Looking through the seven-day financial reports for the Anchorage Municipal elections, which end April 1, it appears the union money continues to pour in for the Democrat candidates:
Kameron Perez-Verdia $1,000 ASEA/AFSCME Local 52
Daniel Volland $1,000 EPIC/Alaska Public Employees Association/AFT
Margot Bellamy $1,000 IBEW PAC
Kelly Lessens $1,000 ASEA/AFSCME Local 52
Kelly Lessens $1,000 IBEW PAC
In this election, there were a reported $35,500 in union donations to candidates, as of March 1. The amounts above are since that report.
The Anchorage Assembly, which has the final say in approving union contracts, oversees agreements that commit taxpayers to wage, benefit, and other cost increases for up to five years.
Currently, more than half (55%) of the city’s budget is allocated to salaries and benefits. More than 58% of municipal revenue is derived from property taxes.
Union donations play a significant role in the campaigns of Assembly candidates.
Kameron Perez-Verdia has received $11,000 from unions this election cycle. Over the course of his Assembly campaigns, unions have contributed a total of $44,600 to his campaigns.
Daniel Volland has received $9,000 in union support this election, in addition to $2,000 from a previous campaign. The Alaska AFL-CIO has further contributed $2,500 to his campaign through its special interest group, “Putting Alaskans First.”
The AFL-CIO has also funneled $5,000 to “Putting Alaskans First” to oppose Jared Goecker, who is running for the open Eagle River Assembly seat.
Margot Bellamy, seeking re-election, has received $6,000 from unions this year. Over the years, unions have contributed a total of $26,550 to her campaigns.
Kelly Lessens has received $6,500 from unions in this election cycle, adding to a total of $27,800 in union support across her political career.
Organized labor remains the largest special interest group contributing to local elections in Alaska. The financial influence of unions on Anchorage Assembly and School Board races raises ongoing questions about the balance of power between elected officials, labor groups, and taxpayers.
Because union contracts representing a significant portion of municipal expenditures, voters will have to consider the role of these contributions and how they influence their elected officials.
Alaskan culture is deeply rooted in our independence, our values, and our deep respect for individual rights. That’s why House Bill 89, a so-called “red flag” law being considered by the Alaska Legislature, should concern every Alaskan who believes in due process, the Constitution, and limited government.
At first glance, red flag laws sound like a well-intentioned effort to prevent gun violence. But the way it’s written, it opens the door to government overreach and abuse with almost no checks in place. This bill would allow a judge to order someone’s firearms seized without them ever being present in court, based solely on allegations.
Imagine being stripped of your rights and your property without even knowing there was a hearing. That’s what this bill allows through “ex parte” proceedings — where only one side of the story is heard. There’s no opportunity to present your defense, no chance to present facts. Just an accusation, a court order, and a knock at your door by a police officer demanding your firearms.
Worse yet, this law could be triggered by a wide range of individuals and based on a low standard of proof — “reasonable cause.” That may sound harmless, but in the real world, it’s a vague threshold that could easily be abused in emotionally charged situations like custody battles, family disputes, or misunderstandings.
And while the bill claims to protect public safety, it fails to address the root of the problem. Confiscating firearms from someone in crisis doesn’t offer them any real help. There’s no built-in mental health support, no services provided — just a court order and a knock at the door. The real solution to helping people in crisis is care, not confiscation.
And finally, there’s the broader issue — this law violates the Second Amendment. Alaskans have a right to bear arms. That right should not be taken away without a conviction, without due process, and without meaningful safeguards. If someone is truly a danger, there are already legal tools available, such as involuntary commitment procedures or protective orders that include full hearings and legal representation.
We all want safer communities. We all want to prevent tragedy. But sacrificing the rights of innocent people in the name of public safety is a dangerous precedent — and one that doesn’t reflect Alaska’s values.
House Bill 89 may be called a “red flag” law, but in reality, it’s a flashing warning sign — that government is reaching too far, too fast, and without respecting the rights of its citizens.
Alaska doesn’t need laws that trade liberty for the illusion of safety. We need real solutions — ones that strengthen public safety without trampling on constitutional rights. HB 89 does neither. The Legislature should reject this bill and stand firmly for the freedoms and fairness that define Alaska.
Mia Costello is the Republican minority leader in the Alaska House of Representatives.
A federal judge has ruled that the US Department of the Interior failed to obtain a required court order before canceling oil and gas leases held by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Judge Sharon Gleason’s decision represents a massive victory for AIDEA, which has been fighting to overturn the Biden 2023 lease cancellations. AIDEA is a stand-alone state agency dedicated to economic growth.
The case stems from the Biden Administration’s decision to illegally suspend and ultimately cancel AIDEA’s leases, citing legal deficiencies in the original environmental impact statement conducted under the Trump Administration.
In 2017, Congress enacted, and President Trump signed, the “Tax Cut and Jobs Act,” which made several provisions related to ANWR, including:
Removing all discretion and requiring the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to “establish and administer a competitive oil and gas program for the “leasing, development, production, and transportation of oil and gas” in the 1002 area.
Directed the Bureau of Land Management to hold two competitive oil and gas lease sales in the coastal plain (approximately 1.56 million acres) of ANWR. Each sale must offer at least 400,000 acres for a total minimum of 800,000 acres, or roughly 51% of the total coastal plain. Removing all discretion and requiring the Secretary to conduct not fewer than two valid lease sales of at least 400,000 acres each, with the most prospective areas of ANWR included in each lease sale.
Inclusion of up to 2,000 surface acres of Federal land to be covered by production and support facilities for the oil and gas industry.
The leases, which covered 365,775 acres in ANWR’s Coastal Plain, were put out to bid in 2020 and AIDEA was awarded seven leases in January 2021 following the congressional mandate. When Biden took over the White House, his administration simply pulled back the legally awarded leases, using the excuse that the environmental work wasn’t good enough.
AIDEA filed suit in October 2023, arguing that the Biden Administration lacked the authority to unilaterally cancel the leases without a judicial order. The agency contended that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act required Interior to follow regulations under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, which mandates court approval for the cancellation of producing or potentially valuable oil and gas leases.
Gleason, who usually rules against oil interests, sided with AIDEA’s interpretation, stating that the NPRPA’s judicial cancellation requirement applied to the ANWR leases. The court found that the Coastal Plain of ANWR is “known to contain valuable deposits of oil and gas,” citing federal environmental impact statements from both 2019 and 2024.
The ruling has implications for future oil and gas development in ANWR. While the Biden administration sought to curtail fossil fuel development, even in the area of ANWR set aside for oil and gas, Alaska state officials and industry groups held that the leases are essential for economic growth and energy security.
Interior has not yet announced whether it will appeal the ruling of the Alaska district judge, but the Biden Administration is no longer in charge of that decision. If the ruling stands, AIDEA may become a big player in the revival of efforts to conduct oil and gas exploration in ANWR’s Coastal Plain.
Last year, Rep. Kevin McCabe of Big Lake introduced a bill that would recognize gold and silver as legal tender. It would also repeal local sales taxes on both. He introduced a similar bill this year.
Another state is already blazing ahead on the same front. Utah has recently made major legislative strides in integrating both precious metals and digital assets into its financial ecosystem. Two bills advanced by Republican congressmen offer templates of what can be accomplished in Alaska.
The first, House Bill 306, introduced by Rep. Ken Ivory, enables government vendors to be paid in gold and silver. If signed into law by Gov. Spencer Cox, the state treasurer will establish an electronic payment platform backed by these metals. It would be the first system of its kind in America.
“In uncertain economic times, Utah is providing vendors and service providers with the option to receive payment in gold and silver,” Ivory said in a news release. “This law gives Utahns an alternative to choose how they preserve the purchasing power of their earnings and savings.”
The second piece of legislation, shepherded by Rep. Jordan Teuscher, follows the same line of thinking with digital currency.
Under House Bill 230, Utah would invest roughly five percent of public funds in cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. According to Tuescher, this would be a key step toward establishing crucial rights for those who own or mine digital currencies.
At present, there are 28 states that have entertained proposals to use public dollars to fund these currencies. Last year, Pennsylvania lawmakers attempted to advance a bill that would have created a strategic reserve for Bitcoin, the world’s largest digital asset. The legislation died during the committee review process.
The White House announced that it would also create a national crypto strategic reserve. Not without some concern, though. Joe Lonsdale, an entrepreneur in the digital finance space, tweeted that it would be “wrong to tax me for crypto bro schemes.”
Alaska Rep. Nick Begich has been at the forefront of bitcoin legislation on the national level. He and Sen. Cynthia Lummis introduced the BITCOIN Act of 2025, to set a national cryptocurrency policy, establishing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve to enhance America’s financial security, global competitiveness, and economic sovereignty.
Announced at the Bitcoin for America Summit, Congressman Begich’s bill recognizes the importance of Bitcoin as a strategic national asset. Congressman Begich said that the United States must take proactive measures to remain at the forefront of the financial revolution.
While there aren’t major pieces of legislation related to digital assets on the horizon in Alaska, the passage of McCabe’s bill would broaden the options available to consumers by converting gold and silver to legal tender, as opposed to just investment vehicles.
Hilcorp Alaska is seeking federal permits and authorizations as it works to stay ahead of the depletion of existing natural gas wells in Cook Inlet. The National Marine Fisheries Service recently announced that Hilcorp applied for authorization to incidentally harass certain species of marine mammals during oil and gas activities in the region. The request covers a five-year period starting this year and includes plans to drill three new natural gas wells.
The public comment period for the application ends on April 14.
Hilcorp has been investing more than $200 million annually to ensure a steady supply of natural gas for Southcentral Alaska. Despite holding leases that have been actively developed since the 1960s — many of which were considered near the end of their productivity by 2010 — the company has invested over $1 billion in Cook Inlet over the past decade.
The request covers a five-year period starting this year and includes plans to drill three new exploration natural gas wells utilizing their jack-up rig. This activity comes in addition to Hilcorp’s development wells they drill annually. The three planned wells are just a small part of its broader development strategy, which also includes thorough onshore leases on the Kenai Peninsula
The NMFS application is an expected stage in the larger $200 million investment for this year announced by Hilcorp in January, following similar investments in previous years.
As time goes on, extracting gas from Cook Inlet has become more challenging. The most accessible reserves have already been tapped, requiring Hilcorp to employ advanced technology and increased financial resources to access deeper or more complex reserves.
Hilcorp’s NMFS petition follows standard regulatory procedures and encompasses four stages of activity: exploration, development, production, and decommissioning within Cook Inlet. The proposed operations include:
Up to 54 days of tug operations for positioning a jack-up rig for production drilling at existing platforms.
Up to 70 days of pile driving for production well development at the Tyonek platform.
Up to six days of tug operations and 18 days of pile driving for exploration drilling at specific locations.
Up to 22 days of pipeline replacement or installation activities.
Hilcorp plans to drill one exploration well in 2026 between the platforms known as Anna and Bruce on the northern side of Trading Bay. It plans two exploration wells in the Middle Ground Shoal unit in 2028. But the drilling could come at any time during the five-year period.
The company has requested authorization for “Level B” harassment of 12 species, including the Cook Inlet beluga whale, and “Level A” harassment for nine additional species. The activities are expected to generate underwater noise that could bother marine mammals.
This petition follows a previous NMFS letter of authorization granted to Hilcorp in 2019, which permitted similar incidental harassment of marine mammals during oil and gas activities in Cook Inlet.
President Donald Trump signed a new executive order aimed at Venezuelan oil and the regime of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
The order expands previous sanctions and introduces even more tariffs in response to Venezuela’s ongoing destabilizing activities, including infiltration of U.S. borders by the murderous Venezuelan-based criminal gang Tren de Aragua.
This time, the tariffs are going into effect for countries that buy oil from Venezuela.
For Alaska, it may mean the price of Alaska crude oil increases as the threat of tariffs becomes clear to these countries. Alaska’s oil, primarily Alaska North Slope crude, is a medium-to-heavy, sour crude that is not dissimilar to Venezuela’s heavy Merey blend oil. Both compete in markets on the West Coast and Gulf of America Coast, where refineries are set up for heavier grades.
If Venezuelan supply tightens due to sanctions and tariffs, demand for substitutes from Prudhoe Bay could rise, potentially nudging Alaska oil prices upward.
When Trump sanctions first hit Venezuela in 2019, heavy crude prices spiked globally, and US Gulf Coast refiners scrambled for alternatives, briefly boosting demand for Alaska North Slope oil
Venezuela, through its state-owned oil company PDVSA and its subsidiary Citgo, has engaged in oil-related “charitable” shipments to the US. Between 2005 and 2016, under President Hugo Chávez, Citgo ran a heating oil donation program for low-income households in 25 US states, including Alaska, when Sarah Palin was governor. The Citgo program provided free heating fuel to rural Alaska villages, such as 100 gallons per household in Chevak. That initiative was then seen as a political move by Chávez to counter US trade policy.
Trump’s order maintains restrictions first outlined in Obama’s Executive Orders 13692, 13808, 13850, and 13884, all of which target key aspects of Venezuela’s economy, leadership, and financial networks.
The new Trump order authorizes a 25% tariff on all goods imported into the United States from any country that imports Venezuelan oil, directly or indirectly. This provision, to take effect on April 2, grants Secretary of State Marco Rubio the discretion to determine which countries will be subject to the tariff. The tariff would remain in place for a year following a country’s last recorded purchase of Venezuelan oil, unless lifted earlier by the Secretary of Commerce.
China is the largest buyer of Venezuelan oil, but other countries include India, Spain, Cuba, Brazil, and Turkey.
Before Fairbanks former Assemblywoman (and failed state Senate candidate) Savannah Fletcher used a radio spot to promote her views on borough official business without proper disclaimers, she was officially warned that she was in likely violation of the borough’s ethics code.
Fletcher, now resigned from the Assembly, is a prominent attorney known for waging lawfare against Republicans and conservatives in her role as an attorney for the Northern Justice Project.
The borough’s ethics board found that Fletcher spoke in radio spots and offered implied opinions, not acknowledging they were personal opinions. She used phrases like “watered-down climate action plan,” and “do you support the schools?” in which she indicated that a vote against funding would lead to larger class sizes or closed schools.
A public records request shows that Fletcher had been warned by Borough Clerk April Trickey that her radio spots violated the borough’s ethics code, but she persisted in running these spots on KFAR throughout the summer of 2023.
Then-Presiding Officer Aaron Lojewski had made it clear that the radio spots were in no way sanctioned by the Assembly and were not authorized. The Assembly also did not authorize payment of the radio spots, nor were they on the KFAR FCC filings as public service announcements. They were funded by someone, presumably Fletcher herself.
Here’s an example of one of her spots, where she did not disclaim that this was her opinion:
Fletcher was presenting herself up as an Assembly spokesperson, in direct violation of code.This month, the ethics committee found Fletcher violated the ethics code three times. The penalty has not yet been announced.
When House Joint Resolution 11 first came to the Alaska Legislature, it looked like a straightforward recognition of our long, important relationship with Canada — a relationship built on shared borders, economic ties, and mutual reliance. But as we dug into the resolution, two big problems jumped out.
First, why was the Alaska Legislature inserting itself into a federal trade dispute between Canada and the Trump administration?
Second, we were concerned that the resolution would be taken as a slap at the President’s trade policies — policies aimed at protecting American jobs and industries. Whether you agree with his approach or not, the President’s job was to fight for better deals for the country, and Alaska didn’t need to get in the way of that.
Still, HJR11 had momentum. It was clear the resolution would pass, and simply opposing it wouldn’t accomplish anything. So, we took a different route. We amended the resolution to protect Alaska’s interests and give President Trump more leverage in his negotiations with Canada. Two of our amendments passed unanimously— though some social media posts and news articles conveniently left those out of their reports.
HJR11 correctly pointed out Alaska’s deep economic ties to Canada: $596 million in annual exports, $753 million in imports, and over 20,000 Alaskan jobs connected to this partnership. It acknowledged the Alaska-Canada Highway, the Alaska Marine Highway, and cross-border communities like Stewart, BC, and Hyder, Alaska, as vital parts of that relationship. These are facts no one disputes.
But then the resolution veered off track. It acknowledged Canada’s high tariffs on U.S. goods, which led to counter-tariffs imposed by the Trump administration — but then warned these tariffs could “threaten this unique, mutually beneficial relationship.” Those Trump tariffs weren’t just random penalties — they were part of a larger strategy to renegotiate outdated trade deals that hurt American businesses and workers. That strategy worked. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was replaced with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), a better, fairer deal for the U.S.
The Alaska Legislature had no business taking a position against that strategy. Trade policy is a federal issue. By criticizing the President’s approach, HJR11 risked making Alaska look like it was siding with Canada over our own federal government. Worse, it could send the wrong message to Washington at a time when we need support for infrastructure, resource development, and other critical priorities.
Knowing HJR11 was going to pass, our idea was to flip the script and make it something Trump could use. We added an amendment that shifted the focus from criticizing tariffs to defending Alaska’s essential transportation links and economic interests. The amendment specifically highlighted the Alaska-Canada Highway’s role in connecting Alaskans to the Lower 48 and raised a critical concern: what happens if Canada retaliates by closing roads?
We didn’t pull this idea from thin air. Canada has a history of using road closures to make a political point, and the last thing Alaska needs is to be cut off from the rest of the country because of a trade fight we didn’t start. Our amendment also pointed to the Shakwak road project — a Canadian infrastructure project funded in part by Alaska. Millions of Alaskan dollars are still tied up in that project. We made it clear: if Canada blocks roads and hurts Alaska, we’re prepared to rethink that funding. Alaska’s money shouldn’t bankroll infrastructure in a country that’s willing to shut down our access for political leverage. Canada is our friend, but even friends occasionally need a reminder of your value.
The amendment passed without a single objection — a win for Alaska and Trump. But, predictably, some skipped over that part when they posted and wrote about the resolution later. They made it sound like the original version passed untouched. Maybe they didn’t understand what we did, maybe they didn’t want to acknowledge it, or maybe they just don’t see the strategy. Either way, the record speaks for itself. We turned a flawed resolution into one that protects Alaskans, strengthens our position in any future trade disputes, and takes Alaska away from Canada as a card they can use against President Trump.
Look, we all had our reasons for voting how we did. We’re not here to drag anyone through the mud. But we stand by our decision. Alaska’s Legislature shouldn’t be in the business of undermining the President while he’s working to secure better trade deals for the entire country.
In the end, HJR11started as a feel-good resolution that wandered into anti-Trump territory. We rewrote it into something that defends Alaska’s economy, reminds Canada of our leverage, and supports the President’s efforts to negotiate a better deal. Alaska has always valued its partnership with Canada, and that won’t change. But our job — first and foremost — is to protect Alaskans. Our amendments to HJR11 ensure Alaska won’t be a bargaining chip in someone else’s trade war.
Rep. Kevin McCabe is a legislator from Big Lake, Alaska.
In a world of gridlock, waste, and empty promises, Elon Musk stands out, not just as a visionary entrepreneur, but as a patriot who’s taking action when others won’t.
Whether it’s putting Americans back in space, challenging government inefficiency, or defending free speech, Musk is helping restore the spirit of innovation, prosperity, and bold leadership that defines our country.
Through SpaceX, Musk reignited America’s presence in space. After years of relying on Russia to send astronauts to orbit, his company launched them from U.S. soil once again. When American astronauts were stuck aboard the International Space Station with no clear return plan, it was Musk’s reusable Dragon spacecraft that safely brought them home. He didn’t wait for Washington — he solved the problem himself.
As CEO of Tesla, Musk transformed electric vehicles from niche luxury items into mainstream transportation. His drive forced automakers worldwide to innovate, while creating American jobs in manufacturing and clean energy. Through Tesla’s solar and battery technology, he’s also reshaping how we power our homes and communities.
With Starlink, Musk is closing the digital divide by delivering satellite internet to rural and remote areas. In places where traditional providers fail, Starlink brings opportunity, access, and connection — especially for Alaska’s underserved communities.
But what truly sets Musk apart is his courage to take on issues no one else will. In purchasing Twitter (now X), he exposed censorship and bias in Big Tech, reigniting national debate about free speech and accountability. Whether you agree with all his moves or not, his commitment to open discourse reflects one of America’s most sacred values.
Musk has also stepped up where our elected leaders have fallen short — calling out bloated federal spending and supporting ideas like DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) to tackle the staggering $36 trillion national deficit. He’s asking hard questions, demanding data-driven solutions, and using his platform to advocate for a smarter, leaner government.
And here’s the thing — Elon Musk has nothing to gain from this. He’s the wealthiest person in the world. He doesn’t need to stick his neck out for the American people. But he does it anyway. Not for power or profit, but because he believes in the country that gave him a chance to succeed.
He chose America. He built his life here. He’s giving back, not with platitudes, but with real results. That’s the kind of patriotism we need more of.
Elon Musk may not look like a traditional patriot, but his actions speak louder than any speech or slogan. He is the patriot we didn’t expect, but absolutely need. And it’s time we lead by his example.
Cheryl Markwood lives in Fairbanks, where she owns a small business.
