A recently shared internal FDA email has sparked controversy, revealing that agency staff identified at least 10 child deaths potentially linked to COVID-19 vaccines. The findings, based on VAERS data analysis, highlight concerns over delayed safety signals and mandate policies during the pandemic. The email, obtained and shared by the Washington Post on November 29, 2025, calls for major reforms at the FDA.
In the email, FDA Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) Vinay Prasad wrote, “It is horrifying to consider that the US vaccine regulation, including our actions, may have harmed more children than we saved. This requires humility and introspection.” The deaths, involving children aged 7 to 16, were rated as “likely, probable, or possible” attributions to vaccination, with Prasad noting the analysis was long overdue despite reports dating back to 2021.
Myocarditis was one of the main adverse reactions for young boys attributed to the COVID-19 vaccine. It is highly likely that the FDA knew of the risks of heart damage among teenagers when they issued an EUA to Pfizer in May 2021.
“Worse, the FDA delayed acknowledgement of the safety signal until after it could extend marketing authorization to younger boys 12-15, had the acknowledgement come early, these younger boys, who likely did not require COVID-19 vaccination, may have chosen to avoid the products.”
In Alaska, according to data from the Association of Immunization Managers, as late as April of 2023, a total of 165,187 children under the age of 18 had received one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The physical effects on these children are likely to get overlooked due to the evolution of reporting COVID related events. Prasad described this as, “any small differences in opinion about specific cases are due only to the fact that subjective attribution of death is inherently a topic where reasonable people may have subtle disagreements.”
Dr. Prasad acknowledges that VAERS is passively reported and it is incumbent on the provider to input the information for safety surveillance. Due to the cumbersome nature of the process, Prasad stated that “many more deaths may be unreported.”
Prasad concludes the memo asserting openness to vigorous debate on matters of public health. He states that all debates should remain internal until ready to be made public, stopping any selective reporting of information. “Some staff may not agree … submit your resignation letters” stated Prasad not mincing words.
The HHS under the leadership of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is moving forward to restoring gold standard evidence based medicine. This email from the FDA indicates that serious introspection is occurring to understand the direct health effects related to the COVID-19 vaccines, especially on children.
Despite receiving approximately 500 community complaints about pornographic material in the public-school library, the Fairbanks School Board refused to revise school library policy. School Board Member Loa Carroll-Hubbard proposed the revision in a school board meeting on November 18, 2025: “There should be no sexually explicit material in our libraries. Period.” As of now, current policy permits pornographic literature.
Superintendent’s Response
Superintendent Dr. Luke Meinert responded to the request for revision by emphasizing the current policy’s provision of parental rights: “Parents do have the full rights and responsibilities. If they don’t want their student to check books out from our library, they certainly have that right. They can also restrict certain books that they don’t want their children to have access to.”
Caroll-Hubbard addressed Dr. Meinert’s argument, stating: “I get that parents have a right to decide, but not all parents are engaged.” She points out that even highly successful parents with demanding jobs may not have time to monitor their kids’ choice of library books. Furthermore, she says, “I don’t know that I ever shared my library books with my mom and dad.”
Real Harm to Children
According to the American College of Pediatricians: “Consumption of pornography is associated with many negative emotional, psychological, sociological, and physical health outcomes. These include increased rates of depression, anxiety, acting out and violent behavior, younger age of sexual debut, sexual promiscuity, increased risk of teen pregnancy, child sex abuse, sexual trafficking, and a distorted view of relationships between men and women.”
Despite the real harm pornographic literature causes children, the majority of Fairbanks School Board Members stated they support the library policy as written.
Prioritizing Sexual Content Over Proficiency in English, Math, and Science
Board President Bobby Burgess and Vice President Meredith Maple defended two books with sexually explicit content: Looking for Alaska by John Green and The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison. Both Maple and Burgess contended that books like these help children process life’s complexities, and that the books taken as a whole offer valuable lessons.
Burgess argued that John Green’s intention in Looking for Alaska was to argue “really in a rather pointed way that emotionally intimate kissing can be a whole lot more fulfilling than emotionally empty oral sex.”
He also explained Toni Morrison’s intention in The Bluest Eye: “[The book] was really about humanizing people, understanding patterns of violence and the internalized racism and systemic racism that leads to additional harm.”
The lessons highlighted by Board President Burgess seem strange to prioritize, considering the majority of kids in Fairbanks public schools test below proficiency levels for English, Math, and Science.
Children need proficiency in reading, writing, math, and science to succeed after graduation. Public schools have a responsibility to impart to students the basic knowledge they need to succeed, not to burden their still-developing brains with literature that contains sexually explicit, intense, adult concepts.
Failed Motion
On Tuesday, December 2, the school board revisited the issue, listened to public comments, and voted on a motion to review library policy and poll the community for input.
School Board Clerk Morgan Dulian highlighted concerns regarding legal ramifications: “Mat-Su school district is a perfect example. They paid out $89,000 and had a long legal battle and a lot of time (and time is money) and had to return the books to the library.” She admits, “there are obvious concerns from the community on certain books that are in the library;” however, she contends that the legal battle would cause more harm than good.
The motion failed 4-7. Yes votes: Post Representative Colonel John Campbell, Base Representative Colonel Timonthy Foster, Treasurer Loa Carroll-Hubbard, and Board Member Audra Hull. No votes: Board President Robert Burgess, Vice President Meredith Maple, Clerk Morgan Dulian, Board Member Timothy Doran, Board Member Naomi Hewitt, Regional Student Council Representative Liam Wade, and FNA Representative Melissa Charlie.
November 18 Regular Meeting
Board Discussion: 2:20:18-2:42:24
December 2 Regular Meeting
Relevant Public Testimony: 26:12:00-29:11, 32:50-43:21
Tonight, the Municipality of Anchorage Assembly votes on a proposed 3% sales tax at its Regular Assembly Meeting, Dec 2, 5pm-11pm. Buried deep in the agenda is Ordinance No. AO 2025-133, listed as item 14.K: the sales tax proposal.
The ordinance reads: “An ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly submitting to the qualified voters of the Municipality of Anchorage a ballot proposition amending the Home Rule Charter to authorize a 3% sales and use tax: 1% for property-tax relief; 1% for public safety and infrastructure; and 1% for childcare and housing; and authorizing borrowing from the MOA Trust Fund corpus to finance start-up costs. Chief Administrative Officer and Mayor LaFrance.”
New public hearings will begin no earlier than 6pm and end no later than 11pm. The proposed 3% sales tax is the 11th ordinance listed in this section with one ordinance following.
The public may give testimony in person at the Z.J. Loussac Library Assembly Chambers or submit a written testimony here: Assembly – Public Testimony.
Suggested Testimony Template
Here is a suggested testimony to read in person at the meeting or submit online. Please feel free to adjust it however suits you.
Chair and members, My name is ________, and I’m an Anchorage resident.
I oppose Ordinance No. AO 2025-133 for the following reasons:
Writing a new tax into the Charter is a significant, often permanent change. Once it is in place, future Assemblies and voters will have a very hard time adjusting or reversing it, even if the ordinance causes economic strain.
A 3% sales tax is undeniably regressive. It raises the cost of living for families already stretched to the limit, while the promised property tax relief does not reach everyone—especially renters and lower-income households who will feel the hit immediately.
The ordinance bundles several unrelated priorities into a single tax authorization. Public safety, childcare, housing, and tax relief are all important, but merging them together prevents residents from evaluating each one honestly and independently.
Authorizing borrowing from the MOA Trust Fund corpus to cover start-up costs puts Anchorage’s long-term stability at risk.
Please vote no on Ordinance No. AO 2025-133. Thank you for your time.
The Railbelt Reliability Council (RRC) convened its board meeting on December 1, 2025, with a focus on key agenda items including the development and approval of the 2026 budget and surcharge filing. The meeting comes as the organization continues to advance regional planning and reliability standards for Alaska’s interconnected electric grid. While specific agenda details remain limited, the session is expected to address ongoing efforts in integrated resource planning and enforcement of operational rules to enhance system efficiency and security.
The Railbelt Reliability Council, certified by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska in 2022, serves as the state’s first Electric Reliability Organization for the Railbelt region, which powers nearly three-quarters of Alaska’s population from Fairbanks to the Kenai Peninsula. Formed through efforts among utility companies, NGOs, and policymakers, the RRC aims to boost grid resilience, lower long-term consumer costs, and foster cooperation among entities like Golden Valley Electric Association and Chugach Electric Association. The 15-member board includes directors from various sectors of the power industry in Alaska. Notably, among them are the Railbelt Utility Co-ops, Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), Alaska IPP, Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AKPIRG), and Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP).
A key discussion point in the meeting packet involves the CEO goals outlined starting on page 37. These goals emphasize implementing enforceable standards and regionalized resource planning to promote long-term reliability, sustainability, and affordability across the Railbelt. For the council, this means strengthening collaborative infrastructure projects, mitigating risks from natural disasters and cyber threats, and optimizing costs for consumers through unified generation and transmission strategies. As RRC President and CEO Edward Jenkin stated, “I am excited for the opportunity to lead the RRC and realize the value provided through Railbelt-wide standards and regional planning… to help achieve long-term reliability, sustainability, and affordability.”
Regarding the 2026 budgets, the RRC operates on funds collected via a surcharge from five load-serving utilities under the Equitable Allocation of Costs Rule. The proposed budget, developed publicly, determines the total surcharge amount, though specific figures for 2026 have not been finalized ahead of the meeting. This funding supports standards development, planning, and administrative operations.
Residents of the Kenai Peninsula Borough are gearing up for a pivotal assembly meeting where local advocate David Haeg will present an update on investigative grand juries, spotlighting ongoing concerns about judicial integrity in Alaska. Scheduled for today, December 2, 6pm, the brief presentation promises to delve into a series of resolutions that have fueled calls for greater transparency and accountability in the state’s legal system.
The presentation stems from a history of borough-approved resolutions that initiated scrutiny of the grand jury processes. It began with Resolution 2022-004, adopted unanimously on January 18, 2022, which affirmed the constitutional right of Alaska grand juries to investigate public welfare issues and urged legislative reforms for independent probes. This was followed by Resolution 2023-026 on March 14, 2023, also passing 8-0, which specifically requested hearings on grand jury independence and alleged violations through Supreme Court Orders like SCO 1993, which critics say restrict citizen access to juries. Similar endorsements came from the City of Kenai (Resolution 2022-45) and City of Homer (Resolution 22-020(A)), highlighting a regional push against perceived encroachments on constitutional powers.
Haeg’s 10-minute presentation, titled “Investigative Grand Jury Update,” will emphasize the significance of these efforts in combating alleged judicial corruption. It underscores the grand jury’s historical role in Alaska, citing past instances where grand juries tackled government misconduct, such as the 1985 probe into Governor William Sheffield’s dealings that led to impeachment proceedings. The importance lies in restoring public trust: unchecked corruption erodes equal protection under the law, as grand juries serve as a citizen safeguard when oversight fails.
The public can participate in person at the Betty J. Glick Assembly Chambers or virtually via Zoom. Written comments may be submitted in advance through the borough’s clerk office. Advocates hope this meeting will galvanize actions such as demanding the release of sealed reports and forming an independent commission.
Over the weekend, on November 29, the Alaska State Senate confirmed the appointments of former Speaker of the House Cathy Tilton and former Representative George Rauscher. Tilton and Rauscher were appointed by Governor Dunleavy to fill vacancies left by Candidate for Governor Shelley Hughes and Candidate for Lieutenant Governor Mike Shower.
Tilton will represent District M (Wasilla), and Rauscher will present District O (Sutton). Both Tilton and Rauscher join the Senate Minority Caucus, comprised of 6 Republicans. The new appointments will not affect the Senate Majority Coalition, comprised of 9 Democrats and 5 Republicans.
Senate President Gary Stevens (R-Kodiak) issued the following statement: “I want to welcome newly appointed Senators Rauscher and Tilton and thank them for stepping forward at such an important time for Alaska. We have major work ahead—stabilizing our fiscal outlook, strengthening education, and charting the course for a gasline—and collaboration will be essential. I look forward to working with them during the upcoming legislative session as we take on these challenges together.”
In February 2025, Must Read Alaska published an opinion article I wrote about the Anchorage Assembly’s Land Acknowledgment. This Acknowledgement or what I will refer to as the Proclamation, is read at the start of each Regular Assembly Meeting. When first hearing the Acknowledgement, I thought of it as just another scolding and correcting lecture from the illiberal left.
I am writing part two to underscore what I think is a more serious implication of the Land Acknowledgement. The Acknowledgement deliberately erodes legitimacy of the United States and by promoting it, the Assembly violates their oath of office.
For reference, the Land Acknowledgement, published July 11, 2025 in the Municipal Agenda, is included at the end of this article. The meeting agenda for the Regular Assembly Meeting on Dec 2 still contains the Land Acknowledgement.
The first two and last three sentences of the Proclamation are rather murky concerning who actually has sovereignty over lands within the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA). The Proclamation’s platitudes served up to Alaska Natives ignores resolution of traditional land claims under the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The Proclamation strongly implies that more than ANCSA is needed; that we now must pursue decolonization and equity. To be clear, all lands within the State of Alaska fall under the ultimate sovereignty of the United States of America.
The third sentence is the most troublesome. This sentence reads, “It is an actionable statement that marks our collective movement towards decolonization and equity.” To advocate decolonization is to call for an uprising, a revolution. The problem with today’s edgy advocacy groups, such as the Proclamation writers, is that they think words, such as decolonization and equity, can be redefined to whatever meaning serves their purpose. I am curious about who ends up with all the real property equity after decolonization?
In order to need decolonization, there must be a colonizer. Writers of the Proclamation lack courage to clearly identify the colonizer. The “colonizer” is none other than the United States of America. To decolonize is to remove the “colonizer,” the United States of America, and reassign or restore the land to another sovereign. To whom is sovereignty being transferred? Again, the writers of this Proclamation are silent. Decolonization (removing United States sovereignty), eliminates the Constitution and all its protections, including the Bill of Rights and Separation of Powers.
All Assembly Members and the Mayor are required to take an oath of office upholding the Constitution of the United States of America. By issuing and reading this Proclamation at the beginning of each bi-monthly Assembly Meeting, the Assembly violates their oath of office, because the Proclamation’s decolonization manifesto entails the removal of the U.S. Constitution.
MOA Assembly’s Land Acknowledgement: July 11, 2025
A land acknowledgement is a formal statement recognizing the Indigenous people of a place. It is a public gesture of appreciation for the past and present Indigenous stewardship of the lands that we now occupy. It is an actionable statement that marks our collective movement towards decolonization and equity. The Anchorage Assembly would like to acknowledge that we gather today on the traditional lands of the Dena’ina Athabascans. For thousands of years the Dena’ina have been and continue to be the stewards of this land. It is with gratefulness and respect that we recognize the contributions, innovations, and contemporary perspectives of the upper Cook Inlet Dena’ina.
David Arehart is a retired registered civil engineer and lifelong resident of Alaska. His engineering work and projects are scattered across Alaska, from Ketchikan to Utqiagvik to Diomede to Atka.
Part IX: The Constitutional Trust Relationship: The State as Trustee, The People as Beneficiaries
By Michael Tavoliero
Alaska’s Constitution establishes a public trust framework for natural resources and their proceeds. Article VIII, § 1 declares that natural resources “are to be utilized, developed, and maintained for the maximum benefit of the people.” The phrase “the people” is not rhetorical; it identifies the beneficiaries of the trust. The State, in turn, is assigned the role of trustee, obligated to manage resources and proceeds in the beneficiaries’ interest.
Alaska State Constitution
This fiduciary structure is affirmed in several constitutional mandates:
Article VIII, § 2 requires that resource policy be directed to benefit the people as a whole.
Article VIII, § 4 requires sustained-yield management to prevent waste and preserve lasting benefit.
Article VIII, § 12 authorizes leasing of resources but does not authorize alienation of beneficial ownership.
Article IX, § 15 establishes the Permanent Fund to retain a portion of resource revenue for the people in perpetuity.
The Permanent Fund is therefore not general revenue of the State. It is a sovereign trust corpus, constitutionally created, and dedicated to a defined class of beneficiaries: Alaska citizens.
This aligns with other trust responsibilities the State is required to honor, such as the Mental Health Trust lands, University and municipal trust lands, and numerous federal–state resource compacts, where the State is not free to treat trust assets as discretionary revenue or to divert them to unrelated governmental purposes.
Alaska Caselaw
In each context, Alaska caselaw holds that when the State administers property dedicated to a specific beneficiary class, it must preserve the corpus, protect the income for the beneficiaries, act with loyalty and neutrality, and restore assets if they are misapplied. The Permanent Fund fits squarely within this family of constitutional and statutory trusts: it was created to preserve nonrenewable resource wealth in perpetuity and to distribute the ongoing income from that wealth to the beneficiaries identified in Article VIII, the people.
Just as the State may not raid school trust lands for general spending, may not divert Mental Health Trust assets to balance a budget, and may not privatize tidelands in ways that impair public rights, it likewise may not convert Fund earnings into unrestricted general revenue merely because it is politically expedient. The Fund’s earnings, like the earnings of any trust corpus, remain trust income. The beneficiaries, Alaskans, possess the equitable interest. And the State, as trustee, owes fiduciary duties of prudence, loyalty, care, and impartiality in administrating those earnings.
The Permanent Fund Dividend is the mechanism through which the State has historically discharged those duties by returning a portion of the trust’s income to all beneficiaries equally. When the State diverts income to fund general operations, it treats a sovereign trust like a savings account; something Alaska’s courts have repeatedly rejected in every other trust context.
In this way, the Permanent Fund is not an exception but a continuation of the State’s longstanding obligation as trustee with responsibilities to protect the corpus, to direct income to the people, and to resist repurposing trust assets for itself.
State v. Weiss
In State v. Weiss, the Alaska Supreme Court held that where the State holds assets in trust for defined beneficiaries, it must preserve the trust corpus and may not unilaterally redesignate or remove assets for its own fiscal convenience.
The fiduciary nature of the State’s obligation is defined by these Alaska Mental Health Lands Trust cases. There, the State diverted resources dedicated to a trust purpose into unrelated governmental expenditures. The Supreme Court held that such diversion violated the State’s fiduciary obligations and required restoration of both the trust corpus and the trust benefit. See State v. Weiss
The court confirmed three controlling principles:
The State is not the beneficial owner of trust assets. It holds them in fiduciary capacity.
Beneficial interests cannot be unilaterally diminished for general revenue use.
When the State diverts trust income or fails to distribute trust benefits, the remedy is restoration, not discretion.
The Principles Compromised by a Reduced PFD
The Permanent Fund Dividend, as a distribution of trust earnings to the constitutionally identified beneficiary class, falls squarely within this framework. While the corpus of the Fund itself is constitutionally protected, its earnings, once realized, are held for the benefit of the people, not for the expansion of government operations or to relieve appropriations pressure elsewhere.
Thus, when the State:
Withholds or reduces the Dividend to finance government spending, or
Treats Permanent Fund earnings as general revenue rather than trust income, it breaches its fiduciary obligations to the beneficiary class.
This breach is not procedural, but structural:
Trust Principle
Result of Reduced PFD
Beneficiaries must receive trust income:
Denied
Trustee must not divert purpose of trust assets:
Violated
Trustee must act with loyalty to beneficiaries:
Compromised
Trustee must preserve both corpus and benefit:
Breached
The State’s shift from the original statutory formula to a politically manipulated, annually appropriated Dividend is tantamount to taking beneficiary income for discretionary use, contrary to trust doctrine.
This breach triggers two well-established remedies under Alaska law:
Restoration of the diverted benefit (as in the Mental Health Trust cases), and
Judicial confirmation of the beneficiaries’ possessory right, analogous to quiet title where beneficial possession is long-settled and legally recognized.
Conclusion
Alaska’s Constitution and Supreme Court rulings establish that the Permanent Fund and the Permanent Fund Dividend are not merely fiscal tools; they are components of the State’s public-trust system. Article VIII identifies the people, not the government, as the beneficiaries of Alaska’s resource estate, while Article IX, § 15 creates the Permanent Fund as a trust to preserve a portion of that estate for residents in perpetuity.
When the State administers assets for a defined beneficiary class, it must observe its obligations as trustee. Because the Permanent Fund holds citizen resource wealth, and PFD earnings are directed to constitutionally defined beneficiaries, these programs are subject to Alaska’s public-trust doctrine. When the State re-directs Fund earnings to finance government operations, it does not exercise ordinary budget discretion—it breaches the fiduciary duty imposed by Alaska’s constitutional trust structure.
The Great Debate Complete Series
Check out previous articles in The Great Debate: The People of Alaska vs the Legislature:
Following the devastation wrecked by Typhoon Halong on Western Alaska, communities, non-profit organizations, and government entities stepped up to help the Alaskans harmed by the storm. A news release by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) states that State and Federal support for relief efforts exceeds $41 million. Here is what has been accomplished:
Over 2,000 Alaskans evacuated from affected areas.
More than 600 individuals from 161 households in Anchorage hotel rooms.
More than 22,000 meals delivered to individuals sheltering in hotel rooms.
More than 1,700 applications received for state individual assistance.
More than 1,200 individuals and households registered with FEMA.
805 home inspections completed to assess property damage.
State and FEMA teams conducted 43 visits to impacted communities to register people for assistance.
FEMA’s dedicated Alaska Call Center received 1,099 inbound calls and made 2,933 outbound calls.
