A group of protestors, mostly middle-aged and older whites, took to the streets in Anchorage during the noon hour, advertising their litany of complaints and grievances. Many of them were women, and they arrived in expensive cars to protest. They did not take the bus.
They don’t want government spending to be reduced. They don’t like President Trump. They don’t like Elon Musk. And there were several other placards filling out their complaint list.
It was a protest against everything Trump.
They marched from the Anchorage Performing Arts Center down to L Street, and stood in front of the building that houses congressional and senatorial offices, Peterson Tower.
One sign said, “This is a coup,” while another sign said, “Stop the coup!” It was confusing. They yelled that they want a town hall. The older crowd got their photo ops and then dispersed.
The group was part of national protests organized by a group calling itself 50-50-1. One was planned for Fairbanks, where Mayor David Pruhs said he would host a barbecue for the protesters.
Two key moments in US-Ukraine relations involving President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have defined American politics and foreign policy.
The first, a phone call in 2019 between President Donald Trump and Zelenskyy, led to the impeachment of a sitting US president.
The second, a 2025 meeting between Democratic lawmakers and Zelenskyy, allegedly led to the rejection of a peace agreement, prolonging the war and ensuring thousands more deaths.
Yet only one event was treated as a national scandal—while the other remains ignored by the media and unexamined by Congress.
Remember the infamous Trump-Zelenskyy phone call of 2019. This was the foundation of Trump’s first impeachment.
On the July 25, 2019, phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President Trump requested that Ukraine investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, regarding their involvement with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.
Specifically, President Trump stated:
“The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. It sounds horrible to me.”
The call was leaked, framed as an abuse of power, and used as grounds for Trump’s first impeachment in December 2019.
Trump was impeached by House Democrats on charges of “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress.” The call was portrayed as a pressure tactic to influence U.S. elections. Trump was acquitted in the Senate, but the event was weaponized politically against him.
What do we know about the February 28, 2025, meeting between Senator Chris Murphy, other unnamed Democrats, and Zelenskyy?
On Feb. 28, 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met privately in Washington, D.C., with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and other unnamed Democratic lawmakers. This meeting occurred just before Zelenskyy was scheduled to finalize a mineral deal with President Trump—a deal widely viewed as a steppingstone toward a ceasefire with Russia.
Following this closed-door meeting, Zelenskyy abruptly reversed course, rejecting the agreement and engaging in a heated public confrontation with President Trump and Vice President JD Vance. As a result, the deal collapsed entirely, prolonging the war and ensuring the continuation of U.S. military aid to Ukraine.
While details of what was discussed remain undisclosed, the timing and immediate consequences of this meeting raise serious concerns about whether Democratic lawmakers deliberately influenced Zelenskyy to sabotage the potential peace process. The full list of attendees and what was said behind closed doors remain critical questions that demand further investigation.
Sen. Murphy later admitted the meeting took place, posting on X (formerly Twitter):
“Just finished a meeting with President Zelensky here in Washington. He confirmed that the Ukrainian people will not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything he wants and there are no security arrangements for Ukraine.”
This failure orchestrated by Murphy and other unnamed Democrats promulgated the continuation of the Ukraine-Russia war. This failure will plainly lead to thousands of additional deaths, the potential of U.S. after the midterms to continue funneling billions in military aid, and benefiting defense contractors.
It also denied Trump a diplomatic win, keeping Ukraine a political pawn.
But now the question remains: Who else was there?
Which Democratic lawmakers attended the meeting with Zelenskyy?
Did any intelligence officials or members of Biden’s administration play a role?
Was classified information used to steer Zelenskyy away from peace?
Did any of these officials have financial ties to defense contractors profiting from war?
If Trump’s phone call was treated as an impeachable offense, why has Murphy’s closed-door meeting, which allegedly derailed peace, not faced the same scrutiny?
The Double Standard: Why was Trump impeached but the Murphy gang walks free?
We all know Trump’s call with Zelenskyy was a diplomatic conversation in which he inquired about Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine and then-Vice President Joe Biden’s involvement with Burisma. The call also aimed to investigate potential corruption related to US-Ukraine relations at the time.
Senator Murphy’s meeting, along with other unnamed Democrats, directly interfered with a president’s diplomatic efforts to negotiate a peace deal in Ukraine. This interference contributed to the continuation of the war, leading to further deaths and displacement, with approximately 15.23% of Ukraine’s pre-war population directly impacted by casualties and forced migration.
Trump’s 2019 phone call was a request for an investigation.
Murphy’s 2025 secret meeting may have manipulated a foreign leader into rejecting a peace deal.
One was considered an impeachable offense, the other ignored entirely.
Trump’s call did not lead to war—the Murphy gang’s actions ensures more deaths and destruction
No one died because of Trump’s phone call.
Murphy’s meeting contributed to thousands of additional deaths in Ukraine and Russia.
Trump was accused of political pressure—the Murphy Gang’s meeting was overt political sabotage
Trump was accused of “pressuring” Zelenskyy for political gain.
Murphy and other Democrats allegedly influenced Zelenskyy to reject a peace deal, prolonging war for political leverage.
What must Republicans do?
Grow a set!
If Trump was impeached for a diplomatic phone call, then Murphy and any other Democratic lawmakers involved in the 2025 meeting must face consequences for undermining diplomacy and prolonging war.
Demand a full Congressional investigation
Identify every Democratic lawmaker present at the Zelenskyy meeting.
Determine if classified intelligence was used to pressure Zelenskyy.
Investigate whether this meeting violated diplomatic protocols.
Invoke the Logan Act (18 U.S.C. § 953)
The Logan Act prohibits unauthorized individuals from negotiating with foreign governments in disputes involving the U.S.
Did Murphy and others illegally interfere in official U.S. diplomacy?
Introduce a motion to censure or expel Murphy and other officials
If Trump was impeached for a phone call, Murphy and others should face congressional censure or expulsion for backroom sabotage.
Expose the financial connections to defense contractors
Who in Congress profits from prolonging the war?
Did anyone involved in the meeting have financial stakes in military aid and arms production?
Is Ukraine a complex money laundering operation designed to perpetuate campaign support for a select group of politicians?
Final question: Will Republicans act, or will this be buried?
If Trump’s phone call warranted an impeachment, then Murphy’s meeting, which allegedly torpedoed peace and cost lives, is a national scandal that demands equal or harsher consequences.
Will Republicans demand accountability and expose who else was involved? Or will this, like so many Beltway crimes, be swept under the rug?
If Republicans fail to act, they send a clear message which will end their control of Congress in 2026:
Political power is above justice.
War is more valuable than peace.
The establishment will protect its own—at any cost.
The American people deserve answers. Who was in that room, and why did they block peace?
As we read reports about the measles being an epidemic among the unvaccinated, I thought it would be helpful to present the following data from the CDC web page:
U.S. Measles Cases in 2025
Total cases: 164
Cases by Age
Under 5 years: 55 (34%)
5-19 years: 79 (48%)
20+ years: 29 (18%)
Age unknown: 1 (1%)
Vaccination Status
Unvaccinated or Unknown: 95%
One MMR dose: 3%
Two MMR doses: 2%
U.S. Hospitalizations in 2025: 20% (32 of 164)
Percent by Age Group Hospitalized
Under 5 years: 29% (16 of 55)
5-19 years: 13% (10 of 79)
20+ years: 17% (5 of 29)
Age unknown: 100% (1 of 1)
U.S. Deaths in 2025: 1
It is important to note some of these cases that were hospitalized were done “to protect other family members, for instance to protect immunocompromised relatives.” In the US population, between 3 and 6.6% of the US population is immunocompromised.
Screenshot of CDC chart.
To bring the measles outbreak closer to home, there have been two measles cases in Alaska for 2025.
AP published an article about the outbreak in Lubbock, Texas. Quoted in that article was Dr. Lara Johnson, a pediatrician and Chief Executive Officer at Covenant Health Hospital in Lubbock. This is the site of the only recent US measles death. Dr. Johnson stated, “Unfortunately, like so many viruses, there aren’t any specific treatments for measles. What we’re doing is providing supportive care, helping support the patients as they hopefully recover.”
In 2023, the National Foundation for Infectious Disease issued a call to action, Vitamin A for the management of measles in the US. It recommended all US children presenting with measles “receive an age-appropriate dose of vitamin A as part of a comprehensive measles management protocol, regardless of nutritional status.”
I don’t know if Dr. Johnson used Vitamin A as part of her protocol for her hospitalized patients, but it would seem such treatment modality would be prudent.
Vitamin A has reduced mortality during measles outbreaks. The good news is it is cheap, we have an abundant supply, and there are few side effects when used appropriately. Why isn’t it used routinely to treat measles? Hmm. Perhaps we should ask Big Pharma. Maybe it’s because there is no money to be made.
The CDC recently updated its recommendation to support giving vitamin A “under the supervision of a physician for those with mild, moderate, and severe infection. Studies have found that vitamin A can dramatically reduce measles mortality.”
The big push is for people to get their children vaccinated with the Measles-Mumps-Rubella shot. The MMR vaccine is a live virus. Even if you said everyone was mandated to take it, there are some people who cannot take live viruses. And there are those people who fail to get immunity even after they have been vaccinated. The measles vaccine is said to be 85-95% efficacious after one dose, and 90-98% after two doses.
Past measles outbreaks in the US and Canada have resulted in up to 50% of those developing measles have received two doses of MMR. The reality is with or without ending vaccine exemptions, there will always be outbreaks.
Some articles say this is an epidemic. However, measles is still considered by the World Health Organization to be eliminated. That means there is no regular spread of the disease. It occurs in short-term outbreaks. Yes, the US is currently experiencing one.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) is examining the U.S. vaccine schedules. I expect more information to come out concerning how many vaccines does your child need and at what age.
Dr. Meryl Nass of the Children’s Health Defense states there have been many reports of autism occurring after the MMR shot. She goes on to state that the older a child is when they receive this vaccine, the better. The child will be less likely to have severe neurologic complications.
Yes, most children recover from the measles. But the disease can lead to dangerous complications like pneumonia, blindness, brain swelling and death.
As for complications with the vaccine itself, there have been approximately 89,000 adverse reactions in the last 30 years. That includes about 450 deaths. These statistics are from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System for measles vaccines.
Every parent must make the best decision for their children. Parents must determine the risk from the shot versus the risk from the disease. Statistics show most of us won’t be exposed to measles and about 99.9% of healthy children will be fine if they contract measles.
Dr. Katherine Wells, the director of the local health department in Lubbock Texas, stated the first case was in an unvaccinated child sitting in the emergency room next to a child who had measles.
This showed how quickly the disease can spread. The nurse in me wants to ask, what was a child with a probable measles rash doing next to another child in the emergency room? That would be Infection Control 101.
Right now, we have only had two cases of measles in Alaska. In the last 25 years, the entire US has had four deaths. Armed with the facts, parents can make the best decisions for their family.
If you want to get your child vaccinated, several doctors with whom I spoke recommended you wait until the child is 2.5 to 3 years old. The brain will be more developed and less likely to be affected.
Get informed. I am not a medical doctor. Discuss the MMR vaccine with your healthcare providers.
The child is yours and the decision is yours.
Linda Boyle, RN, MSN, DM, was formerly the chief nurse for the 3rd Medical Group, JBER, and was the interim director of the Alaska VA. Most recently, she served as Director for Central Alabama VA Healthcare System. She is the director of the Alaska Covid Alliance/Alaskans 4 Personal Freedom.
The Valley Republican Women of Alaska, one of the major Republican organizations in the state, have issued a resolution strongly opposing Senate Bill 92, introduced by Sen. Rob Yundt, which proposes a 9.4% income tax on entities producing or transporting oil and gas in the state with taxable income exceeding $5 million. The bill targets Hilcorp.
Already, one of the two House districts in Yundt’s Senate district has passed a similar resolution. District 28’s resolution passed last month, not long after the senator surprised the Legislature by his heretofore secretive bill.
VRWAK argues that the bill’s provisions fail to account for the significant and harmful impact it will have on businesses across Alaska, particularly small and mid-sized enterprises already facing immense challenges in today’s economic climate.
The group contends that the bill places businesses at risk of increased operational costs, stifled growth, and potential closures, thereby threatening the livelihood of hard-working entrepreneurs.
During a recent Senate Resources Committee hearing, industry representatives echoed these concerns. Kara Moriarty, president of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, criticized the bill as a discriminatory and retroactive tax. She noted that out of approximately 11,000 S corporations filing taxes in Alaska, the legislation appears aimed at one or two individual companies within that category. Moriarty also emphasized that such retroactive taxation undermines business confidence and the investment climate.
Sen. Yundt, the bill’s sponsor, has stated that the tax is intended to generate revenue for energy and electrical grid projects, addressing critical infrastructure needs as Alaska grapples with aging systems and fluctuating energy demands. But by law, revenues to the state cannot be designated for any one purpose. Revenues go into the general fund.
VRWAK’s resolution calls for an immediate reevaluation of Senate Bill 92, urging lawmakers to consider the potential consequences for the business community before further progress is made. They stress the importance of fostering a supportive environment for businesses to thrive, warning that proceeding without adjustments could lead to job losses, diminished economic activity, and long-term harm to Alaska’s economic health.
The Yundt Tax is among other taxes proposed by Senate Democrats this year, including both oil companies and those that are based out of state but do business in state.
The Ukraine conflict is front and center in the news these days. Big power confrontations over the big issues of national security. So, what does this have to do with the Arctic? We had nothing to do with the war in the first place. We have always supported the idea of a “peaceful and prosperous Arctic.”
However, international sanctions related to the Ukraine conflict, as specifically listed below, have been very damaging to the interests of the people who live in the Arctic, particularly for Alaska. Even so, as good patriotic Americans, we didn’t speak out against our national leaders as they pursued what they perceived were our national security interests in the conflict.
But it’s a new day and a new president, who is determined to end the conflict as a humanitarian matter and a continuing war financing matter. The human losses and destruction of infrastructure in Ukraine has been devastating and the war has devolved into a WWI style trench warfare standoff, creating a no-win situation for both sides.
Whether before or after the conflict is settled, there is no reason to continue these damaging sanctions. But who will stand up for the people of Alaska and the Arctic? Fortunately for us, we have many people and organizations who can step up to the plate.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s and the end of communism in Russia, sincere efforts were made to establish collaboration and a more peaceful coexistence.
One of the most important efforts was the formation of formal agencies of Arctic cooperation which included all eight Arctic nations. Thus, the Arctic Council was formed to “Provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States” to address “in particular, issues of sustainable develoment and environmental protection in the Arctic.”
Also formed were the Arctic Economic Council, the Northern Forum, the Arctic Mayor’s Forum, and the Arctic Coast Guard Forum, in which issues of military and national security were strictly excluded.
However, this peaceful good faith was swept up in the Ukraine conflict and swiftly cancelled. Only the Northern Forum, the coalition of Arctic states and regional governments, continued on, promoting best practices in Arctic resource development including mining, and a trans-arctic energy policy that included energy efficiency, alternative energy sources, and continued production of necessary fossil fuels.
How did these sanctions affect Alaska and the Arctic? What have we lost, and what do we have to gain if cooperation can once again prosper through a settlement of the Ukraine conflict as proposed by President Trump?
Here are some examples:
Due to Arctic cooperation sanctions, Russia is no longer allowed to provide climate data from their section of the Arctic which is 40%. I attended the COP29 climate conference in Azerbaijan to represent the Northern Forum, and the climate modelers there said their climate models no longer work without the Russian data. It is difficult to see how this can be justified since climate change is regularly presented as an “exisential threat” to the planet, and even the human race.
Prior to sanctions, Alaska oil field service firms had strong opportunities for work in Russian oil fields. With our substantial experience in Arctic oil field development, we were able to bring environmentally responsible practices there and bring the profits back to Alaska. Alaska companies like Lynden had huge operations in Sakhalin. These contracts were all cancelled by sanctions and the Chinese moved in to take their place.
Nordic country businesses were also prohibited from working in Russia. Nordic shipyards lost several contracts to build icebreakers for the Rosatomflot fleet. These are now built in Russian or Chinese shipyards, contributing to their economies.
Due to European sanctions on Russian oil, it is now being diverted to Asian markets in China, India, and Japan, with crude oil now sailing through ice infested waters just off the coast of Alaska in the Bering Strait. This constitutes the highest level threat to food security in the Arctic. In addition, the Arctic Coast Guard Forum excluded Russian participation. A coordinated vessel tracking, monitoring and emergency response system can substantially reduce these risks. While Norway continues its cooperative prevention and response agreement with Russia, European countries have spoken out against anyone else working with Russia on any matter.
Russian oil is price sanctioned, creating an incentive for Asian nations to burn even more fossil fuel at a time when the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet. In addition, this mandated lower pricing creates an energy price deficit, harming the economic competetiveness of Alaska’s gasline export project.
As the climate warms, fish are moving further North in the Bering Sea. Due to sanctions, cooperative research operations for potential management plans with Alaska’s Department of Fish and Game were cancelled. In the meantime, Russian fisheries operations North of the Bering Strait go on without restrictions. Norway maintains its cooperative research and co management of fisheries agreements with Russia in the Barents Sea, but European countries object to anyone else cooperating with Russia.
The fluctuations in Alaska’s salmon stocks are an ongoing mystery. We know how many juvenile fry leave our rivers and hatcheries, but very little about what happens in the open ocean. A joint research project was initiated with Russia to determine food and predatory interactions in the Gulf of Alaska within the EEZ’s of both countries. Due to sanctions, the project was cancelled because the research vessel was Russian.
Due to sanctions, Russia has increased their quotas of fish caught and dumped on the market, creating a destabilizing economic disaster for Alaskan communities and fishing businesses who lost $1.8 billion last year. Counter sanctions have cost Alaskan fishermen $14 million per year in salmon caviar sales.
Alaska previously had convenient air routes directly to Russia, primarily through Petropavlavsk, which were cancelled. This has harmed business, tourism, education, and cultural exchanges.
These sanctions have proven to be totally ineffective in creating any change in the policies of Russia. We should be very proactive in encouraging our local, state, and federal political leaders to start now in proposing a resumption in Arctic cooperation to be included in any negotiated settlement of the Ukraine conflict.
Our governer, who has a strong relationship with President Trump, could advocate for Alaska. Our congressional delegation certainly has connections to the State Department. The Alaska Legislature has recently formed a Senate Arctic Affairs Committee that could address the issue and advise the rest of the legislature. We will soon have another meeting of the Arctic Encounter in Anchorage and this issue should be a central topic of discussion. And of course, any Alaskan could contact any of the above to encourage them to advocate for Alaska.
This is not meant to favor or harm any country, but to recognize the common interests of the people who actually live here in this special place we call the Arctic. We often remind those down South that the US is an Arctic nation because of Alaska. We should expect them to start acting like it.
It seems President Trump is correct in stating that Ukraine membership in NATO and nuclear weapons on Russia’s border is the driving concern for their war in Ukraine, just as we in the US were concerned about Russian nuclear weapons being placed in Cuba during the 1960’s. A nuclear World War III was on the horizon. This was a special concern for us here in Alaska, since due to our strategic position and military bases, we would be a prime target. As a freshman at Central Junior High School, our teachers were having us practice diving under our desks.
In October of 1964, our Department of Defense and Intelligence agencies were openly calling for an invasion of Cuba, not realizing that at least three of the nuclear silos were fully operational. Another intelligence failure. It took JFK and RFK to go around them and work out a deal with Russia to defuse the situation.
Will Donald Trump be the JFK of our Era? We can only hope so.
Paul Fuhs is Arctic Goodwill Ambassador of The Northern Forum.
The public comments on Senate Bill 92, sponsored by Sen. Rob Yundt, were less than favorable on Monday in the Senate Resources Committee in Juneau, where the income tax bill was being heard.
After a brief introduction by Yundt of Wasilla of only perhaps 80 words, the committee opened up meeting to public comment.
Yundt had not arranged for any favorable invited testimony. The lawmakers did not ask Yundt a single question about his impactful bill. And the committee members did not ask about the chart provided by the Department of Revenue that showed how in 2021 when Hilcorp came into the state and took over from BP, oil production went up, as did royalties and production tax to the state. Revenues took off immediately in 2022.
Kara Moriarty, president of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, testified that AOGA strongly opposes targeted taxes (SB 92 is a targeted tax), and that the AOGA position comes with 100% support of the organization, which is made up of the oil and gas producers in Alaska, most of whom would not be affected by the Yundt Tax.
The tax was designed to target Hilcorp, because it is an S corporation that is not taxed in the same way that C corporations are taxed.
Moriarty called it a new discriminatory and also a retroactive tax income tax on a “limited number of firms.”
In 1980, the Alaska Legislature eliminated the income tax on individuals and pass-through entities, such as privately owned S corporations, she reminded the committee.
“Senate Bill 92 seeks to reinstate an income tax, but only on pass-through entities and only pass-through entities in the oil and gas sector, and only those oil and gas businesses with incomes exceeding $5 million,” Moriarty said. Out of approximately 11,000 S corporations filing taxes in Alaska, this legislation appears to be aimed at one or two individual companies within that category.”
AOGA has long oppose any type of tax retroactivity, she said, as it it undermines stability, business confidence and investment climate. In addition, without proper modeling, the full impact on businesses is unclear, as there has not been any modeling of the Yundt Tax.
The tax also appears to impose double taxation on entities already subject to corporate income tax, she said.
Others who testified against the bill included Laila Kimbrell, president of the Alaska Resource Development Council; Jerry Webre of Little Red Services; Lester Black of the Alaska Support Industries Alliance; Kelly Droop of Anchorage; Kati Capozzi, president of the Alaska Chamber of Commerce; and Tom Walsh of Petrotechnical Resource of Alaska.
Only one person testified in favor of the bill. That was Caroline Storm, executive director of the Coalition for Education Equity, a group that litigates against the state for not providing the desired funding to schools. Storm, a Democrat, ran for State House in 2022, losing to then-Rep. Craig Johnson of south Anchorage.
Although the committee received responses from the Department of Revenue to its questions, and even though Dan Stickel, chief economist of the Tax Division of DOR was on the phone line during the hearing, the committee never once asked about the responses he had given to their questions.
That document from the Department of Revenue is here:
US Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Michael J. Heyman as the US Attorney for the District of Alaska. Bondi made the appointment Feb. 28, and he was sworn in on Monday by US District Judge Timothy M. Burgess. He will serve on an interim basis for 120 days or until a presidential nominee is confirmed by the Senate.
He replaces S. Lane Tucker, who was released when President Donald Trump came into office. She had served as the attorney for the District of Alaska since 2022.
Heyman brings 24 years of legal experience to the role. He joined the Justice Department as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of California in 2012, where he specialized in prosecuting international narcotics trafficking, human trafficking, firearms offenses, money laundering, immigration violations, and public corruption.
His international experience includes serving as a Resident Legal Advisor at the U.S. Embassies in Kathmandu, Nepal, and Colombo, Sri Lanka, where he worked on strengthening the rule of law and combatting transnational crime.
In 2020, Heyman transitioned to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Alaska, focusing on complex financial crimes. His work in this area earned him the US Department of Justice Director’s Award in 2023 for outstanding prosecutorial achievements.
Before joining the Justice Department, Heyman was a partner at the international law firm K&L Gates LLP, specializing in commercial litigation and insolvency law. He also previously served as a law clerk in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. In addition to his legal practice, Heyman has been an active speaker at numerous professional events and has published multiple articles on civil and criminal law topics.
Heyman earned his Juris Doctor from the George Washington University Law School in 2001 and holds Bachelor of Arts degrees in Political Science, with honors, and International Studies from the University of California, Irvine, graduating in 1998.
“I am thrilled and humbled to serve as United States Attorney for the District of Alaska. It is the honor of a lifetime to act as the chief federal law enforcement officer in the district alongside our exceptional local, state, and federal law enforcement partners,” said Heyman. “There is a tremendous amount of work to be done. I look forward to implementing the new administration’s priorities and protecting our communities and the rule of law.”
US Sen. Dan Sullivan and Sen. Lisa Murkowski voted to advance the Senate Bill 9, Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, legislation to protect protections for women by prohibiting federal funds from going to schools and universities that allow biological males to compete against female athletes in sports or other activities designated for women or girls.
But Senate Democrats voted unanimously to block the bill from being able to advance.
In a party-line vote of 51-45, the act fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance.
Four senators didn’t vote: Republicans Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming; and Democrats Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Peter Welch of Vermont. Both Capito and Lummis were cosponsors of the bill but were not present for the vote.
Sen. Sullivan is a cosponsor of the bill but Sen. Lisa Murkowski is not. Even liberal Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine voted to proceed with the commonsense S.9, which was introduced by Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama.
The bill would codify President Trump’s “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” Executive Order, signed on Feb. 5, which has wide support from Americans. The president’s order can be undone by the next Democrat president, which is why Tuberville, a former football coach, wanted it in statute.
“Too many girls and women across our country have had their dreams dashed because the former administration shredded Title IX protections by allowing biological men to compete against them in sports,” Sen. Sullivan said. “Protecting our daughters and granddaughters’ right to fair and safe competition is a civil rights issue, and I’m proud to be an original cosponsor of the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. Going forward, I am also eager to lock arms with organizations across the country and in our state to fight back against a culture that is intent on dismantling our values and denying our female athletes the right to stand on the winner’s platform.”
Sen. Sullivan had sent aletterto the former Biden Administration’s Department of Education pushing back against far-left gender ideology infiltrating Title IX and eroding women’s equality, privacy and safety.
The companion bill in the House passed in January, with Congressman Nick Begich voting in favor of it. Last year, then-Rep. Mary Peltola voted against an identical bill.
Separation of powers is a foundational principle of this country. We are taught in school that the legislature enacts laws; the judiciary interprets laws; and the executive enforces laws. Executive administrative agencies (such as the US Department of Health and Human Services or “DHHS”) simply do not have the authority to create new laws on their own, or to expand the scope of existing laws. The purpose of administrative regulations is to give guidance on how to carry out a statute’s intent – not to be a workaround of the legal, democratic, and political processes.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is a long-standing and important statute that prohibits recipients of federal funding from discriminating against people with disabilities. For example, public school students with disabilities are able to receive “504 plans” to ensure that they are able to access necessary resources and supports for their education. Section 504 is a critical safeguard for Alaskans with disabilities.
Last year, DHHS finalized a regulation that imposes a one-sided, unfunded, and sweeping set of mandates that jeopardize the continued viability of state programs and services, and that are impossible for any state to fully comply with. The regulation the State challenged claims to be interpreting Section 504, but it goes far beyond – and even acts against – the language and intent of the statute.
In fact, the new regulation is likely to undermine the State’s ability to provide ongoing service and supports. It requires states to redesign their service delivery systems to conform to newly imagined and vaguely defined requirements, regardless of the cost or impact to the state. And penalty for failing to meet those “requirements” is a loss of federal funding. With the new regulation, DHHS acted outside of its authority, ignored significant concerns from public commenters including states, families, and advocates, and disregarded congressional intent and federal court cases.
Alaska joined a lawsuit challenging this regulation due to the negative impact on its Medicaid program, which is relied upon by nearly one-third of Alaskans. The Department of Law began communicating with the public about these concerns and its interest in the lawsuit in September 2024, when it joined, and it will continue to share updates as the case progresses.
As an example of the real world impact to Alaska’s Medicaid program, Alaska has asked – and received – permission from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to waive typical Medicaid rules so that it can provide additional behavioral health and home and community-based services beyond what Medicaid normally allows. Not only does the new regulation impose rules that conflict with CMS requirements for these waivers, but it also imposes substantial costs on states without increasing federal funding for Medicaid. At the same time, it burdens private providers of Medicaid services, who may choose to stop serving Medicaid recipients altogether, rather than take on new costs and administrative burdens.
The regulation imposes sweeping yet extremely vague new requirements on states and other recipients of federal funds and threatens to take away existing federal funding (including Medicaid) if a recipient is not able to meet its impossible demands. It puts states between a rock and a hard place. If the state chooses to provide waiver services, it has to meet CMS’s requirements – but the regulation says that meeting those requirements could result in a loss of federal funding.
The overall impact of this rule would be to decrease services and supports available to Alaskans. By joining this lawsuit, Alaska is acting to protect the integrity of the statute and the State’s existing programs and services.
To be clear: This case is not asking the court to eliminate the Rehabilitation Act or Section 504 protections. All 17 participating states have unequivocally stated this fact, most recently in a joint status report filed with the court on Feb. 19, 2025:
Plaintiffs clarify that they have never moved—and do not plan to move—the Court to declare or enjoin Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, as unconstitutional on its face. Plaintiffs have not sought and do not seek to enjoin the disbursement of funds from the Department on the basis that the statute is unconstitutional.
Recent media reports claiming otherwise are likely based on a misunderstanding of the difference between “as applied” and “facial” challenges to statutes. The complaint in this case does not seek to have the Rehabilitation Act declared facially invalid (in other words, struck down). The plaintiff states are not asking and will not ask for the Act to be struck down in totality or in part. Our only concern is the regulation, which cannot be reconciled with a constitutional interpretation of the Rehabilitation Act.
The bottom line is this: if the plaintiffs prevail in this suit, Alaskans will experience no changes to the Section 504 protections and benefits they have always received, and the state of Alaska will continue its efforts to improve service delivery without the threat of losing federal funding due to the new regulation.”
