Most voters support measures that would ensure elections are honest and that results are reported quickly, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports poll.
The national telephone and online survey found that 63% of Likely U.S. Voters want a federal law requiring all votes be counted and the final results be reported within 12 hours of polls closing on Election Day.
Just 23% disagree with the need for a federal law, while another 14% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
In Alaska, the Division of Elections is on Day 14 of ballot counting for the election that ended Nov. 5. The division has until Nov. 20 to finish its work.
According to Rasmussen, 65% of respondents said that investigations of election disputes should include forensic ballot audits and 59% said federal election laws should require paper ballots.
Help Must Read Alaska fight the good fight in 2025. We are a conservative news and views website that gives voice to Alaskans who have been marginalized by the legacy media. Donate here.
Now is the time for the US Department of Justice under the leadership of Attorney General-nominee Matt Gaetz to overturn NLRB v Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937).
The ruling in NLRB marked a pivotal expansion of federal authority under the Commerce Clause, which has led to overreach into areas traditionally managed by states. This case paved the way for expansive federal control, sidelining state sovereignty and eroding the 10th Amendment’s principles of limited federal power.
By broadly interpreting “interstate commerce” to justify federal oversight in local matters, NLRB set a precedent that enabled extensive bureaucratic regulation across sectors, from labor and environment to healthcare and education.
Federal agencies now exert sweeping influence over every facet of American life. This centralized authority stifles private sector growth, deters innovation, and imposes uniform regulations ill-suited for diverse regional needs. Labor relations, once a state responsibility, have become subject to rigid federal mandates, complicating economic adaptation and reducing market competitiveness. Likewise, federal environmental regulations hinder state autonomy over resource management, imposing top-down policies that may not align with local priorities.
The NLRB decision led to further cases that compounded federal power under the Commerce Clause, including Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich, effectively sanctioning limitless government intervention. Overturning NLRB could restore balance by reducing federal overreach and reviving the role of states as primary arbiters of local matters. Repealing this precedent would realign the Commerce Clause with its intended scope, preserving both state sovereignty and market freedom from federal overregulation.
This deliberate centralization of federal power and control culminated with the Supreme Court’s reimagining of the US Constitution’s commerce clause.
Keep in mind the states created and adopted the US Constitution, not the federal government.
In The Federalist Papers, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison argued for a unified approach to commerce regulation to prevent economic discord among states and ensure national cohesion. In Federalist No. 11, Hamilton highlighted the need for centralized trade oversight to enable the young nation to present a united front in global commerce, which was essential for stability and growth. At that time, Congress lacked power over both interstate and foreign trade, leaving each state to set its own policies, which often led to conflicting regulations that hindered trade and strained interstate relations.
Madison expanded on this in Federalist No. 42, explaining that if states could regulate commerce independently, they might impose burdensome tariffs on goods merely passing through. This would increase costs for producers and consumers alike and harm national unity by favoring individual state interests over collective welfare. The Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution addressed these issues by granting Congress authority over commerce “with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
This gave the federal government a unifying role in interstate commerce while limiting state powers to regulate only intrastate commerce, those economic activities confined within their borders. This division was intended to support both national economic unity and state sovereignty over local matters.
The overwhelming mandate of American voters for President-elect Donald Trump presents a historic opportunity to restore a constitutional balance between state and federal authority. The appointment of Gaetz as Attorney General now opens the door for such restoration.
The federal expansion, which began with NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., fundamentally altered this balance, dismantling states’ rights by stretching the scope of the Commerce Clause beyond its intended purpose. This decision allowed the federal government to regulate not only genuine interstate commerce, but also local activities tangentially related to it, leading to nearly unchecked federal oversight across a vast range of sectors, from labor to healthcare, education, and the environment.
This ruling, and the legal precedents that followed, sanctioned an era of overreach that subordinated state sovereignty and suppressed the role of states in regulating local economic and social issues. The NLRB decision nullified the 10th Amendment’s intent to limit federal powers, setting the stage for a rise in bureaucratic agencies that impose sweeping regulations without regard for regional diversity and the distinct needs of each state.
Labor laws, previously a state matter, became bound by rigid federal mandates, reducing economic adaptability and competitiveness. Similar federal environmental laws diminished states’ rights to control their resources, often enforcing policies poorly suited to local contexts. The resulting overregulation stifles innovation and economic growth, as local economies and individual freedoms are restrained by federal mandates rather than guided by market dynamics or regional governance.
The Framers argued for national unity in trade regulation to prevent conflict among states, not to establish centralized control over every aspect of economic life. In Federalist No. 11, Hamilton argued that centralized trade oversight was necessary to present a unified front in foreign affairs. Madison, in Federalist No. 42, warned that allowing states to impose tariffs on goods in transit would burden producers and consumers, hindering economic unity. Thus, the Commerce Clause was meant to unify trade among states while preserving each state’s right to govern its local commerce.
NLRB distorted this intent, empowering the federal government to wield the Commerce Clause as a justification for expansive control over intrastate matters.
By overturning NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., the Trump Administration, through new Attorney General Matt Gaetz and the Department of Justice, has the chance to recalibrate federal power to its rightful bounds.
A re-examination of this case would preserve states’ sovereignty, revive market freedoms, and dismantle overregulation, reestablishing the Constitution’s original promise of a government that serves, rather than controls, its people.
Michael Tavoliero is a senior writer at Must Read Alaska.
Under the Constitution, the President and the Senate share the power to make appointments to high-level politically appointed positions in the federal government. The Constitution also empowers the President unilaterally to make a temporary appointment to such a position if it is vacant and the Senate is in recess. Such an appointment, termed a recess appointment, expires at the end of the following session of the Senate. This report identifies recess appointments by President Barack Obama. The report discusses these appointments in the context of recess appointment authorities and practices generally, and it provides related statistics. Congressional actions to prevent recess appointments are also discussed.
President Obama made 32 recess appointments, all to full-time positions. During his presidency, President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions and 44 to part-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, 99 to full-time positions and 72 to part-time positions.
Six of President Obama’s recess appointments were made during recesses between Congresses or between sessions of Congress (intersession recess appointments). The remaining 26 were made during recesses within sessions of Congress (intrasession recess appointments).
In each of the 32 instances in which President Obama made a recess appointment, the individual also was nominated to the position to which he or she was appointed. In all of these cases, a related nomination to the position preceded the recess appointment. In 20 of the 32 cases, the Senate later confirmed the nominee to the position to which he or she had been recess appointed. The nominations of the 12 remaining recess appointees were either returned to, or withdrawn by, the President.
Beginning in the 110th Congress, the Senate periodically used pro forma sessions to prevent the occurrence of a recess of more than three days. There appears to have been an expectation that this scheduling would block the President from making recess appointments, based on an argument that an absence of the Senate of three days or less would not constitute a “recess” long enough to permit the use of this authority.
In January 2012, President Obama made four recess appointments during a three-day recess between pro forma sessions of the Senate on January 3 and January 6, 2012, a period that was generally considered too short to permit recess appointments. The recess during which the President made the appointments was part of a period of Senate absence that, absent the pro forma sessions, would have constituted an intrasession adjournment of 10 days or longer.
In an opinion regarding the lawfulness of these appointments, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice argued that “the President may determine that pro forma sessions at which no business is to be conducted do not interrupt a Senate recess for the purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause.” The U.S. Supreme Court later concluded otherwise in a case regarding three of the four appointments. It held that, for purposes of the Clause, “the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.” The three recess appointments at issue were found to be constitutionally invalid.
Donald Trump named Brendan Carr as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. And he has vowed to flip the script on what some have called the woke mind virus.
“Democrats have been in charge of the Administrative State—the alphabet soup of agencies in DC—for at least 12 of the last 16 years. Over those 12 years, government control has increased and your freedoms have decreased. It is time to flip the script in Washington,” said Carr, who is the top Republican on the commission and who opposes the Biden Administration’s obsessive spending of DEI — Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
“The FCC’s most recent budget request said that promoting DEI was the agency’s second highest strategic goal,” Carr said in a statement. “Starting next year, the FCC will end its promotion of DEI.”
He also wrote: “We must dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans.”
Carr, 45, was born in Washington, D.C. and graduated from Georgetown University in 2001 with a bachelor of arts in government. He attended Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law, and was an editor of the Catholic University Law Review.
Carr was general counsel to the FCC, and was appointed to the commission by Trump in 2018. He was confirmed in 2019 by the Senate to a five-year term.
Carr brings nearly 20 years of private and public sector experience in communications and tech policy to his position. Before joining the FCC as a staff member, he worked as an attorney at Wiley Rein LLP in the firm’s appellate, litigation, and telecom practices. Carr also clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for Judge Dennis Shedd.
In 1982, I went with a group of graduate students from Brown University to a lecture by the prominent archaeologist Richard Leakey.
Dr. Leakey began his lecture by holding his wallet and then dropping it on the floor in free fall, demonstrating that gravity is an indisputable scientific fact, and archaeological research, on the other side, largely relies on logic and inductive method of analysis—a method of reasoning that involves deriving general principles from a set of observations.
As a student of history and social sciences (anthropology, sociology, archaeology), I, too, found that social sciences data is the most difficult to present in the objective and unbiased way as opposed, for example, to natural sciences.
Social scientists interpret their data based on law-like propositions, subjective views, associative and causal hypotheses (i.e., undefined theories), and influences of the prior well-established intellectual thoughts—generalize experiences, abstract terms, and draw conclusions from assumptions.
In contrast, natural sciences base their inquiries and conclusions on logic and objective natural laws (e.g., gravity, speed of light, magnetism, etc.). Thus, it is imperative to understand sources and components of social science principles prior to applying it to the society at large.
Marxism—the system of views and ideas of Karl Marx—arose because of the study, critical understanding and radical reworking of the advanced ideas of European social and intellectual thought of the 19th century.
The main intellectual sources of Marxism were (1) German classical philosophy, (2) English classical political economy and (3) French utopian socialism in combination with French revolutionary ideas and the practice of European revolutions.
(1) In the process of developing his theory, Karl Marx combined Hegelian dialectics, as a doctrine of development, with Feuerbach’s materialism and for the first time applied the method of materialistic dialectics developed by him to the analysis of the development of human society. The materialistic understanding of history was Marx’s first critical discovery, which allowed him to understand the logic and principles of the development of human society in the historic context.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (27 August 1770—14 November 1831) was a German philosopher and one of the most influential figures of German idealism. Hegel stressed the need to recognize that the realities of the modern state necessitate a strong public authority along with a populace that is free and unregimented. To Hegel, the principle of government was constitutional monarchy, the potentialities of which had been seen in Austria and Prussia in the 19th century.
Ludwig Andreas von Feuerbach (28 July 1804—13 September 1872) was a German philosopher, best known for his book The Essence of Christianity, which provided a critique of Christianity that strongly influenced generations of later European thinkers, including Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Engels, and Friedrich Nietzsche.
Feuerbach advocated dialectic materialism, or a method of reasoning that considers how things change, move, and are interconnected in the material world.
To Feuerbach, materialism is a philosophical view that posits that facts are dependent on material reality. Subsequently, the material basis of reality is constantly changing through a dialectical process. In his view, matter is prioritized over mind (consciousness); and scientific theory emphasizes the relative nature of theories about matter’s structure and properties.
Many of Feuerbach’s philosophical writings offered a critical analysis of religion. His thought was influential in the development of historical materialism and scientific atheism.
(2) The second intellectual source of Marx’s theory was English political economy. Having begun studying economic theory in the 1840s, Marx critically rethought and significantly reworked almost all previous economic theories, beginning with the 17th century, and concluded that it had reached its peak in the works of English economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo.
By creating his theories of value and surplus, Marx proposed and contrasted his economic interpretation to the theoretical principles of economic theory of Adam Smith, who called labor the source of value, and David Ricardo, who pointed out the opposition of interests of capital and labor.
Thus, the theory of surplus value became Marx’s second economic invention. Marx’s entire economic theory is based on the theories of value and surplus value. In other words, supply and demand is his key economic principle. The principle of supply and demand predicts that if the supply of goods or services outstrips demand, prices will fall. However, if demand exceeds supply, prices will rise. In short, in a free market, the equilibrium price is the price at which the supply exactly matches the demand.
In Marxist economic theory, the mode of production is a way of organizing society to produce goods and services. It’s made up of two main parts: (1) Forces of production—the tools, machines, raw materials, and other resources used to produce goods and services and (2) Relations of production—the social structures that regulate the relationship between people in the production of goods.
Marx believed that the mode of production was the foundation of society and that it demonstrated the differences between the economies of various societies. He also believed that the mode of production was a way for people to express their life, and that what people are coincides with what and how they produce.
According to Marx, capitalism is a mode of production that has been dominant since the 18th century. It’s based on private ownership of the means of production, the operation of the means of production for exchange value, and the need for people to sell their labor power to make a living.
(3) The study of the historical experience of the revolutions of the late 18th and 19th centuries, primarily the French Revolutions and the first revolutionary actions of the proletariat in European countries, gave Marx an understanding of the significance of class struggle in history. The ideas of utopian socialism of social structure of Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier and Robert Owen, in which age-old dreams of equality and justice were refracted, served as the third source of Marxism and the basis for the creation of the principles of Scientific Communism by Marx and Engels.
In short, Marxism, and, in part, its outgrowth the far-left neo-Marxism (i.e., white privilege and critical race theory doctrines, DEI and systemic racism notion), includes dialectical materialism, economic theory of mode of production and the theory of Scientific Communism, including historical materialism.
Alexander B. Dolitsky was born and raised in Kiev in the former Soviet Union. He received an M.A. in history from Kiev Pedagogical Institute, Ukraine, in 1976; an M.A. in anthropology and archaeology from Brown University in 1983; and was enroled in the Ph.D. program in Anthropology at Bryn Mawr College from 1983 to 1985, where he was also a lecturer in the Russian Center. In the U.S.S.R., he was a social studies teacher for three years, and an archaeologist for five years for the Ukranian Academy of Sciences. In 1978, he settled in the United States. Dolitsky visited Alaska for the first time in 1981, while conducting field research for graduate school at Brown. He lived first in Sitka in 1985 and then settled in Juneau in 1986. From 1985 to 1987, he was a U.S. Forest Service archaeologist and social scientist. He was an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Russian Studies at the University of Alaska Southeast from 1985 to 1999; Social Studies Instructor at the Alyeska Central School, Alaska Department of Education from 1988 to 2006; and has been the Director of the Alaska-Siberia Research Center (see www.aksrc.homestead.com) from 1990 to present. He has conducted about 30 field studies in various areas of the former Soviet Union (including Siberia), Central Asia, South America, Eastern Europe and the United States (including Alaska). Dolitsky has been a lecturer on the World Discoverer, Spirit of Oceanus, and Clipper Odyssey vessels in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. He was the Project Manager for the WWII Alaska-Siberia Lend Lease Memorial, which was erected in Fairbanks in 2006. He has published extensively in the fields of anthropology, history, archaeology, and ethnography. His more recent publications include Fairy Tales and Myths of the Bering Strait Chukchi, Ancient Tales of Kamchatka; Tales and Legends of the Yupik Eskimos of Siberia; Old Russia in Modern America: Russian Old Believers in Alaska; Allies in Wartime: The Alaska-Siberia Airway During WWII; Spirit of the Siberian Tiger: Folktales of the Russian Far East; Living Wisdom of the Far North: Tales and Legends from Chukotka and Alaska; Pipeline to Russia; The Alaska-Siberia Air Route in WWII; and Old Russia in Modern America: Living Traditions of the Russian Old Believers; Ancient Tales of Chukotka, and Ancient Tales of Kamchatka.
In 2020, Alaska’s lieutenant governor and the Division of Elections assured the public that the state’s election was one of the most secure in its history.
However, soon after these claims were made, we learned that the personal data of 113,000 Alaskans — roughly 19% of voters — was breached in August of 2020 and circulated on the dark web. This revelation was a severe blow to public trust and has raised ongoing concerns about the security of our electoral system.
That same year, Ballot Measure 2, which introduced ranked choice voting to Alaska, passed by a razor-thin margin—less than 1%.
Since then, the issue of ranked-choice voting has not gone away. This year, we find ourselves again in a presidential election cycle, with Ballot Measure 2 now on the ballot to repeal RCV, and it’s likely to be determined by another incredibly narrow margin.
So, let’s ask the tough questions: What impact did that data breach have on the 2020 election? And what about the current election, which has yet to be certified and will be finalized on Nov, 30?
We know that millions of dollars from outside groups, particularly from Washington D.C., were funneled into Alaska in 2020 and 2024 to influence the outcome of RCV. If millions of dollars were spent on advertising and pushing a specific agenda, isn’t it reasonable to ask whether those same outside forces might use the personal data circulating on the dark web to influence how people vote or manipulate the results?
Whether through social media manipulation, voter suppression, or other means, personal data can be a powerful tool for those with the resources to exploit it. If we’re being honest, these are uncomfortable questions that must be addressed.
As your State House representative, I’ve taken action. Last week, I sent a letter to the Alaska Division of Elections requesting a comprehensive audit of the ballots cast by the 113,000 Alaskans whose data was compromised in 2020. We need to know—were their votes manipulated, tampered with, or influenced by outside actors using this compromised data? Without a transparent, independent audit of these ballots, how can we trust the outcome of this election pending certification this November?
The situation is particularly troubling given Alaska’s history of tight elections. In a state where mere percentage points often decide elections, it wouldn’t take much for a small group with the right resources to influence or skew the results. The 1% margin by which Ballot Measure 2 passed in 2020 and the likelihood that the current election will be similarly close make this even more concerning.
Here’s the real question: How can we trust the outcome of any election in Alaska if we don’t address the potential for outside influence and data manipulation? Whether we’re talking about the 2020 election or the current one, we must demand accountability. The breach of personal data is just one part of the problem. The real question is whether those with vested interests have weaponized that data to influence the people’s will. This is an urgent issue that requires immediate attention and action from all of us.
We can debate whether we should hand-count ballots or use tabulators all day, but those are surface-level issues. The deeper problem is this: If our data can be accessed and misused, how can we be sure that our votes are genuinely our own? Without answers, we risk compromising the very foundation of our democratic process.
I believe that an audit of the 2024 election, specifically focusing on the ballots cast by the 113,000 Alaskans whose data was breached, is necessary. Until we know that their votes were not tampered with or influenced by bad actors, how can we be confident in future elections?
Let me be clear: What I’m calling for is transparency. I want the truth. Before any election outcome is certified, especially given the close margins and ongoing concerns, we need to ensure that the integrity of the process has not been compromised.
If no one asks these questions, we will never receive the answers we deserve. Without those answers, the integrity of our elections remains in jeopardy, and we will not be able to restore Alaskan’s faith in our election system.
Representative Sarah Vance of House District 6 is the current Chair of House Judiciary Committee and has sponsored several election integrity bills as a champion to provide accountability and reform.
The freshmen class of the United States Congress gathered on the steps of the U.S. Capitol on Friday for the official photo, and Alaska’s Congressman-elect Nick Begich was present, as seen in the photo above, where he is second from the left on the top row of the main group (red tie).
Republicans have maintained firm control of the House, with 220 GOP members and 213 Democrats. Republicans gained one seat, while Democrats lost a seat. Two California seats have not yet been called, along with one race in Iowa and one in Ohio.
The newly elected members of Congress have been in Washington, D.C. this week for orientation. Although Alaska’s race has not been officially called, all but a few remaining Democrats understand that Begich has won the seat. Rep. Mary Peltola has not conceded the race, however.
The ranked-choice algorithm won’t be run by the Division of Elections on the Alaska race until Nov. 20, but those who have analyzed the raw data have concluded that only massive cheating would change the course of history that will send Begich to Congress, like his grandfather before him. Nick Begich I served Alaska until perishing in a plane crash over Prince William Sound on Oct. 18, 1972.
Swearing in for members of Congress is Jan. 3 in Washington, D.C.
With his latest cabinet nominations, President-elect Donald Trump promised to bring down the cost Americans pay for energy by expanding oil and gas production.
Trump named North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum as secretary of the Interior as well as chairman of “the newly formed, and very important, National Energy Council.”
“As Chairman of the National Energy Council, Doug will have a seat on the National Security Council,” Trump said in a statement. “As Secretary of the Interior, Doug will be a key leader in ushering in a new ‘Golden Age of American Prosperity’ and World Peace.”
Trump wrote, “We will ’DRILL BABY DRILL,’ expand ALL forms of Energy production to grow our Economy, and create good-paying jobs,” he added. “By smartly utilizing our amazing National Assets, we will preserve and protect our most beautiful places, AND reduce our deficits and our debt!”
Trump said the new energy council will involve all parts of the federal government dealing with energy.
“This Council will oversee the path to U.S. ENERGY DOMINANCE by cutting red tape, enhancing private sector investments across all sectors of the Economy, and by focusing on INNOVATION over longstanding, but totally unnecessary, regulation,” Trump said. “With U.S. Energy Dominance, we will drive down Inflation, win the A.l. arms race with China (and others), and expand American Diplomatic Power to end Wars all across the World.”
As part of his Burgum pick and his nomination of fracking entrepreneur Chris Wright to lead the Department of Energy, Trump promised to get energy prices down.
“We will also undo the damage done by the Democrats to our Nation’s Electrical Grid, by dramatically increasing baseload power,” Trump said.
Trump also named William Owen Scharf as assistant to the President and White House Staff Secretary.
So far, Trump has pointed to the loyalty of his choices, saying how they endorsed him or helped him win reelection when announcing them as his choices.
“Will is a highly skilled attorney who will be a crucial part of my White House team. He has played a key role in defeating the Election Interference and Lawfare waged against me, including by winning the Historic Immunity Decision in the Supreme Court.”
Trump followed his electoral win with a flurry of cabinet picks, some expected and some that are sure to stir things up.
In particular, Trump’s picks of Robert F Kennedy Jr to lead the Department of Health and Human services, veteran and Fox News host Pete Hegseth to lead the Secretary of Defense, and former Congressman Matt Gaetz to lead the Department of Justice have sparked headlines.
More picks are on the way as Trump has to fill out positions across the federal government.
Whether Trump can get the Senate to confirm his nominees, especially the more controversial picks, remains to be seen.
Trump’s list of nominees so far include:
North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum as Secretary of the Interior.
William Owen Scharf as Assistant to the President and White House Staff Secretary.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as head of U.S. Health and Human Services
Former Congresswoman and veteran Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence.
Former Congressman Doug Collins as Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Jay Clayton as Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Former congressman Matt Gaetz for Attorney General.
Veteran and Fox News host Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense.
Veteran and former New York congressman Lee Zeldin as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., as Secretary of State.
Former Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Tom Homan as “border czar.”
Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Former Congresswoman and current governor of South Dakota, Kristi Noem as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead the “Department of Government Efficiency.
William Joseph McGinley as White House Counsel.
Steven C. Witkoff as Special Envoy to the Middle East.
Rep. Mike Waltz, R-Fla. as national security advisor.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as ambassador to Israel.
Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. as ambassador to the U.N.
Dean John Sauer as Solicitor General.
Todd Blanche as Deputy Attorney General.
Emil Bove as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General.
Dan Scavino of the Trump campaign as Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff.
Susie Wiles, co-chair of the Trump campaign, as White House Chief of Staff.
Stephen Miller as Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor.
James Blair of the Trump campaign as Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Legislative, Political and Public Affairs.
Taylor Budowich of the Trump campaign as Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications and Personnel.
The Homer Spit Road was closed on Saturday after high winds, waves, and an extraordinarily high tide eroded the outbound lane.
“In anticipation of the potential for more damage during the next high tide event at 2:29 am on Sunday, November 17, the City of Homer and Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities urges residents to stay off the Spit Road,” Homer police reported Saturday.
The police department said it would provide another update on Sunday and this report will be updated.
