The Supreme Court ruled Monday that President Donald Trump has the authority to move forward with widespread layoffs within the Department of Education, siding with the administration in a high-profile case centered on the limits of executive power over federal agencies.
In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority granted the Trump administration’s emergency application to lift a lower court injunction that had blocked the layoffs. The ruling allows the administration to proceed with its plan to cut approximately half of the department’s workforce and reassign many of its responsibilities to other federal agencies.
After taking office in January, President Trump announced plans to restructure the federal government with a focus on reducing both the size and cost of federal agencies. On March 20, he signed an executive order instructing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “facilitate the closure of the Department of Education,” in line with his campaign pledge to scale back federal involvement in education policy.
The department has about 4,400 employees and a $68 billion budget.
The administration has indicated that certain programs and functions will be absorbed by departments such as Labor and Health and Human Services, while a significant portion of education oversight will be returned to the states.
The decision is a major for the Trump Administration’s efforts to overhaul the federal government and is expected to set a precedent for future executive actions targeting other agencies.
With the Supreme Court’s ruling in place, the Department of Education is expected to begin phased layoffs within weeks, with the administration targeting a complete closure of the department’s operations by the end of the year.
The One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) is one of the most transformative pieces of legislation for Alaska in decades. This comprehensive package is the product of years of relentless, focused work, delivering historic wins for our state.
The legislation contains numerous provisions to unleash Alaska’s extraordinary resource economy, deliver tax relief for hard-working Alaskans and small businesses, make the largest US Coast Guard investment in history, secure the southern border and halt the flow of fentanyl, build up our Alaska-based military, upgrade Alaska’s aviation safety, strengthen Alaska’s health and nutrition programs, protect Alaska’s most vulnerable, and achieve historic savings for future generations.
Due to the hard work of our congressional delegation, I think it’s fair to say no state fared better from this bill. In the coming months, my team and I will be working to better inform Alaskans about this important legislation and dispel the falsehoods being spread in ad campaigns funded by the same far-left interest groups that always seek to crush Alaska’s economy and working families.
This op-ed is a start.
At its heart, the OBBB is a jobs bill. It will unleash Alaska’s private sector economy, generate billions of dollars in new revenues for the state, and create jobs for hard-working families. The OBBB mandates historic provisions to responsibly develop ANWR, NPR-A, and Cook Inlet.. The bill also increases Alaska’s share of future revenues from these federal lands to 70% and helps accelerate the Alaska LNG project.
Importantly, these provisions cement in statute regular lease sales to guard against attempts by future Democratic leaders to use regulations to shut down our economy, as was done with President Biden’s 70 executive orders and actions targeting Alaska—the “Last Frontier Lock-Up.”
The bill also dramatically benefits Alaska’s working families, enabling them to keep more of what they earn by extending the 2017 tax cuts and making them permanent, preventing what would have been a $4 trillion tax hike. . We secured an increased Child Tax Credit and standard deduction, small business deductions, no taxes on tips or overtime, and significant tax relief for seniors. The Council of Economic Advisors predicts this legislation will increase take-home pay for an average family by over $7,000.
The OBBB also achieves the most significant spending reductions in history. According to nonpartisan scorekeepers, the bill reduces federal spending by over $1.5 trillion and, using the current policy baseline, will reduce the deficit by $400 billion over ten years. That is before considering the pro-growth elements of the bill.
As Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee overseeing the U.S. Coast Guard, I also fought to secure the largest investment in Coast Guard history—nearly $25 billion. This includes funding for 16 new icebreakers and $300 million to homeport the new Juneau icebreaker. The urgency of this cannot be overstated, with the Russians and Chinese racing to control our Arctic waters. And, with the “Golden Dome” initiative substantially funded by the OBBB, we’re building the next generation of homeland missile defense—Alaska being the cornerstone—to protect the entire country. The bill also commits over $100 million to redevelop existing Arctic infrastructure, like the Adak Naval Base.
This bill secures our southern border with the most robust enforcement package in a generation—$46 billion for the wall, billions more for Border Patrol and law enforcement, and substantial resources to crack down on deadly fentanyl coming into Alaska.
Finally, I know Alaska has been flooded with dishonest ads by far-left groups—at the direction of Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer—scaring Alaskans with false claims that the OBBB will cause them to lose Medicare and Medicaid.
Here’s the truth. Medicare isn’t touched in the OBBB. Not one dollar in Medicaid benefits was cut for Alaskans. This bill actually strengthens health care in Alaska.
The only people who were advocating for Medicaid cuts for Alaskans were Senator Schumer and Senate Democrats. They stripped out a provision I includedin the bill to help Alaska’s rural hospitals and increase the federal match for Medicaid for Alaska, which would’ve amounted to hundreds of millions more dollars a year.
Further, Sen. Schumer tried, but failed, to strip out other significant funding—approximately $200 million a year for the next five years—for Alaska’s health care system.
I worked to make sure commonsense 20-hour-a-week work or volunteer requirements were included, ensuring able-bodied Americans utilizing these programs are contributing to our communities. But the bill has important exemptions—for disabled veterans, parents or guardians with children, individuals with disabilities or mental health challenges, Alaska Natives, and those living in rural areas with few economic opportunities.
But Senator Schumer’s anti-Alaska campaign wasn’t just aimed at our health care. He and Senate Democrats sought to specifically killevery single positive provision for Alaska in this bill: ANWR, NPR-A, Cook Inlet, homeporting the Juneau icebreaker, the Adak Naval base, and greater flexibility on SNAP requirements. We successfully fought back, but one thing remains clear: Democrats in D.C. have once again demonstrated they are the anti-Alaska party.
Ultimately, National Democrats didn’t win in this bill. Alaskans did. From growing our economy, to tax relief for working families, to national defense, to securing our border, to strengthening our health care, this legislation reflects years of determined advocacy for Alaska. The final result is numerous historic wins for Alaska that will positively shape our state’s future for decades.
Sen. Dan Sullivan has represented Alaska in the U.S. Senate since he was first elected in 2014.
Former Governor Andrew Cuomo is expected to announce a political comeback bid, launching a third-party run in the New York City mayoral general election against Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani, who trounced him in the Democratic primary earlier this summer.
Sources say the former three-term governor will call on both New York City Mayor Eric Adams and Republican radio host Curtis Sliwa, both also rumored to be eyeing independent bids, to join him in pledging to consolidate support behind whichever candidate is best positioned to defeat Mamdani by mid-September. New York City’s general election will be ranked-choice voting, as is done in Alaska.
The novel political maneuver borrows from an emerging trend in Alaska politics, where ranked-choice voting and nonpartisan primaries have upended traditional partisan battles.
In 2024, Alaska Republican Nick Begich pioneered a similar pledge during his run for Congress, vowing to exit the race if polling showed he was not the strongest Republican contender. The tactic pressured other conservatives, notably then-Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, to bow out after finishing behind Begich, clearing the path for him to mount a more effective challenge against Democrat Mary Peltola, the incumbent he had lost to in 2022.
Now, Cuomo is attempting to replicate that model in New York’s first-ever high-profile ranked-choice general election for a major city office.
Governor Cuomo believes that if Democrats, independents, and moderate Republicans unite around one candidate, there is a clear pathway to defeat Mamdani’s radical agenda, sources are reporting.
Under the plan, Cuomo, Adams, and Sliwa would monitor polling through the summer and, by mid-September, publicly commit to dropping out if their candidacy risks splitting the vote against Mamdani. The goal: ensure voters can consolidate their rankings behind a single viable challenger to the left-wing incumbent.
Mamdani, who ousted Cuomo in a resounding primary victory driven by young, left-leaning voters, dismissed the idea.
Political observers note that while the pledge strategy helped reshape Alaskan politics, it remains untested in New York’s complex urban environment.
Still, the Cuomo camp is betting on voter fatigue with ideological extremes and a desire for experienced leadership. With ranked-choice voting giving voters the option to rank candidates rather than pick just one, Cuomo hopes to recast himself as a consensus alternative capable of drawing cross-party appeal.
The technique worked in Alaska to defeat a radical member of Congress. But will it work in New York City?
Cuomo’s farewell speech from three years ago when he left office as governor:
The Tanana Valley State Fair announced in February that it will not host its annual drag performance this year.
Last week, after months of pushback from the drag promoters, it published a statement reiterating its decision.
In a terse statement released Friday, the Fair’s Board of Directors said, “A Glam Show is not scheduled during the 2025 Tanana Valley State Fair.” The board acknowledged that the decision followed months of listening to community members in Fairbanks and surrounding areas, noting the controversy has taken a heavy toll on staff and the broader community.
“This process has been painful for all involved,” the statement read. “Struggles continue with harassment which has taken its toll on the TVSFA, its staff, and our Fairbanks community.”
Harassment has been intense from the pro-drag crowd.
There were many in the community who objected to the ludicrous depiction of females and the burlesque nature of drag at what has traditionally been a family-oriented fair.
Those who criticized the drag performances of the past were routinely harassed and harangued with hateful commentary by the loud-and-proud trans-and-queer segment of the community.
While the board characterized the move as an “operational and logistical decision,” it emphasized that the goal is to create a safe and welcoming environment for all fairgoers.
“Everyone is welcome to the Fairgrounds and we merely wish to present a Fair environment that is safe and responsive to our community,” the board said.
The re-announcement comes after months of back-and-forth between supporters of the drag event, who view it as an expression of inclusion and entertainment, and opponents who raised objections based on the inappropriateness of the performances where children are present.. The growing polarization was felt through public comment sessions, letters, and social media debates, ultimately culminating in the cancellation.
The Tanana Valley State Fair, which draws thousands of Alaskans each summer, will proceed with its other scheduled events. Board members say they hope to refocus the fair’s atmosphere on traditional community fun without the recent “harassment” that has surrounded this issue.
In a record-breaking year for poker’s most prestigious tournament, Alaska’s Adam Hendrix has reached the final table of the World Series of Poker Main Event, outlasting 9,800 players in a grueling week of high-stakes competition.
Hendrix, already a well-known figure on the professional poker circuit, returns to the table with 48 million in chips and a guaranteed payout of at least $1 million. The final nine players will battle for the title of World Champion and a life-changing top prize of $10 million.
Joining Hendrix at the final table are notable poker names including three-time WSOP bracelet winner Michael Mizrachi, 2016 finalist Kenny Hallaert, and Leo Margets, one of poker’s most respected European pros.
Hendrix, who grew up in Alaska and honed his skills in both No-Limit Hold’em and Pot-Limit Omaha, has amassed $8.2 million in live career earnings prior to this event, according to The Hendon Mob Poker Database. Known for his composure and adaptability, Hendrix has been among the chip leaders through most of the tournament, steadily climbing the leaderboard each day:
Day 1b: 184,500
Day 2abc: 321,500
Day 3: 360,000
Day 4: 855,000
Day 5: 3,650,000
Day 6: 6,900,000
Day 7: 33,900,000
Final Table Start: 48,000,000
Hendrix’s deepest previous WSOP run was a runner-up finish in 2017 in a $1,500 PLO8 event, leaving him still chasing his first gold bracelet. Hendrix started playing poker as a child at his grandmother’s house in Homer — playing against family and friends.
In an extraordinary twist, fellow Alaskan Joey Padron also made a historic run, finishing 10th for a payday of $750,000. Padron was part of the final 12 players before being the last to exit on Day 8. He almost made the final table It is exceptionally rare to see two players from Alaska — let alone from the same city — reach this advanced stage of the world’s most difficult poker tournament.
As for Hendrix, he may be the first Alaskan to make the Final Table since Perry Green in the 1990s. Only a couple of hundred players entered back in those days, while this year it’s nearly 10,000 entries.
The final table will resume Tuesday evening at the Horseshoe Las Vegas, with poker fans around the world tuning in to watch Hendrix attempt to become the first Alaskan to win poker’s most coveted title. His parents are flying in from Alaska to join him; his father is John Hendrix, owner of HEX/Furie oil and gas company.
It’s “Crypto Week” in the US House of Representatives, and Alaska’s Congressman Nick Begich is emerging as one of the nation’s most influential voices on cryptocurrency policy. From July 14-18, lawmakers are debating and voting on sweeping digital asset legislation, with Begich playing a central role as both a legislator and an expert in the rapidly evolving crypto landscape.
Begich, already known for his pro-oil, gas, mining, and aerospace stances, has made a name in Washington for his in-depth knowledge of Bitcoin and blockchain technology. His involvement in shaping cryptocurrency legislation comes as the US House focuses on three major bills that could redefine the nation’s approach to digital assets: the GENIUS Act, the CLARITY Act, and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act.
Congressman Nick Begich speaks at a national Bitcoin Policy Institute conference with Congressman Tom Emmers.
The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) seeks to regulate stablecoins, which are cryptocurrencies pegged to traditional assets like the US dollar. Already passed in the Senate with bipartisan support (68-30), the bill would require stablecoin issuers to maintain full cash reserves, register with federal regulators, and follow anti-money laundering protocols. With President Trump signaling enthusiastic support, the bill is expected to pass the House this week.
The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act) aims to end the longstanding regulatory turf war between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by clearly defining which agencies oversee different types of digital assets. The legislation promises to unlock innovation while drawing criticism from Democrats concerned about consumer protections.
The Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, introduced by House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, would ban the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Proponents argue it protects financial privacy, while critics call it premature since the Fed has yet to formally pursue a digital dollar.
Begich is not just a participant in Crypto Week; he is helping lead the conversation. Earlier this year, Begich introduced the BITCOIN Act of 2025, co-sponsored with Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, proposing the creation of a US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. The ambitious legislation would allow the federal government to acquire up to 1 million Bitcoin over five years using budget-neutral mechanisms like Federal Reserve remittances and gold revaluations. Crucially, the bill includes strong protections for Bitcoin self-custody rights.
Begich’s personal experience bolsters his credibility. He has publicly disclosed holding Bitcoin since 2013, giving him over a decade of firsthand knowledge in the digital asset space. He has been a sought-after speaker at major crypto events like the Bitcoin for America Summit and the Bitcoin Policy Summit, where he has shared the stage with leading policymakers such as Tom Emmer.
Congressman Begich is one of the few lawmakers who deeply understands the technical and economic implications of Bitcoin. With bipartisan support behind the GENIUS Act, passage seems likely within weeks. The CLARITY Act faces tougher odds in the Senate, while the Anti-CBDC Act may struggle to advance. Nevertheless, Crypto Week marks a pivotal moment for America’s digital asset strategy, and Alaska’s Nick Begich is at the heart of it — a national leader helping chart the future of U.S. financial innovation.
Alaska’s current education system stands in sharp contrast to the unified, accountable governance envisioned by the Framers of the 1955 Constitutional Convention. Article X was designed to eliminate redundant special-purpose districts, especially school districts, by integrating them into borough governments. The goal was clear: reduce administrative duplication, empower local control, and ensure equitable public services. Today, that vision has been lost.
The state now supports dozens of independent school districts, each duplicating costly administrative functions without delivering improved outcomes. Rural and remote communities suffer most, facing high per-student costs, limited access to specialized instruction, and chronic teacher turnover. The Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) worsens the problem by enforcing a one-size-fits-all model that ignores the state’s vast geographic and cultural diversity.
Boroughs are left funding school districts they cannot oversee, undermining accountability and strategic planning. The Framers never intended school districts to be permanent or autonomous; they expected boroughs to take on educational responsibilities to promote efficiency, equity, and transparency.
Reform is further blocked by public education unions and entrenched special interests that resist change to protect political influence. These groups oppose consolidation and accountability, prioritize bureaucracy over outcomes, and dominate school boards and legislative policy, preserving a broken status quo.
Adding to the system’s inflexibility is Alaska’s “Mini-Blaine Amendment,” which prohibits public funds from supporting religious or private schools. While Article IX, Section 6 permits spending for any legitimate public purpose, the Mini-Blaine restriction hinders modern innovations like Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). Originally rooted in 19th-century anti-Catholic bias, it now obstructs parental choice and customized education options.
However, recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings (Espinoza and Carson) affirm that once states fund education, they cannot exclude religious providers. These decisions create a clear path for Alaska to adopt ESAs, empowering families to direct education funding toward services that best meet their children’s needs, especially vital in underserved rural areas.
Until Alaska reforms its education system to reflect its constitutional foundations, it will continue to sacrifice fiscal responsibility, democratic governance, and student success to preserve a system designed to serve institutions, not children.
I. A Unified System of Local Government
At the heart of Article X lies a mandate: “maximum local self-government with a minimum of local government units.” The Framers designed boroughs to serve as broad-based, general-purpose governments, capable of assuming key responsibilities like education, roads, and planning. Their goal was to eliminate the duplicative jurisdictions and unaccountable authorities that plagued other states.
School districts, road boards, and similar entities were to be temporary mechanisms, used only until borough governments matured. In time, these special-purpose bodies were expected to be absorbed into the broader borough framework, streamlining services and ensuring public accountability through elected assemblies.
During the 1955-1956 Alaska Constitutional Convention, the delegates clearly intended to eliminate duplicative and overlapping local government structures and favored general-purpose boroughs over special-purpose districts, particularly school districts.
Key Supporting Evidence from the 1955 Convention:
Delegates’ Intent to Avoid Duplication: The delegates sought to avoid the “crazy quilt” of overlapping jurisdictions seen elsewhere by creating the borough system—designed to simplify governance and prevent a maze of redundant taxing authorities.
Integration of School Districts into Boroughs: The delegates saw the absorption of school districts by boroughs as essential to a unified system, reducing duplication while allowing flexible, locally accountable governance suited to Alaska’s unique geography. Boroughs would assume functions like education, previously handled by separate districts.
Challenges of Implementation Without Timetable: While the constitution did not specify a timetable for borough creation, the delegates were aware this would create a transitional period during which school districts, public utility districts and other special service districts would continue to operate. However, they anticipated that these would eventually be replaced or absorbed as the borough system matured.
The delegates’ intent was not only to favor general-purpose over special-purpose governance but also to reduce administrative duplication, particularly in the realm of education. The records of the 1955–1956 Alaska Constitutional Convention accurately reflect this vision. While some delegates favored maintaining independent school districts, the prevailing and adopted constitutional model supported integration into boroughs, a foundational component of Alaska’s unique local government structure.
II. Education: A State Duty, Locally Delivered
Article VII, Section 1 of the Alaska Constitution assigns the responsibility for public education to the State. However, this did not imply permanent separation from local government. Rather, the Framers envisioned a transitional period during which school districts would serve as administrative tools until boroughs were able to assume educational governance.
The Convention records make clear: school districts were not meant to be autonomous, permanent structures. Once capable, boroughs were expected to administer education directly by aligning with the overall goal of unified, locally accountable government.
III. A System in Constitutional Tension
Despite this intent, Alaska’s current system maintains structurally independent school districts, even within organized boroughs. These districts possess:
Independent elections and governance;
Budgetary and policy autonomy;
Tax-levying or tax-requesting authority;
Little or no integration with borough operations.
As a result, residents in organized boroughs must navigate two separate local governments: one for education, and another for all other services. This fragmentation directly contradicts Article X’s call for unified governance and minimal tax-levying jurisdictions.
Furthermore, it raises a constitutional question: does this dual structure, particularly within organized boroughs, violate the Framers’ intent and the Constitution’s structural mandates?
IV. The Constitutional Conflict
This question is not theoretical. It is foundational. It hinges on whether the Legislature has exceeded its discretion under Article VII by embedding education within a permanent parallel structure outside the borough system.
Legal precedent supports the Framers’ original design:
In Mobil Oil Corp. v. Local Boundary Commission, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the principle of consolidated local governance through the borough system. The Court explicitly affirmed the Framers’ intent behind Article X of the Alaska Constitution, recognizing that boroughs were designed to unify and streamline local government functions. The decision stands as a clear judicial endorsement of the borough model as the constitutional foundation for local governance in Alaska.
In State v. A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary, the Court held that all exercises of public power must conform to constitutional structure, even if functionally sound. The A.L.I.V.E. decision is a powerful affirmation that constitutional form is not optional, even when the substance or function of a governmental action seems justified. The legislature cannot circumvent Article II’s procedures, and no branch of government may lawfully claim power except through the constitutional structure.
Today’s structure undermines both constitutional design and democratic accountability. The existence of independent school districts in organized boroughs fragments power, duplicates governance, and weakens public oversight.
V. A Constitutional Remedy Is Due
Alaska’s Framers sought to create a system where education and other local services were delivered by unified, locally accountable borough governments, not scattered among autonomous special-purpose districts. While temporary flexibility was allowed, permanent fragmentation was explicitly rejected.
The current system, particularly within organized boroughs, fails to realize this vision. It may comply functionally with the State’s duty to provide public education under Article VII, but it fails structurally under Article X’s mandate for unified local governance.
To restore constitutional integrity, Alaska must:
Transition education governance into borough structures;
Eliminate overlapping authorities where feasible;
Ensure that the delivery of education remains accountable to locally elected governments.
A constitutional challenge is not only possible, it is necessary to fulfill the promise of Alaska’s founding vision.
Those were the words retired Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Dick Burton chose to begin his email to three former colleagues on Jan. 2, 2023.
Burton’s colleagues agreed. One responded, “the whole thing is bizarre.” Another responded that he had checked with a retired district attorney who said it sounded funny to him as well.
The “really stinky” something that Burton was referring to was the Class C felony assault indictment against Ketchikan Police Chief Jeffrey Walls obtained by the Office of Special Prosecution under Attorney General Treg Taylor.
Matt Clark, an OSP prosecutor, had appeared before a Ketchikan grand jury four days earlier on Dec. 29, 2022. Count I of the proposed indictment was for a Class B felony assault requiring Walls’ intent to cause physical injury. Count II was for a Class C felony not requiring intent, but recklessness. The grand jury returned a “no true bill” on Count I but returned a true bill on Count II.
The indictment stemmed from an incident at Salmon Falls Resort, a restaurant outside of Ketchikan city limits, on September 10, 2022. Walls was off duty and went out to dinner there with his wife Sharon. During their meal, Walls was twice assaulted by a drunk customer from Washington State who would later admit his first assault against Walls was intentional.
The second assault occurred about a half hour later after the first. The assailant was served alcohol by the resort in between. In the second assault, he slammed into not only the Chief but also Sharon, hitting her with such force that her shoulder and chest were bruised.
Immediately after recovering from the second assault, Walls chased down the assailant in the restaurant and used force to try to detain him until Alaska State Troopers arrived. Two staff members of the resort who hadn’t seen the assaults interfered with Walls’ detainment resulting in another off-duty Ketchikan police officer, Kevin Manabat, trying to help Walls subdue the assailant.
After AST arrived, the drunk man was arrested and originally charged with four misdemeanors including assault, harassment, and being drunk on a licensed premise. Taylor later dismissed those charges and went after Walls instead, claiming Walls used excessive force in taking down the assailant. The Office of Special Prosecutions also threatened Officer Manabat with charges.
In evaluating Taylor’s decision, Walls’ background is highly relevant.
Walls had arrived in Ketchikan a year earlier from New Orleans, where he had been a highly decorated police officer, detective and commander. The recipient of 20 awards, medals, and letters of commendation since 2001, Walls had spent the previous 10 years as the Police Commander of the Eight District which includes the French Quarter.
Walls promotion to Police Commander occurred while the US Department of Justice’s Office of Civil Rights was investigating an alleged pattern of civil rights violations and criminal misconduct by the New Orleans Police Department. The NOPD and Justice Department soon entered into a consent decree, an extensive blueprint for positive change, encompassing sweeping, department-wide reforms that were expected to take many years to implement.
A federal district court maintained jurisdiction over the Consent Decree with annual reporting by a Monitoring Team. Bullet points in its 2019 Executive Summary include “NOPD continues to make significant progress in every area of the Consent Decree” and “NOPD leadership deserves significant credit for bringing the Department this far.” Walls was part of that leadership team.
Walls had grown up in a small Alabama town and missed the feel of a tight-knit community. He’d always loved the idea of moving to Alaska, so when the police chief position in Ketchikan became vacant, he applied.
He was hired in early 2022 and quickly focused his attention on reducing illegal narcotics activity. He promoted drug prevention programs in the schools and increased his department’s community outreach. He began working with judges to implement diversion programs for low level offenders.
Walls also focused on drug seizures and immediate gains were realized. In his first year, KPD seized 17,000 deadly fentanyl pills, an increase of over 500% from the previous year. Undoubtedly, the lives of many Alaskans were saved through his initiatives.
But Walls wasn’t satisfied with this achievement. His department knew some drugs had slipped by them and Walls wanted them to be even more effective. He initiated the City’s acquisition of a K-9 dog with unique training that increased the dog’s reliability and credibility in court proceedings.
In November of 2022, the FBI Special Agent in Charge for Alaska made a visit to the Ketchikan Police Department to commend them for these seizures. That year Ketchikan seized more illegal narcotics than any other department in Alaska.
Did Taylor have a problem with that? The Attorney General obtained the indictment against Walls the following month.
Walls’ first annual performance evaluation in January of 2023 concluded, “Chief Walls consistently exceeded expectations in his role as Police Chief. He has demonstrated a deep commitment to public safety, community engagement, and officer development. Under his leadership, KPD has achieved significant drug seizures, improved relationships with the community, and prioritized training for his staff.”
In June of 2023, Ketchikan Superior Court Judge Kathryn Lybrand dismissed the indictment against Walls, finding that prosecutor Clark had advised the grand jury in error. Clark had wrongly led the grand jury to believe that because Walls was off duty, he had no authority to use force to detain his and his wife’s assailant pending AST’s arrival.
Really stinky indeed: OSP had obtained its indictment obtained against a good police officer by misleading the grand jury on the law. Go figure. But things were about to get even stinkier.
Taylor decided to go after Walls again. This time our Attorney General took the highly unusual step of presenting the Class C charge to a grand jury in Juneau where none of the witnesses were present. Taylor assigned a different prosecutor to advise the grand jury, OSP’s Bailey Woolfstead.
In September of 2023, the Juneau grand jury indicted Walls not only on the Class C felony, but determined that Walls’ use of force was intentional adding back in the Class B felony count that the Ketchikan grand jury had rejected.
In December of 2023, Lybrand once again threw out the illegally gained indictment against Walls. The judge found that the prosecutor presented the case to the grand jury in a way that removed material evidence from its consideration. The judge also found that the testimony of Alaska State Trooper Larry Dur’an was “incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading” in a material way.
Unbelievably, Taylor went after Walls a third time, once again using the highly irregular measure of utilizing grand jurors in Juneau. Taylor assigned yet another OSP prosecutor, Krystyn Tendy, to advise the grand jury. Tendy succeeded in obtaining a Class C felony indictment against Walls in January of 2024.
For the third time, Judge Lybrand threw out the indictment but this time she took the highly unusual step of dismissing the indictment with prejudice. Lybrand wrote in her May 3, 2024 order, “the State’s three consecutive failures to present this case correctly leave the court with no confidence that the State will do it correctly a fourth time.”
Lybrand barred the State from going after any more felony indictments against Walls. However, the judge did not dismiss the State’s misdemeanor charges against Wall, allowing a jury trial on those charges to stay on calendar for September 10, 2024.
By now Walls and his wife Sharon were done with their Alaska dream that had turned into a two-year nightmare. Before the scheduled trial, Walls reached an agreement with Taylor where in exchange for a dismissal of the misdemeanor charges, he would retire as the Police Chief and leave the state.
Sam Curtis a spokesperson for the Department of Law said ensuring Walls “will no longer be part of Alaska’s law enforcement community was a primary goal” of their agreement to dismiss the remaining misdemeanor charges.
Deputy Attorney General John Skidmore stated, “Neither Ketchikan, nor any other community in Alaska, nor any community in the rest of the country will be at risk that Mr. Walls’ poor judgement will impact them while wearing the uniform of a law enforcement officer.”
Undoubtedly, fentanyl traffickers throughout SE Alaska joined the Department of Law in celebration.
However, the City of Ketchikan was not pleased. In a memo to the mayor and City Council, the assistant city manager wrote:
“It is with great sadness that the City Manager’s office accepts the retirement notice of Police Chief Jeffrey Walls…. During his tenure, Chief Walls has served our community with distinction and dedication and has done so throughout his career. He has instituted lasting changes for the department, including increased community engagement and dialogue, robust training and promotional opportunities for staff, implementing advanced technologies in the field of police work, leadership restructuring, a K-9 program, and the beginnings of a reserve program. The City Manager’s office has always been impressed with his leadership, integrity, and commitment to public service and community, and we consider it a privilege to have been able to work with him these last several years.”
Police Chief Walls gave a lot to Alaska. What did our Attorney General give to him in return? The shaft.
Sharon Walls, an assault victim without recourse, thanks to Taylor, doesn’t want to ever return to Alaska. She told me that if someone told her there was a pot of gold in Alaska and all she had to do to claim it was to fly back to Alaska, she would pass.
Sharon still can’t understand why Taylor would drop charges against her assailant and go after her husband so aggressively, misleading the grand jury on multiple occasions. Sharon holds a political science degree from Louisiana State University, where she took a course in public corruption. In her mind now, Alaska is the #1 state in the country for public corruption.
There are a number of aspects to the Walls’ story that are deeply disturbing, yet tie into a long pattern of abuse of power by State officials responsible for Alaska’s criminal justice system. More details will be forthcoming.
Before he passed away in June 2024, former Commissioner Burton expressed deep concern about some of these other aspects in the Walls’ case. They involve AST.
In Burton’s remembrance, a Facebook post by the AST stated, “his devotion to law enforcement in Alaska was unrivaled.” In honor of Burton, maybe it’s time AST leadership started being honest with themselves. Top officials there know what I’m referring to.
As for the Department of Law, it’s one thing for its prosecutors over the years to manipulate grand juries in indictments and attempted investigations into cases involving “ordinary” citizens like Thomas Jack Jr., David Haeg, or numerous families who have had their children wrongfully kidnapped by OCS. But when the Department of Law manipulates and misleads three different grand juries to indict a decorated police chief whose department has just been commended by the FBI for its effort in taking deadly drugs off the street, they’ve elevated the problem to a whole new level.
Fellow Alaskans, we’re in deep, deep trouble.
All three branches of the State government have known about these problems for a long time but have chosen to ignore them. Like New Orleans, perhaps the State of Alaska’s criminal justice system needs federal oversight under a consent decree.
If that happens, maybe, just maybe, we can convince Chief Walls and Sharon to return to Alaska and use their extensive experience to help oversee our transition from a state known for its corruption to a state known for its justice.
In the process, perhaps many more Alaskan lives will be saved.
David Ignell was born and raised in Juneau where he currently resides. He formerly practiced law in California state and federal courts and was a volunteer analyst for the California Innocence Project. He is currently a forensic journalist and recently wrote a book on the Alaska Grand Jury.
James Baisden, a conservative member of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly, announced his resignation, effective Oct. 19—just after the next borough election. His timing ensures that his seat representing the Kalifornsky district will appear on the Oct. 7 ballot, giving voters the opportunity to choose his replacement rather than leaving it to an appointment by the Assembly.
Baisden, who previously served as chief of staff to former Borough Mayor Charlie Pierce and before that was chief of emergency services, was elected to the Assembly last year. He said increased personal commitments are prompting his early departure.
“I’ve enjoyed hanging out with everybody here,” Baisden told fellow Assembly members at their regular Tuesday meeting, where they accepted his resignation letter. “Yeah, I’ve got some things that I’ve got to do. I didn’t think it would happen as soon.” He said his family life has change “a little bit” but did not go into detail.
The Kalifornsky district seat covers the area between Kenai and Soldotna.
Baiden’s departure adds to an already packed municipal election, in which voters will now select candidates for five Assembly seats instead of the usual three. The seat representing Sterling and Funny River, currently vacant, will also be on the ballot.
The filing period for candidates for this seat opens Aug. 1, giving interested residents a chance to get on the ballot before the Oct. 7 election.
