March 11, 2024, marks five years since the World Health Organization officially declared the outbreak of Covid-19 a pandemic. What began as a localized outbreak in Wuhan, China, in the fall of 2019 swiftly spread across the globe, altering the course of modern history.
Covid, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, appeared to be an outbreak of pneumonia cases in Wuhan. By Jan. 30, 2020, the WHO classified it as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. As cases surged worldwide, the pandemic declaration on March 11, 2020, signified the widespread and severe impact of the virus.
The next day, March 12, 2020, the first case of Covid in Alaska was diagnosed.
Governments around the world, including in the US, responded with lockdowns, travel restrictions, forced masking, mandatory shots, and social distancing measures. Those who didn’t comply lost their jobs, were shunned by family and friends, and ridiculed as conspiracy theorists.
Health systems were pushed to the brink in 2020 and 2021, and frontline health care workers faced unprecedented challenges. Unvetted vaccines were rushed into use and governments outlawed alternative treatments that could have saved lives.
Five years after WHO declared the pandemic, and after millions died either from the virus or because of an underlying condition, President Donald Trump has pulled the United States out of WHO.
In his executive order of Jan. 20 — Inauguration Day — Trump wrote the withdrawal from WHO was “due to the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states. In addition, the WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments. China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO.”
Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum held a joint appearance in south Louisiana Thursday to tout the restart of the growth of America’s liquefied natural gas(LNG) industry.
The event celebrated the kickoff of a planned $18 billion expansion of the existing Plaquemines Parrish LNG export facility operated by Venture Global. It also served to symbolize the end of what was frankly one of the dumbest policy actions ever invoked by executive order – then-President Joe Biden’s “pause” on permitting for new LNG export infrastructure.
Reversed by President Donald Trump on day 1 of his second term in office, Biden invoked the year-long pause in January 2024 on the flimsiest of pretenses, a preposterous claim by anti-natural gas activist researchers that US LNG emissions exceed those of coal-fired power plants. Worse, that claim was not made in findings of a peer-reviewed scientific study, but in an early “preview” of a study that fell apart on close inspection.
The unpleasant task of defending this dumb policy action fell largely on the shoulders of Biden’s hapless Energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm, who assured the attendees of the annual CERAWeek conference in Houston in March 2024 that the “pause” would be “in the rearview mirror” when they met again in 2025. That prediction turned out to be accurate, but not due to any action taken by her or Biden. Instead, Granholm did her best to hype the Department of Energy’s(DOE) own study when it was released in November, making claims about its findings in a letter leaked to The New York Times the day before that turned out to not be accurate.
Even more concerning, Democrat nominee Kamala Harris consistently supported the pause and concerns increased throughout the campaign that, if elected, she would most likely move to turn the pause into permanent policy, thus ending America’s dominant position in the global LNG export business. But voters had different ideas, choosing instead to elect Trump for a second time in November, bringing his plans for American Energy Dominance along with him.
Burgum, who chairs Trump’s newly-created American Energy Dominance Council in which Wright also participates, told workers and executives assembled for Thursday’s event that, “One of our pathways to energy dominance is just unleashing the incredible resources that we have in this country: getting the red tape, getting the federal government off the back of the worker, off the back of companies.”
In an interview from the Venture Global site with Will Cain on Fox News, Wright, pointing to an LNG tanker behind him, said, “In less than 24 hours it’ll be loaded and sailing back to Germany; 100,000 homes in Europe can be heated and supplied with gas for a full year just in that one tanker behind us. This is unleashing American energy to the benefit of Americans and to the benefit of our friends and allies abroad. This is the way to peace.”
And so, Biden’s absurd pause comes to a richly-deserved end. Again, this entire fake controversy had zero basis in fact or real science. That’s how close America came to losing what has been one of its major growth industries of the last decade.
It is almost unimaginable that this could have happened in the United States of America, with its supposed system of checks and balances. But, as Elon Musk’s DOGE operation is revealing on a daily basis, so much of Biden’s administration appears to have been built on a foundation of a complex web of scams and money laundering schemes, with his energy and climate policies playing a leading role. This LNG pause episode almost pales in comparison to some of the multi-billion-dollar grants handed out by both DOE and the EPA in the administration’s final months.
But it’s all in Granholm’s imagined rearview mirror now, as is Granholm herself. America’s LNG industry is back, poised for rapid expansion and ready to resume its place as the dominant player in the global market.
Elections do matter.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
We often seen people change their tune the minute they step through those capitol pillars in Juneau. They campaign on principles and leave those shattered upon the Capital steps only to subvert the will of their constituents over and over.
I do not look forward to the rest of Sen. Rob Yundt’s term, unless he suddenly regains the principles he campaigned on.
I recently attended a Republican District 27 meeting in which Sen. Yundt was a participant by Zoom. He talked about his bill Senate Bill 92.
There were so many red flags in his commentary and when he answered questions. The two main words or phrases that passed from his lips most often were parity and crony capitalism and he seemed fixated on the fact that the founder of Hilcorp has personal wealth.
If I had to guess he has a strong leaning toward the principles held by those on the left. In fact, his statements sounded more like the rantings of a DEI social justice warrior than a conservative. He couldn’t see the difference between the behemoth that is ConocoPhillips and the much-smaller Hilcorp, despite saying he owns several S corporations himself.
I really must compliment the commentary given by former Rep. Christopher Kurka, who during this meeting clearly and respectfully shared the differences between an S corporation and a C corp, and offered to provide that information to Sen. Yundt.
To me it is mind boggling that this “conservative” senator would find it appalling that there is a benefit to an employer who employs around 1,500 Alaskans. He kept hammering that he wants to bring “parity” between the two very different corporations. He was incensed that the smaller corporation had a small advantage.
This in many ways is not an advantage, as the very nature of an S corp limits it. Given that we are living in an “America First” presidential administration, he might want to encourage more S corporations, as they are all-American owned. You’d think we might want to see more S corporations doing extremely well.
Yundt espoused that if Hilcorp was taxed the same as a C corporation it would result in a roughly $1,500 difference in the PFD per Alaskan.
Checkmate. We all know that there is no way the Democrat-led legislature will abide by the statutory calculation and there is NO way that any Alaskan will see that kind of increase in PFD until we have a deeply conservative Republican governor and actually take control of both the House and Senate.
Even though that is what we have voted for time and time again, that is not what we have gotten and I am not the only citizen tired of it.
On another note, aside from encouraging the Alaska Republican Party to deliver an official response to Sen. Yundt’s departure from basic Republican principles, I encourage the Republican Party in Alaska to seize the opportunity to truly stand with President Donald J. Trump’s initiative to ferret out waste and fraud.
I have worked in the nonprofit world, worked within systems funded by both federal and state dollars. I have witnessed the misuse of funds. For example, I was a substance abuse counselor working in a maximum-security correctional center. It was required to become certified in a program to reduce recidivism and I successfully completed the training, like many others who worked with this population. My agency and others spent thousands of dollars certifying facilitators of a program that actually had evidenced based results in reducing recidivism.
When it came down to it, the money spent was wasted. The Department of Corrections would not shell out the $20 per participant for inmates to get the workbook for the program. I was not allowed to copy or recreate any of the workbook material; I signed a statement saying I wouldn’t and I actually hold true to what I say I will do. Certified for nothing, no benefit gained. Money wasted.
We see the same thing play out in governments and schools. I have seen agencies drive up problems based on funding while ignoring the real problems. We need to abandon the way we have done things. It’s not working. We need to get back to logical and evidence-based results.
We need to “DOGE the heck” out of our state government spending.
We don’t need another department like Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s Department of Agriculture. Yes, food security in Alaska is a real issue but creating a larger government will do nothing to help Alaskans, it creates more government spending increasing our societal burden of inflation even more.
Alaska’s education system is failing and all we hear is about the government throwing more money at it than most other states with worse results. More government spending doesn’t solve the inherent problems. We need to find new creative and cost-saving ways to solve the problems. That is what so many citizens hope will happen. Parents have been pulling their children out of schools and homeschooling them instead, because the government is doing such a terrible job at it.
I am not alone in Alaskans who would like to see the momentum of what we see working with President Trump, Elon Musk and DOGE and bring that mindset back to the marble pillars of the state capitol in Juneau. We need to pare back our government spending. Reckless spending and throwing money at failing systems doesn’t work in a household, and it most certainly doesn’t work in Juneau.
We don’t need more reliance on federal dollars. We don’t need to create more government. We don’t need to disincentivize businesses who have invested heavily in Alaska. We need to solve our revenue problems by cutting back on government spending. We start by uniting the conservatives: undeclared, and independents, libertarians and others in this state and we must get rid of ranked choice voting. We all must work together to become the savvy steward of our natural resources and become an energy giant. We need an Alaska that is a is an economic powerhouse not a government heavy bureaucracy only alive due to reliance on the federal teat.
Written by Marcy Sowers, who is an Alaskan Native of the Tlingit tribe. Born in Juneau, AK and currently living in Wasilla, AK. She is the mother of three. Marcy attended Stanford University. She is married to author Mark Sowers and helps format his books. (Go ahead, give his books a read.)
House Bill 89 (HB 89), introduced in the 34th Alaska Legislature by Representatives Andy Josephson and Sara Hannan, is scheduled for review by the House State Affairs Committee on March 13. This legislation proposes the establishment of Gun Violence Protective Orders (GVPOs)—commonly known as “red flag” laws—representing a significant overreach by the state into the constitutional rights of Alaskans, particularly those protected under the Second Amendment.
The bill seeks to authorize the temporary confiscation of firearms from individuals deemed a potential danger to themselves or others, based on minimal evidence and seriously lacking robust due process that Alaskans expect.
While proponents say that such measures enhance public safety, even a cursory critical examination reveals that HB 89 sets a dangerous precedent, prioritizing government control over individual liberties with insufficient justification.
Under HB 89, a trooper, law enforcement officer, or household member may petition a court for a GVPO based on a “reasonable belief” that an individual poses a threat (AS 18.65.815). This standard is inherently subjective, requiring neither a criminal conviction nor even a formal accusation, but rather relying on unverified allegations to completely suspend a fundamental constitutional right.
The absence of a high threshold of evidence at the outset undermines the integrity of the process, exposing individuals to arbitrary removal of their firearms. In many states with red-flag laws the firearms descend into an abyss of state bureaucracy never to be seen again.
The further provisions for ex parte and emergency Gun Violence Protective Orders (AS 18.65.820) significantly elevate this concern. These provisions allow a judicial officer to issue an order without notifying the affected individual, enabling firearm confiscation prior to any opportunity for defense or even discussion. This mechanism is highly susceptible to abuse and weaponization, where personal disputes, false claims, or political motivations could lead to the unjust loss of Second Amendment rights, and property for law-abiding citizens.
Even when a hearing is convened (AS 18.65.815(b)), the “clear and convincing” evidence standard falls short of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold typically required for significant rights infringements, further weakening oversight.
The claimed usefulness of red flag laws, including HB 89, lacks factual data-driven support. Studies often cited by proponents, such as those from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, fail to adequately provide for extenuating factors like changes in policing strategies or mental health interventions.
A 2021 RAND Corporation analysis of Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs)—the federal analogue to GVPOs—concluded that evidence of their effect on reducing homicides, suicides, or mass shootings is inconclusive. Without credible, long-term data, the assertion that HB 89 will enhance safety in Alaska is completely unsubstantiated.
The bill also imposes unreasonable burdens, particularly on rural Alaskans. The mandate to surrender firearms within 24 hours to law enforcement or a firearms dealer (AS 18.65.830) is unworkable in regions where such entities are hours away and dependent on the vagaries of transportation and weather. The requirement to submit written proof of compliance within 48 hours (AS 18.65.830(b)) assumes access to administrative resources that many lack. Additionally, the potential for law enforcement to confront armed individuals unaware of ex-parte orders increases the risk of dangerous, avoidable escalations.
The establishment of a central registry of protective orders (AS 18.65.540) further compounds these issues, and creates a virtual “pre-crime” database that raises privacy concerns and allows expanded government surveillance over individuals who will likely never face criminal charges.
Constitutionally, HB 89 conflicts with both federal and state protections. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) affirmed the individual right to bear arms, a precedent undermined by red flag laws that permit confiscation without due process or conviction. The Fifth Amendment’s due process clause is similarly violated by the bill’s allowance for property deprivation without fair proceedings. Alaska’s Constitution (Article I, Section 19) explicitly safeguards the right to keep and bear arms, recognizing their critical role in subsistence hunting, self-defense, and rural life—values disregarded by HB 89’s urban-centric approach.
The conditional effect clause (Section 9), requiring a two-thirds legislative vote to amend court rules, signals limited support and underscores concerns regarding the bill’s constitutionality, legality, and practicality. Rather than pursuing this flawed legislation, Alaska should prioritize evidence-based alternatives. Expanding mental health services, particularly in rural areas, would more effectively address suicide and violence rates. Strengthening domestic violence prevention programs and enhancing law enforcement resources to respond to verified threats offer targeted solutions without infringing on constitutional rights.
HB 89 is an unnecessary and violates the constitution with its overreach. By enabling firearm confiscation based on subjective standards, imposing unworkable mandates, and lacking proven effectiveness, the bill fails to enhance public safety while throwing Alaskan liberties down the outhouse hole.
This state does not require imported gun control policies that ignore its unique realities. As legislators, our obligation is to uphold constitutional protections and pursue practical, proven strategies to ensure community safety. This is, quite simply, allowing the camel’s nose under the tent and I remain steadfastly opposed to any legislation that compromises the constitutional rights of Alaskans.
Rep. Kevin McCabe serves District 30 (formerly called District 8), the Big Lake area.
The Alaska Democrats’ latest attempt to seize firearms comes with House Bill 89, introduced by Reps. Andy Josephson of Anchorage and Sara Hannan of Juneau. It will be heard in the House State Affairs Committee on Thursday at 3:13 pm.
HB 89 would implement a law that permits the government to seize firearms based on vague standards of evidence.
The state could implement ex-parte hearings to take away a citizen’s Second Amendment rights without due process, NRA says. The individuals would then bear the burden of having to petition the court for the return of their property once the order has been vacated, adding cost to the citizen to get property back from seizure.
The State Affairs Committee is chaired by Rep. Ashley Carrick of Fairbanks, who is in favor of stricter gun control, as was her former boss, former Rep. Adam Wool, who introduced gun control laws.
The bill is opposed by the NRA and Gun Owners of America, and the courts are less supportive of taking the guns away from people who haven’t been convicted of anything. In divorce situations, red flag laws are often used as threats against men by the women in the divorce. Lawyers leverage the fear factor against men, forcing them to agree to settlements demanded by their soon-to-be ex-wives.
There are two committees of referral, State Affairs and Judiciary. To date, there are no fiscal notes, amendments, or sponsor statements associated with the bill, which most Republicans will oppose due to the infringement on Alaskans’ rights to bear arms.
Alaska’s education system is at a crossroads. Declining enrollment and increasing financial pressures demand difficult decisions from parents, school districts, and the state. Without aggressive action on multiple fronts, including closing and consolidating under-attended schools, we risk diminishing educational opportunities for students while continuing to strain state resources.
During debate on HB69, I will be offering an amendment aimed at reducing the number of school districts from 54 to 30 by 2027. While some may resist this change, the reality is clear: The current system is unsustainable. Consolidation of school districts—and the resulting reduction in administrative overhead—is one necessary step toward improving efficiency and ensuring that education dollars are directed where they belong: into classrooms, teachers, and student services.
I want to outline why district consolidation is necessary, address some of the key concerns, and present a path forward for improving efficiency without sacrificing local control. Surveys I have seen show that more than 80% of Alaskans feel we need to consolidate our districts so this is important to Alaskans.
Over the past 25 years, some estimates suggest that Alaska has lost approximately 4,056 students, with Fairbanks alone accounting for about 2,812 of those losses. This decline, coupled with ongoing budget shortfalls, has forced many districts to consider closing schools and consolidating programs. While some consolidation has already occurred at the school level, we have yet to seriously address the inefficiencies at the district level.
Lets face it: Alaska’s falling birth rate is hitting us hard, shrinking our student numbers year after year, and it’s high time we stop pretending this won’t force our hand. Fact is unless and until we further develop our resources, our population growth rate, including birth rate, will continue to decline. Fewer kids means fewer desks to fill, and if we don’t consolidate districts, we’ll be stuck with a patchwork of half-empty schools, wasting money on overhead instead of teaching the next generation.
Smaller districts often lack the resources to offer advanced coursework, specialized programs, or extracurricular activities that larger districts can provide. They also suffer from often huge administrative burdens that consume scarce funding—money that should be spent on improving the education outcomes for our children.
My research suggests that consolidating districts could reduce total administrative costs by 10 to 20% annually. These savings could be reinvested directly into classrooms, addressing the persistent achievement gap in our schools. With Alaska’s K-12 achievement scores averaging a C- (or worse, depending on the metric used) nationally, we cannot afford to continue diverting precious resources away from instruction.
But this is not just about money; it is about priorities. We must find efficiencies and summon the will to prioritize the focus on our children’s educational outcomes rather than the bureaucratic bloat of the education-industrial complex.
Beyond cost savings, consolidation offers an opportunity to expand and improve education across the state. Larger districts can provide a wider range of courses, including Advanced Placement and career training programs, which prepare students for both college and the workforce. Historically, many rural schools have been unable to offer these opportunities due to staffing and funding limitations. However, with Alaska’s ongoing investments in high-speed broadband access to village schools, we now have the infrastructure to support efficient longer-distance administration and high-quality remote learning—regardless of physical distance. The opportunity is here; we just need the political will to seize it.
I understand that consolidation raises concerns, particularly for rural communities. Increased travel distances, loss of local identity, and fears about reduced community involvement are valid considerations. That is why my amendment includes key safeguards to minimize disruption:
Geographic Considerations: Merging districts will prioritize proximity to ensure reasonable travel distances for parents, students, and staff.
Public Input: At least five public hearings per affected district will be required, ensuring that communities have a voice in the process.
Rural Education Protections: Regional Educational Attendance Areas (REAAs) will remain a critical part of the system to preserve educational access in remote areas.These measures will ensure that consolidation is accomplished thoughtfully and with direct community involvement at every stage.
Alaska’s 54 school districts far exceed the number found in states with similar populations. The entire state of Hawaii is one school district. Many states facing declining enrollment have successfully consolidated districts, improving efficiency while maintaining strong local education systems. Nationally, the average student-to-teacher ratio is 16:1, while in Alaska, it is 18:1—suggesting that we have room for efficiency gains without negatively impacting student outcomes. Moreover, the trend nationwide has been toward administrative consolidation, ensuring that resources are focused on students rather than bureaucracy.
We cannot ignore the financial and educational challenges ahead. By engaging all stakeholders—parents, educators, and lawmakers—we can develop a plan that balances efficiency with the need to preserve community identity. Consolidation is not about taking away local control; it is about shifting local control to parents and principals closer to schools while ensuring that every student, regardless of location, has access to the best possible education.
The goal is a smarter, more sustainable system that prioritizes student success over administrative waste. I remain committed to working with all stakeholders to make that vision a reality and have hope that this common-sense amendment will resonate with every member of the Alaska House.
Rep. Kevin McCabe serves District 30 (formerly called District 8), the Big Lake area.
How many state workers from Indiana does it take to screw in a light bulb? One.
How many state workers from Alaska? Five. For every one state worker in Indiana, Alaska has five.
Alaska comes close to quadrupling the number of state employees per capita of that of 11 other states. It doubles the number of state employees of all but 8 states. Alaska’s 245 state employees per 10,000 residents is by far the highest in the nation.
That is 2.4 state workers for every 100 Alaskans, and 1.2 state workers for every 50 Alaskans. This does not count federal, municipal, university, or school district employees.
The state may be short on daylight in the winter, but state workers? Not so much.
In light of Alaska’s Jabba the Hutt-like morbidly obese state government, some are questioning Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s call for creating an entire new department — a Department of Agriculture.
Dunleavy’s pitch for his new department doesn’t seem to offer any reasonable rational explanation of how a new government agency would increase agriculture in the state.
Former Republican President Ronald Reagan once described three typical ways government impacts an industry. “If it moves tax it, If it keeps moving regulate it, and if stops moving subsidize it.”
Since Dunleavy says he wants to grow state agriculture, his newly created agency, as least under his watch, probably won’t tax or increase regulation on farmers. Which leaves subsidies.
On his Facebook page the governor wrote: “Alaska imports 95% of its food, but we don’t have to. Creating a dedicated Department of Agriculture will give our farmers the support they need to grow more food right here at home. “
Does “support” mean subsidies? If so, does the state need an entire new department just to hand out free cash to farmers?
Most comments on the governor’s Facebook page have ridiculed the idea of creating a new Department of Agriculture.
“Haha because another government department is always what helps the free market to grow,” wrote Jake Amberson.
“While I believe your heart is in the right place… Alaska history is littered with failed agricultural attempts,” posted Jim Taylor.
“There are already agricultural loan programs through the gov’t. We already have a Alaska Farm Bureau. No more Gov’t!! Farmers are NOT stupid. They don’t need someone from the Gov’t telling them how to raise meat and crops. NO to dept of agriculture. NO,” posted Deena Benson.
Not all posts rejected Dunleavy’s idea.
“Farmers need the ability to speak directly to the governor and the legislature, a commissioner will give them this option,” wrote Tarn Coffey.
If Coffey is correct, wouldn’t it be a lot cheaper if legislators and the governor promised to take farmers calls instead of hiring a bunch of new state employees to do so.
Dunleavy’s pitch to grow state government by creating a new department is curious and somewhat politically tone death in light of the widely popular DOGE movement on the federal level.
The nation is finally waking up to how wasteful and bloated government has become thanks to President Donald Trump and the head of DOGE, billionaire Elon Musk.
The irony in all of this is when the dust settles, it will be Dunleavy who will be responsible for holding the line on spending over the next two years in Alaska.
Legislative Democrats and turn coat Republicans like Senators Cathy Giessel and Rob Yundt have big tax and spend plans for the state and only Dunleavy can stop them with his veto pen. I believe he will.
Even if voters disagree with the governor on his plan to create a Department of Agriculture, they should keep in mind he’s the only guy standing between a radically left leaning tax and spend legislature that if successful, would bankrupt the state.
The governor is expected to veto proposed new oil taxes, giant increases in education spending, and the financially suicidal return of pensions for state employees.
Dunleavy should save the day. And he seems to have little legislative support for his plan to create a Department of Agriculture.
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]
Talk about growth of government in a shrinking population: Over the last 10 years, while Democrats increasingly took over the Anchorage Assembly, the Assembly has increased its own operating budget by more than 234%. Its budget went from $1.3 million in 2015 to $4.4 million for last year. The number of its full time staff increased nearly 60% (from 12 to 19).
By contrast, over the same period of time the Mayor’s Office budget has increased 8%, but with the same number of positions.
Democratic members of Congress have upped their use of profanity in an effort to be more relatable to Americans, Politico reported Sunday.
The upsurge in swearing comes as Democrats face criticism for their conduct during President Donald Trump’s address to Congress, when they remained seated and rarely applauded during Trump’s address, even when Secret Service Director Sean Curran presented Devarjaye “D.J.” Daniel, who is battling brain cancer, with credentials during the speech. One Democratic strategist told Politico that some of the increased use of profanity by Democrats was an affect, rather than being “authentic.”
“If the first time you’ve used a cuss word in public is reading off a script, it’s probably not authentic and not something you should do,” Democratic advisor Lis Smith, who reportedly was responsible for an “R” rating for a documentary about former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign due to her facility for salty language, said after over 20 Senate Democrats read the same script on a video posted to social media that included the word “shit.”
Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas unleashed two notable instances noted by Politico. On Feb. 25, she told White House senior advisor Elon Musk to “fuck off” during a media interview, before sayingsomeone should “slap” her to “wake me the fuck up” when talking with a reporter after she walked out of Tuesday’s speech by Trump.
Crockett also posted a contrived dance video to social media before Trump’s address.
Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, known for cussing at times, questioned where the profanity came from when asked for comment by Politico. “Goddamn it, tell me who started that?” Fetterman asked Politico.
Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, an ex-Marine, pointed to his military service as a reason for his colorful language. according to Politico.
Democrats have appeared to struggle with messaging since Trump defeated then-Vice President Kamala Harris in the Nov. 5, 2024, presidential election.
Democrats have also made widely-panned outreach on social media. Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Lauren Underwood of Illinois, Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, Judy Chu of California, Jasmine Crockett of Texas and Susie Lee of Nevada took partin an 18-second video similar to the character selection screens of the arcade and console franchise that influencer Sulhee Jessica Woo posted on Instagram Wednesday evening.
A Quinnipiac University poll found only 21% of respondents approved of congressional Democrats, compared to a 40% approval rating for Republicans in Congress.
