authority by attempting to regulate carbon emissions in a manner not explicitly authorized by Congress.
The Court reinforced the major questions doctrine, stating that regulatory agencies cannot decide issues of vast economic and political significance without explicit congressional approval.
This decision curbed the ability of unelected federal bureaucrats to impose broad, industry-altering mandates without legislative oversight.
The logic of West Virginia v. EPA provides a direct pathway for overturning ADEC v. EPA. The EPA’s interference in Alaska’s environmental decisions is a textbook example of bureaucratic overreach beyond the agency’s statutory authority. If the EPA’s emissions policies were unlawful under West Virginia v. EPA, then its ability to overrule ADEC’s permitting decisions must also be reevaluated under the same standard.
Furthermore, the case strengthens the argument that NLRB v. Jones was an unconstitutional expansion of the Commerce Clause. If federal agencies can no longer claim broad regulatory authority without explicit congressional approval, then the NLRB’s control over purely intrastate labor relations must also be challenged. The Supreme Court’s renewed commitment to limiting administrative overreach presents a unique opportunity for Alaska as well as all states to reclaim control over their labor laws, environmental policies, and land management decisions.
Restoring Alaska’s Sovereignty: A Plan of Action
Alaska must challenge NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. Alaska has the legal resources to join legal challenges that seek to redefine the Commerce Clause and overturn the substantial effects test, restoring limits on federal power over intrastate activities. By following the thread of state sovereignty created by the West Virginia v. EPA decision, will this provide a strong precedent for rolling back Commerce Clause overreach in employment, business regulation, and resource development?
The Alaska Department of Law (DOL) must file a constitutional challenge against ADEC v. EPA. With this challenge, DOL files a lawsuit arguing that the EPA’s authority to override state permitting decisions is an unconstitutional delegation of power. By using the major questions doctrine, Alaska should argue that environmental regulatory decisions fall within state authority unless explicitly preempted by Congress. In the same breath with this filing, Alaska now can also demand the transfer of federal lands to the State of Alaska
Alaska’s state legislature must push for legislation that forces the federal government to relinquish all landholdings not explicitly authorized by the Constitution. The Alaska Statehood Compact must be enforced, compelling the federal government to honor its agreements and return lands necessary for the state’s economic viability.
Alaska’s most strategic legal doctrine is a combination of Major Questions Doctrine (to limit federal agencies) and Tenth Amendment-Based Compact Enforcement (to reclaim land and state sovereignty). This dual approach leverages Supreme Court precedent while forcing Congress to recognize Alaska’s constitutional right to full statehood.
No better time has ever occurred for Alaska to enlist the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in its legal battle. This enlistment can take all of the following forms:
Request a DOJ Amicus Brief in SCOTUS Cases
Direct Negotiation with DOJ to Reverse Federal Land Holdings
Suing the Federal Government WITH DOJ’s Support
Leveraging DOJ’s Role in Environmental and Land Management Policy
Strengthen State-Based Resource Development Laws
Alaska’s legislature can pass constitutional provisions reaffirming exclusive state control over resource development and prohibiting deference to federal regulatory agencies.
The state must actively promote oil, gas, and mining projects without federal approval, setting the stage for a direct confrontation with Washington, D.C.
Conclusion
Alaska’s sovereignty is under assault from both internal and external forces. NLRB v. Jones laid the foundation for unconstitutional federal overreach, ADEC v. EPA solidified Washington’s power to override state authority, and the continued federal control of over 60% of Alaska’s land is a direct affront to Alaska’s status as a state.
Can West Virginia v. EPA serve as a precedent to dismantle these overreaches? Will a shift in leadership at the U.S. Department of Justice create an opening for Alaska to redefine its relationship with the federal government?
The time has come to challenge these unconstitutional precedents, reclaim state land, and assert Alaska’s rightful control over its own destiny. Without decisive action, Alaska will remain a regulatory colony—hemorrhaging millions, if not billions, to its own gelded agencies, which exist only to enforce federal dictates. This gutted regulatory authority serves only Washington bureaucrats.
Are we truly a sovereign state, or have we become nothing more than a province of an overreaching federal government?
Michael Tavoliero is a writer for Must Read Alaska.
Independent journalist James O’Keefe has pioneered the exposing of corruption through the use of undercover recording devices. The list of big stories he’s broken is unparalleled.
But Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy is sponsoring a bill that would all but shut down O’Keefe’s ability to conduct his unique investigations in Alaska.
Two years ago in Alaska, O’Keefe’s investigator secretly recorded one of Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s campaign staff admitting the senior senator was backing rank choice voting. That was something Murkowski, up to that point, had not admitted.
O’Keefe’s most famous investigation involved secretly recording Planned Parenthood officials bragging about selling for profit body parts of aborted babies in California.
Dunleavy’s bill, SB85, would require “all-party consent” before recording a conversation. Current Alaska law and the law of 36 other states only require one party consent before starting a secret recording. Most of the states that have all-party consent, interestingly, lean heavily Democrat: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
This bill would mean that every individual involved in a private communication must agree before its details can be recorded. The ambiguity of the provision raises concerns for journalists.
Dunleavy’s bill would have different standards for the public and the government. Independent journalists or citizens would not be able to secretly record a conversation with a government official unless all parties agree, but government officials can continue to record with only one-party consent.
Critics say this is a dangerous double standard considering the recent rampant prosecutorial abuse under former Democrat President Joe Biden involving the Department of Justice, the IRS, the FBI, and local district attorneys.
Under Dunleavy’s bill, if a citizen or independent journalist secretly records a government official or politician admitting to taking a bribe or committing a crime, it’s the citizen or journalist that would be in violation of the law.
Dunleavy’s bill also has no exception for a potential whistle blower wanting to expose corruption at a government agency using a secret recording of co-workers to do so.
Since Dunleavy’s bill greatly restricts press freedom, it may face court challenges. Courts have sometimes protected secret recordings under the First Amendment when they serve a compelling public interest (e.g., exposing corruption). However, SB 85’s broad language offers no such safeguard, potentially inviting litigation.
It seems as though independent and often conservative journalists like O’Keefe are the only reporters attempting to expose government corruption. Legacy media outlets like the Anchorage Daily News, KTUU, and Alaska Public Media seem incurious about government waste, fraud, and abuse.
If Dunleavy’s bill passes, it could be a major set back for conservative journalism in Alaska.
Dan Fagan reports and writes columns for Must Read Alaska. He’s covered Alaska politics for close to 30-years. He currently hosts a morning drive radio talk show on 1020 am 92.5 and 104.5 fm on KVNT. For news tips, email Dan at [email protected]
Richard Best, who has been on the Palmer City Council since 2006, resigned Tuesday, effective immediately. He had come under pressure for recent actions that drew criticism from his fellow council members.
At the next full council meeting, Mayor Steve Carrington is expected to accept the resignation formally and begin the process of appointing a replacement. Carrington himself is facing a recall from a citizen who believes he acted improperly in the matter of the recently fired city manager.
Best has had other controversies during his tenure, and most recently faced charges for driving under the influence, charges that were dropped in a plea agreement that included losing his license for three months.
Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor has joined a coalition of state attorneys general in filing an amicus brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to lift a nationwide restraining order preventing the immediate deportation of Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang members.
This legal brief joining the side of President Donald Trump, amplifies the strong Republican support for Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expel the murderous Venezuelan gang members from US soil.
Taylor, along with attorneys general from 25 other states—including Virginia, South Carolina, Texas, and Florida—argues that the restraining order issued by US. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg is jeopardizing public safety and national security. The top legal minds from the 26 states say Trump’s executive order is rooted in “clear constitutional and statutory authority” and that blocking the deportations puts American lives at risk.
As a response to Boasberg’s actions, Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas has introduced articles of impeachment against Boasberg, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama. Trump, on TruthSocial, called Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic.”
In a retort, US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a public statement, saying that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”
Boasberg started the fight when he issued a temporary restraining order on Saturday to stop the removal of the violent gang members covered by Trump’s directive. But the jets carrying the TdA gang members had already left for El Salvador, which has agreed to take the gang members as prisoners for a fee. The planes had already left US airspace when the judge ordered them to turn around. They did not, but instead proceeded to El Salvador. Trump argued that the judge had no jurisdiction over international air space.
Today, the first 238 members of the Venezuelan criminal organization, Tren de Aragua, arrived in our country. They were immediately transferred to CECOT, the Terrorism Confinement Center, for a period of one year (renewable).
Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador responded to the judge. On X/Twitter, he wrote, “Oopsie. Too late.” Later he warned that the “U.S. is facing a judicial coup.”
That may be close to the truth.
Upon taking office, Trump had designated Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization, alongside seven other Latin American cartels. The Trump Administration has prioritized removing these violent gangs from the country. Attorney General Jason Miyares of Virginia, who leads the coalition along with South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, emphasized the importance of the president’s directive in safeguarding the public, which they said is the first duty of government.
US. Sen. Lisa Murkowski is unhappy about the deportations and told a joint session of the Alaska Legislature that Trump’s actions were illegal and that the illegal immigrant criminal gang members were denied due process.
In Murkowski’s mind, all 20 million illegal immigrants are entitled to lengthy trials before they can be deported, and no president may deport those considered enemy combatants, like the Venezuelan gang is.
The Mayor of Anchorage has accepted bids for a new city hall or renovations to the existing one.
A request for proposal was issued by the Municipality of Anchorage on Feb. 11, 2025, seeking proposals to provide office space for an alternative or renewed City Hall, as the current lease for the existing City Hall at 632 West 6th Ave. is set to expire on Dec. 31, 2026. Proposals were due by March 12.
The purpose of the RFP is threefold: to identify potential locations and facility concepts for a new or renewed City Hall, assess the concept feasibility, advantages, and disadvantages; to estimate development costs and propose terms for conceptual agreements; and to evaluate proposers’ credentials and experience.
The current Anchorage City Hall, built in 1962 and leased from Anchorage Public Private Partnership LLC, has 145,416 square feet of gross building area, with 132,674 square feet of rentable office space, housing approximately 375 employees across departments such as the Mayor’s office, Finance, IT, and Human Resources. The lease includes an option to purchase at 97% of fair market value.
Proposers were invited to offer flexible solutions, such as purchasing or leasing an existing or new building, renewing the current City Hall lease, or redeveloping it. Additional options mentioned in the RFP include integrating telework, co-locating the Anchorage Health Department (currently at 825 L Street with 71,691 square feet and 126 employees), or using vacant space at the Planning and Permitting Center.
The proposed facility must provide around 150,000 square feet of rentable space, be within Anchorage (and the RFP specifies it should be preferably in the downtown), ensure public transit and parking access, and support seamless operations for all listed departments by Jan. 1, 2027.
Proposals were to have included a development team with key roles for financial lead, architect, property manager, a management plan, site concepts, cost estimates (covering design, construction, and relocation), and potential public financing needs.
Submissions were limited to 20 pages and must address specific criteria: team qualifications (10 points), experience (10 points), project narrative (20 points), site plan/renderings (20 points), financial capacity (20 points), and benefits to the Municipality (20 points), totaling 100 points.
According to the RFP, an evaluation committee will score proposals, potentially followed by interviews with up to three shortlisted proposers, leading to contract negotiations with the highest-ranked proposer.
The award is anticipated to be announced within 30 days.
It’s becoming more clear that President Donald Trump is not really in charge of the Executive Branch. It’s federal judges who are in charge, even of the military.
In the latest decision, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes wrote that the Pentagon cannot enforce Trump’s order banning transgender people from serving in the military, saying it discriminates on the basis of sex.
After Trump signed the Jan. 27 executive order, six service members and two transgenders seeking to enlist in the military sued, saying it was a violation of their constitutional rights.
Trump’s order said that transgenders do not “satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service” because they threaten the lethality of the armed forces and undermine unit cohesion, an argument long used to keep marginalized communities from serving.
“The Court knows that this opinion will lead to heated public debate and appeals,” Reyes wrote. “In a healthy democracy, both are positive outcomes.”
“The cruel irony is that thousands of transgender servicemembers have sacrificed — some risking their lives — to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the Military Ban seeks to deny them,” Reyes wrote.
As of early March 2025, at least 15 to 24 judicial blocks had been imposed on Trump’s executive actions. This number is includes everything from injunctions on policies like birthright citizenship (blocked by four judges), federal funding pauses (blocked by two judges), and transgender healthcare restrictions (blocked by judges). However, some orders were upheld, others overturned, and most are under appeal and will land in the Supreme Court eventually.
Transgender individuals require ongoing medical attention to help them retain their cross-sex appearance and functionality. Some military experts say that makes them unsuitable for deployment into battle zones.
