From Must Read Alaska, we wish you a joyful and meaningful Independence Day.
On July 4, we celebrate 249 years of liberty, grit, and the enduring spirit that defines our great nation. As Alaskans, we are especially proud to stand on the frontier of freedom, where independence isn’t just a word, it’s still a way of life.
To our loyal readers: Thank you for being part of this journey. Your support keeps the torch of freedom burning bright in the Last Frontier.
We are taking the whole day off to celebrate, and will see you back here on July 5.
Here’s to the land we love, the values we cherish, and the future we’ll build—together!
For the second year in a row, Alaska students are showing notable gains in reading proficiency, according to new data released by the Department of Education and Early Development. The upward trend is being credited to the Alaska Reads Act, a 2022 education reform initiative signed into law by Gov. Mike Dunleavy.
Preliminary data from the 2024–2025 school year shows a jump from 44% of students reading at grade level at the beginning of the year to 60% by the end.
That marks a six-point improvement over the previous year’s gains, when students increased from 41% to 57%. According to the department, the year-over-year growth is outpacing national averages.
“This is promising evidence for our Alaskan students and their teachers as all the hard work and focus they have put in is coming to fruition,” said Education Commissioner Deena Bishop. “This achievement shows that the Alaska Reads Act was the right policy direction for our state, and more importantly, for our youngest learners. Congratulations!”
The Alaska Reads Act focuses on early literacy by requiring evidence-based instruction, teacher training, and targeted interventions for struggling readers. Its goal is to ensure that all students are reading at grade level by the end of third grade, considered a key predictor of long-term academic success.
“These results show why it’s critical to tie clear goals and strong commitments to education policy,” said Gov. Dunleavy. “The Alaska Reads Act proves that coupling funding with real reform works. We made the right decision, and students across Alaska are seeing the benefits.”
While the current data is preliminary, education officials say the consistent year-over-year growth is a strong indicator that the state’s investment in foundational reading skills is paying off. Final results are expected to be released later this year.
The US Coast Guard announced today it is renaming its operational districts to reflect geographic regions rather than numbers. As part of this reorganization, Alaska’s District 17 will now be officially known as the US Coast Guard Arctic District.
The change is part of Force Design 2028, a modernization initiative aimed at aligning the Coast Guard’s structure with evolving national security and maritime needs. By replacing numerical designations with geographic ones, the Coast Guard says it seeks to increase clarity in operations, improve coordination with other federal and state agencies, and better reflect the unique challenges of each region.
The newly named Arctic District remains headquartered in Juneau and is responsible for operations across Alaska’s vast coastline and into the increasingly strategic Arctic waterways.
This is the first change in name since the Coast Guard has operated in Alaska as District 17 since 1947. The change to “Arctic District” is intended to more accurately reflect its area of responsibility and the national importance of Arctic maritime operations.
Other districts across the United States are also undergoing similar changes, replacing traditional numbered labels with names like Atlantic East, Pacific Northwest, and Gulf Coast.
Anchorage municipal employees will enjoy a little more time off between now and the end of the year, courtesy of Mayor Suzanne LaFrance, who announced the surprise gift of one-quarter day of extra leave time to city workers — simply to mark the one-year anniversary of her administration doing a job on Anchorage.
“There’s beautiful weather on the horizon, Friday is a holiday, and we are marking our one year anniversary as a team,” LaFrance wrote in a letter sent to all current, active municipal employees this week. “In short, it’s time to celebrate!”
For those who don’t work for the municipality, this may look like a political patronage thank-you gift for helping LaFrance get into office, or perhaps an advance on what she hopes will be their work on her reelection campaign.
The extra leave, which is non-cashable and must be used by Dec. 31, will be deposited into the accounts of all full-time, part-time, and seasonal government workers. The time off becomes available starting Thursday, July 3, just ahead of the long Fourth of July weekend.
LaFrance did not say what the cost of that is to the city, but if the city has about 2,000 employees, it could be between $80,000-$90,000, or more, depending on how much overtime needs to be paid to compensate for missing workers.
The mayor also did not cite any formal justification, such as a contract obligation or budget surplus, for awarding the paid time. Rather, it appears to be a goodwill gesture extended exclusively to municipal government employees.
The gift of leave must be coordinated through supervisors, and will not appear in workers’ formal leave statements until after the holiday weekend.
While public employees may welcome the unexpected quarter-day off, the move raises questions about equity and priorities in a city where the quality of life has taken a rapid downturn, where vagrancy and crime are at all-time highs, and at a time whe tourists are now avoiding the city due to its reputation.
LaFrance concluded her letter with warm wishes and thanks, writing, “It is truly a team effort, and it wouldn’t be possible without each and every one of you.”
But for those not on the municipal payroll, the gesture may come off as a reminder of who benefits most under LaFrance leadership — public workers or taxpayers.
After nearly 24 straight hours of political wrangling, tense negotiations, and a record-setting filibuster-style speech by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, House Republicans on Thursday passed a domestic policy bill that not only delivers a legislative victory for President Donald Trump and House and Senate Republicans, but has big wins for Alaska. It will head to the desk of President Trump, who will likely sign it before the end of the day on July 4.
It’s a massive achievement for Trump, who has been in office for only 164 days in this term.
In fact, less than one year ago — on July 13, 2024 — Trump was shot while on stage at a rally in Butler, Penn.
Today, he has gotten his legislative priority package through both houses of Congress.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy lauded the bill as a win for Alaska:
“The passage of the Big Beautiful Bill is a huge win for Alaska. It puts up to 70% of Cook Inlet and ANWR oil revenues back into our state, restarts lease sales, and invests over $4 billion in Arctic infrastructure — including homeporting our first polar icebreaker. This is the kind of policy that secures Alaska’s future. Thank you to our congressional delegation for delivering for Alaskans,” Dunleavy said.
The 218–214 vote capped a dramatic week of behind-the-scenes and public bargaining and long nights on Capitol Hill.
The bill — Trump’s top domestic legislative priority — represents a bold conservative vision for the nation and includes changes in energy, education, immigration, and spending.
What’s in the One Big Beautiful Bill it for Alaska?
For Alaska, the legislation is particularly beneficial, in spite of what Sen. Lisa Murkowski has been handwringing over. Among the most impactful provisions are:
The bill includes measures to fast-track oil and gas permitting on federal lands and offshore leases, including in the Arctic. That could be a boon for Alaska’s economy.
Alaska stands to gain from increased funding for rural road projects, broadband expansion, and port infrastructure.
The bill expands school choice and education savings accounts, which could empower parents in Alaska to access more customized educational options, especially in underserved or remote areas.
Congressman Nick Begich III noted these benefits for Alaska, saying “Today, the Republican-led Congress sent the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to the President’s desk, and with it a blueprint for Alaska’s self-determined future. I am honored to serve and deliver for the state we love:”
— Resource Development: Mandatory lease sales open more than 30 million acres in ANWR, the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, and Cook Inlet. Alaska will receive a greater share of federal royalties than ever before, strengthening the Permanent Fund and future dividend payments.
— Tax Relief: Overtime and tips are no longer taxed, small businesses can fully depreciate expenses immediately, and the Trump tax cuts are made permanent. Seniors on Social Security benefit from new deductions.
— Border Security: Over $100 billion in funding will equip Border Patrol agents and deploy advanced technology to stop fentanyl before it reaches Alaska’s communities.
— Infrastructure and Safety: The bill includes the largest Coast Guard appropriation in U.S. history, funding 16 new Arctic-class icebreakers and upgrading key ports. An additional $12.5 billion is dedicated to modernizing air traffic control systems.
— Rural Health Care: Medicaid integrity reforms ensure support for the truly vulnerable, and new investments in rural hospitals aim to protect access to care across Alaska.
Begich said that it’s a transformative victory for Alaska.
“This bill solidifies Alaska’s position as a cornerstone of our nation’s energy future, mandating lease sales of at least 1.6 million acres in ANWR, 20 million acres in NPR-A, and at least 6 million acres in Cook Inlet — growing Alaska’s royalties on these lands by 40 percent getting us one step closer to fulfilling the promise guaranteed to us at Statehood. These leases will unlock tens of billions in investment, generate thousands of high-paying jobs, and restore Alaska’s right to produce. This bill also codifies a 25% increase in timber harvests on federal lands, providing our long-sought pathway for Alaska’s forest economy,” he said.
The bill will help secure the border with over $100 billion for the wall and enforcement capabilities to stop the flow of deadly fentanyl and restore the rule of law, Begich said.
“It also invests in our Alaska-based military infrastructure to reinforce our nation’s position of strength. And for our skies, this bill invests $12.5 billion to upgrade our Air Traffic Control systems – a critical investment for aviation safety,” he continued.
“The One Big Beautiful Bill delivers for hardworking Alaskans. It makes permanent tax cuts for families and small businesses, eliminates taxes on tips and overtime, and enacts common-sense reforms to strengthen safety net programs by protecting the vulnerable while ensuring greater accountability. For our seniors, the One Big Beautiful Bill delivers much needed relief with a significant tax deduction on their Social Security taxes,” Begich said.
“The One Big Beautiful Bill delivers on the America First mandate given to us last November. Alaska has always led the way, and today, we lead again with strength and a renewed purpose that our resource rich state will unlock prosperity and strength for all America. With the passage of this bill, we are restoring strength, reviving growth, and respecting the values that have made our nation so remarkable. The One Big Beautiful Bill lays the foundation for Alaska’s future and renews our hope in the American dream,” he said. “A safer, stronger, more prosperous America.”
The bill passed with no Democratic support. Only two Republican — Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky — broke ranks to oppose the legislation, citing concerns over fiscal responsibility and the legislative process. In the end, even Rep. Thomas Massie voted in favor of the bill, which he had opposed until the last minute.
House Speaker Mike Johnson led a relentless push to secure the needed votes, aided by direct involvement from President Trump, who reportedly called lawmakers individually from the White House residence throughout the night.
Democrat Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries attempted to delay the final vote with a marathon floor speech that lasted over eight hours. It was an exercise in hypocrisy: In 2021, when Republicans filibustered, Jeffries, who was an ally of former Rep. Mary Peltola, is on record calling that tactic racist:
The US Supreme Court added two major cases to its fall docket concerning the rights of transgender athletes, adding Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. Both cases are challenging state laws that restrict participation in girls’ and women’s sports to athletes who are actually females. The cases have major ramifications for female athletes, who are repeatedly seeing their trophies stolen by males who present themselves as females, and males invading their locker rooms.
The court’s decision to hear the cases comes two weeks after its ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee’s ban on certain gender-transition treatments for minors. That 6-3 ruling found that the Tennessee law did not violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because it draws distinctions based on age and medical diagnosis rather than sex.
In the two new cases, the justices will confront the question of when laws that affect transgender individuals must meet heightened scrutiny.
In Little v. Hecox, the Court will review Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which prohibits transgender athletes from competing on girls’ and women’s sports teams. In Idaho, a transgender college student challenged the law, and both a federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the male who sued. The judges said the law likely violates the Equal Protection Clause and applied heightened scrutiny in its review. Idaho appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the law treats athletes based on the science of biological sex, a classification the state claims has long been accepted in the context of sports.
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the state’s Save Women’s Sports Act, which bars male athletes from playing on girls’ teams in competitive or contact sports reserved for girls, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the male teen who brought the lawsuit, concluding that the law violates Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities.
Together, the two cases could have sweeping implications for how courts interpret protections for transgender individuals in education and athletics. While the Idaho case focuses primarily on constitutional equal protection issues, the West Virginia case raises statutory questions under Title IX, potentially setting nationwide precedent on how the law applies to transgender students in school sports.
Alaska currently follows guidelines set by the Alaska School Activities Association’s policy that states that if a separate high school athletics team is established for female students, participation is limited to those who are female. This effectively means that transgender boys presenting as girls are generally banned from competing on girls’ sports teams. A transgender may still be able to compete on a coed team or a boys team.
If the Court upholds the state bans: Alaska lawmakers could pass similar legislation to Idaho’s, arguing that the Court has now set a constitutional or statutory precedent allowing such policies. Rep. Jamie Allard has championed such legislation but has not been able to move it in a Democrat-dominated Legislature.
“This case is about preserving fairness and opportunity for female athletes. Idaho’s law simply ensures that girls and women aren’t forced to compete against biological males in sports designed for them. Title IX was created to give women equal footing, not to erase the very category it was meant to protect,” Allard said.
Arguments in both cases are expected to be scheduled for the fall, with decisions unlikely before the spring or summer of 2026.
This week the US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights found that California has violated Title IX by allowing biological males to compete in girls’ sports. The state is nearing the end of the 10-day period to reverse its policy or lose federal education funding.
A Seattle-based federal judge has ruled in favor of the Native Village of Eklutna in lawsuit over the tribe’s right to operate a new casino near Anchorage, but the decision may not mark the end of the legal fight.
On July 2 US District Court Judge James L. Robart upheld Eklutna’s federal recognition, rejecting claims from local residents that the tribe lacked the authority to run its Chin’an Gaming Hall.
The casino, which opened in January in a trailer located in a muddy lot, has drawn complaints from nearby Birchwood residents about traffic, noise, and land use. The plaintiffs argued that Eklutna has no legal standing to operate the facility.
In his ruling, Robart cited a 1993 listing by the US Department of the Interior affirming Eklutna’s recognition as a tribe, along with a 1994 Congressional acknowledgment of the department’s authority to determine tribal status. With that recognition affirmed, the tribe may conduct Class II gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
The decision means the Chin’an Gaming Hall may continue to operate for now. Attorney Don Mitchell, representing the plaintiffs, filed a motion for reconsideration. If that motion is denied, he indicated that the residents may appeal the ruling.
The case is one of two legal challenges facing Eklutna’s gaming operation.
In a separate lawsuit, the State of Alaska is suing the US Department of the Interior and the Native Village of Eklutna, seeking to overturn a 2024 legal opinion that recognized tribal jurisdiction over Native allotments, a decision that underpins the tribe’s ability to operate the casino.
On April 9, Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor filed for an injunction to shut down the gaming hall, citing a 2021 federal court ruling that denied Eklutna jurisdiction over the same parcel of land.
That broader case remains unresolved. If the state prevails, it could force the closure of the Chin’an Gaming Hall, which many neighbors in the Birchwood-Eagle River area oppose.
US District Judge Sharon Gleason has ruled in favor of the National Marine Fisheries Service, upholding Amendment 16 to the federal salmon fishery management plan and confirming the agency’s authority to regulate only federal waters in the Cook Inlet Exclusive Economic Zone.
The decision is a legal victory for the State of Alaska, preserving state jurisdiction over nearshore salmon fisheries and reinforcing the state’s role in sustainable resource management.
The ruling stems from a legal challenge to Amendment 16, which clarified NMFS’s decision to manage salmon fishing in federal waters — waters beyond three miles from shore. But the amendment did not grant authority over Alaska’s state waters.
The plaintiffs in the case — United Cook Inlet Drift Association and Cook Inlet Fishermen’s Fund — argued that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act required a unified approach across both federal and state jurisdictions to effectively manage salmon stocks. They also claimed NMFS’s actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
UCIDA’s primary concern is the long-term sustainability of Cook Inlet’s salmon fisheries and the future of a viable commercial fishery in the region. The group believes the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides a strong national framework for science-based, sustainable fishery management. Under the MSA, fishery management plans must follow 10 national standards to ensure both sustainability and maximum sustainable yield. UCIDA contends that the Magnuson-Stevens Act allows for federal plans to incorporate state management practices and even delegate authority to state, but within a federally guided framework, and that NMFS cannot simply exclude Cook Inlet by narrowing its jurisdiction, as doing so undermines the the act’s original intent for unified, science-based fishery oversight.
The groups filed the suit in May 2024, contending that NMFS’s approach to limit federal management to the Cook Inlet Exclusive Economic Zone violated the Magnuson‑Stevens Act and the Administrative Procedure Act
Judge Gleason rejected these arguments, ruling that Magnuson-Stevens permits fishery management plans treat federal waters as separate management units. She concluded that the Cook Inlet EEZ is a standalone unit and that NMFS acted within its statutory authority. She also found the agency’s process to be founded on sound science and appropriate administrative procedures.
The outcome reaffirms Alaska’s ability to manage its salmon fisheries within state waters, an area that includes much of the productive nearshore habitat where salmon are caught. For state officials and stakeholders, the ruling is an affirmation of Alaska’s role in managing its fisheries.
UCIDA and Cook Inlet Fishermen’s Fund have sued repeatedly in this matter of the patchwork of jurisdictional authorities.
In 2013, they sued the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Secretary of Commerce, challenging the North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s decision to remove federal waters around Cook Inlet from its salmon fishery management plan, and arguing federal oversight was still legally required. That resulted in a win in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2016, which ordered the case back to district court, partly agreeing that NMFS had abdicated its responsibility under Magnuson-Stevens.
UCIDA then sued again in 2021-2022 when NMFS and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council attempted to close commercial salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet Exclusive Economic Zone entirely. A district judge vacated the closure, finding it arbitrary and capricious. The latest suit on Amendment 16 was filed in 2024.
Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor applauded the latest decision, calling it “a victory for the state’s rights and its salmon fishery.” He credited attorney Aaron Peterson and the Department of Law for their work in defending Alaska’s position.
Alaska’s salmon fisheries and fishing industry supports thousands of jobs, puts food on Alaskans’ tables, and attracts tourism to the state. The legal affirmation of state authority allows Alaska to continue applying local knowledge, science-based policies, and regulatory flexibility in its fisheries management.
The judge also emphasized the importance of coordination between state and federal agencies, noting that long-term sustainability depends on collaborative stewardship grounded in the best available science.
In a letter sent Monday to all 50 governors, the mayor of Washington, DC, and the governor of Puerto Rico, US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy called for the removal of “politically charged and distracting displays” on public roads, including rainbow-painted crosswalks and street slogans such as “Black Lives Matter.”
The directive, issued July 1 as part of the Federal Highway Administration’s SAFE ROADS initiative, frames the call for removal as a matter of public safety. Duffy pointed to 39,345 traffic fatalities in 2024 as justification for eliminating what the department terms nonstandard and potentially distracting markings from arterial roads and intersections.
“Roads are for safety, not political messages or artwork. Today I am calling on governors in every state to ensure that roadways, intersections, and crosswalks are kept free of distractions,” Duffy wrote. “Far too many Americans die each year to traffic fatalities to take our eye off the ball. USDOT stands ready to help communities across the country make their roads safer and easier to navigate.”
The SAFE ROADS Program Goals include:
Get back to basics – use data-driven decisions and target safety and mobility investments.
Empower states and local governments to simplify and improve roadway environments.
Make roads safer and easier to navigate for pedestrians, vehicle operators, and automated vehicles.
He asked states and territories to submit within 60 days a list of intersections and roadway segments where these displays exist, prioritizing areas with elevated crash rates. The letter set a goal of addressing those safety concerns by the end of Fiscal Year 2026.
The request has sparked a nationwide debate. Supporters argue that the move restores uniformity and prioritizes safety on public streets. Critics, however, say the directive amounts to federal overreach and targets displays that symbolize inclusion and civil rights.
Some municipalities have signaled resistance. Atlanta city officials indicated this week that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over most city streets and has limited authority to compel changes to non-federally funded infrastructure.
The painting of crosswalks with rainbows has led to some drivers doing burnouts on the paint. This has resulted in new ordinances that crack down on that behavior. In Kirkland, Wash., drivers have been charged with malicious mischief. In Spokane, three teens riding electric scooters were charged with felonies after leaving skid marks on Spokane’s Pride crosswalk. The city had also experienced earlier vandalism and even arson attempts. In Canada, one jurisdiction has treated these skid-mark incidences as hate crimes.
In Juneau, guerrilla painters painted rainbow colors on a crosswalk on Front Street in 2016, and the city later sanctioned the rainbow crosswalk and now repaints it annually, with paint and labor paid for by the Juneau Arts and Humanities Council. It is occasionally subjected to skid marks. There have been unauthorized guerrilla paintings of rainbow crosswalk at 7th and Gold St., which the city has repainted white. The Juneau crosswalk is not a federal highway and is likely unaffected by this advisory letter or subsequent federal funding decisions that could adversely impact states and cities.
The SAFE ROADS program, launched earlier this year by the Department of Transportation, aims to reduce traffic fatalities through infrastructure improvements, enhanced enforcement strategies, and stricter adherence to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which sets the standards for road markings and signage nationwide.
While the Department’s letter does not carry the force of law, it signals a tightening stance on what the federal government considers visual distractions in public right-of-ways. It remains to be seen how states and localities will respond, or whether legal challenges will arise in defense of political messages on the road surface.
