Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. and its Alaska-based subsidiary Pebble Limited Partnership announced Thursday they are asking a federal judge to fast-track their lawsuit against the Biden veto that blocked even a permit application for development of the Pebble copper project in Southwest Alaska.
In a motion filed in US District Court, the company requested a summary judgment briefing schedule, saying it wants to expedite a legal ruling on what it calls the “unlawfulness” of the EPA’s preemptive veto of the proposed mine.
“While discussions with the EPA have taken place, we have not reached a settlement. As such, today we asked the court to set a briefing schedule for summary judgment motions, as we now believe that will be the quickest, most direct avenue to get the veto removed,” said Ron Thiessen, President and CEO of Northern Dynasty, in a statement.
Thiessen expressed confidence the court would side with the company, calling the Biden Administration’s actions “unlawful” and harmful to the nation’s domestic mineral supply. But that may not apply to the Alaska court, where Judge Sharon Gleason often sides with environmentalist litigants.
“This administration has been emphatic about its desire for the U.S. to be self-sufficient in critical metals like copper and to be the global AI capital,” Thiessen said. “For this to happen, the U.S. must develop secure domestic supplies of important metals such as copper and the withdrawal of this egregious and unsubstantiated veto of the largest undeveloped copper project in the world would go a long way towards achieving this goal.”
The Pebble Project, located about 200 miles southwest of Anchorage and roughly 125 miles from Bristol Bay, has been at the center of environmental and political disputes for years. The EPA preemptively vetoed the project under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, citing potential risks to the Bristol Bay salmon fishery, a decision Northern Dynasty is now challenging in court.
Based in Vancouver, Northern Dynasty controls the 1,840 mineral claims that make up the Pebble deposit through its wholly owned subsidiary, the Pebble Partnership.
Environmental groups and local Alaska Native organizations will fight any effort to revive the project, arguing it threatens one of the world’s most productive salmon fisheries, although that argument is not substantiated by facts.
The company’s legal filing comes as the Trump Administration promotes critical mineral development elsewhere, raising questions about consistency in federal permitting decisions.
The court has yet to set a timeline for the next steps in the litigation.
Earlier this month, Northern Dynasty said that it was in active settlement negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency over the matter. That July 3 filing in US District Court follows a 90-day litigation pause requested by the federal government in February, and a subsequent 30-day extension in May to allow new EPA leadership to review the case. The agency has now concluded its internal review and is engaged in talks with Pebble Limited Partnership, Northern Dynasty’s US subsidiary.
In a sobering sign for Democrats, the latest McLaughlin & Associates national survey shows Republicans holding a solid lead ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
According to the poll, 47% of likely voters say they would back a Republican candidate for Congress, compared to just 42% who would vote Democrat. That’s a +5 point advantage for the GOP.
Adding to Democrat woes, President Donald Trump’s approval rating continues to climb. The survey pegs Trump at 52% approval and 43% disapproval, giving him a solid +9 net approval rating as he heads into the second half of his second term.
The numbers reflect a political environment that appears to be shifting in Republicans’ favor, with Trump’s enduring popularity offering a potential tailwind for GOP candidates across the country.
Democrat are suffering from low enthusiasm among voters and the party’s ability to counter Republican momentum. With the midterms still over a year away, these early indicators are certain to energize Republican strategists and donors, while intensifying internal debates among Democrats about the direction of their party, which has been overtaking by extremists.
Republicans already hold control of both chambers of Congress, and a +5 lead in the generic ballot suggests their majority could expand. In Alaska, two congressional seats will be on the 2026 ballot: Sen. Dan Sullivan is up for another six-year term, and first-term Congressman Nick Begich will make a case for a second two-year term in the House.
Trump’s +9 approval rating is another key metric. If these trends hold, 2026 could shape up to be another banner year for the GOP.
The free speech issues debates that ensued during the dark days of Covid public policy are still playing out. But a legal dispute from that era between Petersburg Police Chief Jim Kerr and the Petersburg Borough ended this month with a $70,000 out-of-court settlement.
The case that centered on free speech rights during the Covid-19 pandemic is reflective of many around the country in which those who opposed mask and vaccine mandates suffered retaliatory actions. Opposition to mandates often drew intense public criticism, including doxxing or harassment. Anti-mask protesters were labeled as “anti-science” or “selfish,” leading to personal attacks and heated public debates in the Anchorage Assembly meetings.
In Petersburg, the lawsuit stemmed from Kerr’s testimony during a fall borough Assembly meeting on Nov. 17, 2021, when he spoke against the proposed mask mandate. He testified as a private citizen, he said, about how mask mandates would be hard to enforce. After he testified, Kerr experienced what he perceived to be retaliatory behavior from two Assembly members — Jeff Meucci and David Kensinger — both now former Assembly members. He lodged a complaint that the two harassed him.
Soon, Borough Manager Steve Giesbrecht ordered Kerr to submit any future public statements to him for prior review, citing concerns that the police chief’s comments could be mistaken for official borough policy, since he was also an officer of the law.
Kerr filed a lawsuit in state court, arguing that the borough had violated his First Amendment rights, defamed him, and portrayed him in a false light. By 2023, the case was moved to federal court to deal with the constitutional issues. Most of his claims were dismissed by District Judge Sharon Gleason, who determined that a jury trial would be necessary to decide the remaining free speech issue, unless both sides reached a settlement.
In June, the parties entered mediation and reached an agreement: The borough agreed to pay Kerr $70,000, and the case was formally dismissed in court on July 2.
The borough later issued a statement saying the settlement was in the best interest of the community and that both parties agreed to move forward without further public comment. The details of the settlement beyond the payment amount were not disclosed.
“The parties have mutually agreed to amicably resolve the litigation filed by Police Chief Jim Kerr against the Petersburg Borough and Borough Manager Steve Giesbrecht for the sum of $70,000, paid by the Borough’s risk pool insurer. Like most settlements, both parties made concessions to reach a mutually satisfactory compromise. The parties understand it is important for borough officials to work together in a positive and forward direction to provide efficient governmental services for Petersburg. The parties feel this resolution is in the best interest of the public and the appropriate decision to enable the parties to return to the business of government. The parties have agreed that they will not issue or make any further public statements on this matter, as they wish to move beyond these matters, which have been fully and finally resolved,” the press release states.
Chief Kerr, who has been with the department since 2013 and who has been police chief since 2018, remains in his role as chief, although the incident will have undoubtedly strained relationships in city government.
A proposed ordinance that would have declared all land within the city limits of Craig as “Indian Country” was indefinitely postponed Thursday evening after brief discussion and strong legal caution from the city’s attorney.
The ordinance, which had been proposed by the Craig Tribal Association, aimed to incorporate the federal definition of “Indian Country” into the city’s municipal code, an unprecedented move for any city in Alaska. The proposal stated it would “remove ambiguity” and “foster cooperative governance” with tribal entities while encouraging memoranda of understanding on shared services like law enforcement and infrastructure.
However, city council members, citing legal advice from their Juneau-based attorney, concluded that the designation was not within municipal authority. Under federal law, only the federal government can designate land as “Indian Country,” a term that carries significant legal weight in areas of jurisdiction, governance, and law enforcement.
A handful of Alaska Native attendees sitting in the back of the room quietly left the council chambers immediately after the vote.
After consulting with the city attorney, it was clear there is no legal precedent for a municipality to declare lands ‘Indian Country,’ said City Administrator Brian Templin in a memo to the council. They couldn’t find any examples of similar ordinances anywhere in Alaska.
The ordinance referenced federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1151, which defines “Indian Country” in terms of reservations, dependent communities, and allotments. It also cited the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and referenced recent expansions of tribal authority under the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization of 2022. The Craig Tribal Association argued the ordinance would allow for cooperative governance and access to federal funding streams that could benefit all residents of Craig.
But the city attorney raised sharp concerns, noting that federal courts, including the US Supreme Court in the 1998 Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie decision, have made clear that ANCSA lands are not “Indian Country,” except for specific allotments.
The attorney questioned whether a municipality has the legal standing to unilaterally change the legal status of land in this way, particularly given Craig’s status as a first-class city under Alaska law.
The council also expressed worry about the unknown implications of such a declaration, particularly regarding law enforcement jurisdiction and the application of state and federal law.
Council members acknowledged the desire for closer cooperation with the Craig Tribal Association and left the door open for future discussions, but appeared to draw a firm line on using a designation reserved for federal authority.
The city’s attorney further asked the Tribal Association for examples of federal court rulings or legal opinions supporting a municipality’s authority to declare lands “Indian Country.” In response, the CTA stated it could not offer legal opinions but reiterated its goal of enhancing cooperation and accessing federal resources through tribal channels.
Craig, a community of about 1,200 residents on Prince of Wales Island, operates under a strong mayor system of governance and is one of Alaska’s 19 first-class cities, granting it certain legislative powers but not sovereignty.
With the ordinance now off the table, the city council said it would continue seeking productive ways to work with the Craig Tribal Association while ensuring any agreements remain within legal boundaries.
The indefinite postponement effectively ends the current push to label Craig as “Indian Country,” though discussions about cooperative governance are expected to continue.
In a narrow vote just after midnight, the US House of Representatives passed a $9 billion rescissions package, reversing previously approved spending and sending it to President Donald Trump for his signature. The bill passed 216-213 at 12:04 am., following earlier Senate approval by a 51-48 margin.
The legislation is the first rescissions package to clear both chambers of Congress in nearly 50 years. It includes a $1 billion cut to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports PBS and NPR, and cancels various other unspent funds, including allocations for foreign aid.
Republican lawmakers framed the bill as part of the Department of Government Efficiency targeted cuts, necessary to rollback massive government waste. Democrats and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, criticized the cuts.
President Trump is expected to sign it quickly.
The national debt stands at over $37 trillion, making the $9 billion rescission a mere rounding error. To compare, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) budget was approximately $100.3 billion in Fiscal Year 2024.
After the Senate passed the historic $9 billion Trump Rescissions Act without her support early Thursday morning, US Sen.Lisa Murkowski is once again voicing her opposition — this time with a published statement that has a narrow focus on the cuts to Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is the parent funder of NPR and PBS.
The Alaska Republican had previously criticized the sweeping package before the vote, citing concerns about various foreign aid cuts and her concern about a lack of transparency, as well as public broadcasting.
But in her latest remarks issued after the wee-hours passage of the rescissions act, Murkowski’s emphasis landed squarely on the threat to public broadcasting, a government-subsidized institution that has reliably supported her throughout her long political career, and to whom she has returned the favor.
“I voted against approving this rescissions package for three key reasons,” Murkowski said in a lengthy statement released Thursday. The senator noted concerns about vague budget impacts and executive overreach, but devoted the bulk of her public comments to the risks facing NPR and local radio stations.
“My colleagues are targeting NPR but will wind up hurting – and, over time, closing down – local radio stations that provide essential news, alerts, and educational programming in Alaska and across the country,” Murkowski said, referring to a 7.3 magnitude earthquake and tsunami warning in southwestern Alaska as an example of public broadcasting’s role.
She did not acknowledge that most people in the 21st century get emergency messages from official agencies directly on their phones and that commercial radio stations also broadcast them. Even vagrants living on the streets have smart phones in this era, and alerts are issued without an intermediary radio signal.
Alaska has about 27 public broadcasting radio stations. That’s one for every 27,000 Alaskans. To compare, Florida has 24 public broadcasting radio stations, or one for every one million Floridians.
The rescissions package, backed by the Trump White House and Republican leadership, claws back unspent federal funds from a variety of programs, including foreign aid initiatives, clean technology subsidies, and taxpayer dollars earmarked for public broadcasting. The bill passed 51-48 without the need for Vice President JD Vance to cast a tie-breaking vote.
Murkowski’s latest statement reveals a narrowing political focus. Though she previously raised alarm about cuts to international health programs, her post-vote comments failed to mention foreign aid, instead doubling down on defending public broadcasting, an issue of outsized importance to the senator’s political brand in Alaska.
During the vote, Murkowski unsuccessfully attempted to add an amendment to protect the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. “Disappointingly, it failed,” she said, while she threw shade on her two Alaska congressional colleagues, Sen. Dan Sullivan and Congressman Nick Begich.
She may have spent all her political capital opposing her Republican team in the Senate.
Supporters of the rescissions package, which is part of the Department of Government Efficiency efforts to trim spending, argue it represents long-overdue fiscal discipline, targeting wasteful spending and reducing federal deficits.
With her third Senate term up for reelection in 2028, Murkowski’s outspoken defense of public broadcasting reiterates her willingness to break with her party at any time. She has hinted to the media several times that she may end her relationship with the Republican Party altogether.
Alaska’s education system is in crisis. But this is not merely a crisis of funding or staffing. It is a crisis of structure, accountability, and purpose. The Anchorage School District’s recent warnings about layoffs, federal grant freezes, and unstable budgeting reflect a deeper failure that cannot be solved with temporary appropriations or political theatrics.
We need structural reform rooted in the very framework our state constitution provides. The framers of Alaska’s Constitution envisioned a model of efficient, locally accountable governance that minimizes administrative duplication and consolidates public services under general-purpose governments. That vision has been abandoned.
The status quo is unsustainable and self-destruction. The Anchorage School District (ASD) operates with a budget exceeding $770 million and employs over 6,000 staff. Yet fewer than 30% of students are proficient in core subjects like math and English. This is not due to lack of funding. It is due to misalignment between spending and student outcomes. Centralized bureaucracy, rigid employment structures, and a compliance-driven culture have created a system that protects itself at the expense of the students it serves.
Meanwhile, the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) enforces one-size-fits-all mandates across a state with unmatched geographic, cultural, and economic diversity. Rural districts suffer the most, burdened by inflexible policies and high costs with few results.
A constitutional alternative led by parent-centered reform focuses on students’ futures, not the preservation of outdated bureaucracies or centralized control that burden families and educators alike. It is time to return to the constitutional blueprint laid out in Article X of the Alaska Constitution. That blueprint did not mandate permanent school districts. In fact, it envisioned their gradual absorption into boroughs to streamline governance. The goal was not to dismantle education, but to make it more responsive, more accountable, and more equitable.
I propose abolishing DEED and dissolving Alaska’s current network of school districts. In their place, we should institute Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), enabling parents to direct public funds to the education services that best meet their children’s needs. This includes public, private, religious, charter, vocational, and online programs.
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Carson v. Makinaffirm that states offering educational funding cannot discriminate against religious options. With ESAs, Alaska can honor constitutional public-purpose funding (Article IX, Section 6), while unleashing innovation and flexibility desperately needed in a state as complex as ours.
Borough governments, not DEED, would retain a minimal administrative role—overseeing budgeting and ensuring transparency, while parents, teachers, and communities regain control over education delivery.
No matter how you peel this onion, the real crisis in Alaska is cranialrectalinversion; a chronic case of heads buried so far in antiquated policies and structural stagnation that clear vision is no longer possible. It’s like a twisted retelling of Sisyphus meets Groundhog Day: the state keeps pushing the same bloated, underperforming education system up the hill, expecting different results, only to watch it roll back down in the form of dismal student outcomes, teacher burnout, and bureaucratic bloat. The lesson? No matter how noble the intent, doing the same thing over and over while ignoring constitutional solutions isn’t reform. It’s delusion dressed in a policy memo.
Superintendent Jharrett Bryantt’s warning letter portrays Alaska’s education funding issues because of external forces and legislative unpredictability. Yet it conveniently ignores the internal stagnation plaguing our education system. For decades, districts like ASD have clung to obsolete policies and procedural and administrative gut that prevent adaptation, innovation, and student-centered reform. Layer upon layer of outdated mandates, inflexible staffing formulas, and centralized procurement chains create systems so rigid they crumble under even minor fiscal pressure.
If public education truly operated in the interest of students, reform would have come long ago. Instead, leadership continues to double down on defunct structures, seeking more money to sustain inefficiency rather than reimagining how education is better delivered. Families are not just victims of budget cuts. They are victims of an education bureaucracy unwilling to evolve.
Moreover, Superintendent Bryantt’s letter makes no mention of one of the most consequential shifts in national education policy currently being proposed, namely, the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education and redirecting its funds through block grants directly to the states. President Donald Trump and others have advocated this model as a way to reduce federal overreach and empower state and local education systems. For Alaska, this would mean increased flexibility, reduced bureaucracy, and more locally responsive education funding. The omission of this potential policy shift in the superintendent’s letter is telling and symptomatic of a leadership class more concerned with preserving the status quo than exploring bold alternatives.
In the spirit of open dialogue, we welcome and address the concerns of those who may question this approach, recognizing that thoughtful critique strengthens meaningful reform.
Objection 1: This is just privatization by another name.
No. It is parental empowerment. ESAs don’t replace public education; they fund students directly, allowing them to access the best education possible, whether in a public or private setting. Public schools that deliver value will still thrive—but now they must compete for students based on performance, not political protection.
Objection 2: This removes accountability.
In fact, it enhances accountability. Who is more accountable than parents overseeing their child’s education? Under the current system, unelected bureaucrats and remote administrators answer to no one. ESAs realign authority to those who care the most: families.
Objection 3: It disadvantages rural students.
The opposite is true. Under ESAs, rural families can access digital learning, satellite programs, tutors, and vocational training tailored to their community’s needs, not a one-size-fits-all model crafted by government functionaries.
Objection 4: It undermines unions and educators.
It changes their role. Teachers become free agents who can start microschools, teach independently, or join schools that align with their values. Great educators will have more opportunities, not less.
A New Educational Compact
It’s time to end the cycle of bureaucratic self-preservation. We can no longer protect a system that produces underperformance, wastes resources, and erodes community trust. Let’s replace it with a model that places students at the center, parents in control, and teachers in empowered roles.
Anchorage and Alaska have a choice: continue with structural dysfunction or embrace a bold realignment with our constitutional foundations. The moment demands leadership. Let’s build the education system our children deserve.
In a historic vote, the US House of Representatives on Thursday passed sweeping cryptocurrency reform bills with broad bipartisan support, sending one of them to the president’s desk for signature. The bills set the stage for the first comprehensive regulation of digital assets in American history.
Among the most vocal and influential supporters was Alaska Congressman Nick Begich, who has quickly built a reputation as one of the foremost cryptocurrency experts in Congress.
The House voted 308-122 to approve the Senate-passed GENIUS Act — short for Generating Essential National Infrastructure for Universal Stability. The legislation creates the first-ever federal regulatory framework for so-called stablecoins, a form of cryptocurrency that is pegged to the US dollar or other traditional assets to minimize volatility. The bill now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk for signature.
Begich, a key figure in crafting and championing the legislation, praised the passage as a “historic step” that will cement America’s role as a global leader in digital finance.
“The GENIUS Act represents a critical turning point for cryptocurrency and digital assets,” Begich said in a statement. “By establishing a comprehensive, transparent, and secure regulatory framework for stablecoin issuers, the bill provides the guardrails necessary to unleash innovation while protecting consumers and enhancing our national security.”
Begich emphasized that clear rules would prevent America’s technological rivals from gaining the upper hand while encouraging domestic innovation in financial infrastructure.
“The GENIUS Act balances the need for innovation with smart oversight, preventing bad actors from exploiting gaps in the system while empowering responsible actors to develop innovative financial infrastructure.”
With millions of Americans investing in digital assets, including indirect exposure through retirement accounts and state investments such as the Alaska Permanent Fund, the legislation aims to bring stability and clarity to a rapidly evolving financial sector.
In a second major vote, the House also approved the CLARITY Act, a broader market structure bill that creates new classifications and oversight mechanisms for the wider digital asset marketplace. The bill passed 294-134, with 78 Democrats crossing the aisle to support it, signaling significant bipartisan momentum behind crypto regulation.
Begich was a sponsor of the CLARITY Act and instrumental in its development, further cementing his status as one of the most active and knowledgeable lawmakers on cryptocurrency issues.
While Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries voted against the market structure bill, many rank-and-file Democrats joined Republicans in favor, defying vocal opposition from extremist Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters of California, who argued the bills pose a threat to financial stability and could enable corruption by President Trump.
“Today’s overwhelming bipartisan support for both the GENIUS and CLARITY Acts sends a clear message: the U.S. is serious about leading the global digital economy,” Begich said.
Both bills represent a dramatic shift in Washington’s approach to cryptocurrency, transforming digital assets from a regulatory gray area to a formally recognized part of the financial system. The CLARITY Act now heads to the Senate, while the GENIUS Act is expected to be signed into law in the coming days.
Begich, seen as a rising policy leader on digital assets, has indicated that his focus will now turn to implementation and further refining the regulatory framework to ensure continued American leadership in the sector.
US Sen. Dan Sullivan’s reelection campaign is gathering significant financial momentum ahead of Alaska’s 2026 Senate race. According to his latest Federal Election Commission report, Sullivan now holds more than $3.9 million in cash on hand after raising $2,202,863 since January. His second-quarter fundraising haul totaled $1.4 million, positioning him well for what appears to be a low-threat election cycle.
Sullivan, a two-term Republican senator, is seeking his third six-year term in 2026.
His last race, in 2020, saw him win decisively with 52.8% of the vote against Democrat-backed independent Al Gross, who garnered 40.1%, and Alaskan Independence Party candidate John Wayne Howe, who pulled in 4.7%. The election occurred before ranked-choice voting was implemented in Alaska, but Sullivan’s victory exceeded 50%, meaning he would have won outright in the first round of counting regardless of the system. His final margin of victory, 12.7%, surpassed many of the pretend-neutral pre-election polls, which had suggested a closer contest.
With just over a year before the primary filing deadline, the Democratic Party has yet to produce a serious challenger. Three prominent election forecasters — Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, and Sabato’s Crystal Ball — currently rate the 2026 Alaska Senate race as “Solid Republican.” Another outlet, Race to the WH, assigns Sullivan a 74% chance of defeating a generic Democratic opponent.
Behind the scenes, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly urging former US Rep. Mary Peltola to enter the race. Peltola has not declared any intentions publicly, but her recent campaign filings indicate she continues to raise money while out of office. Must Read Alaska recently reported on Peltola’s FEC disclosures, highlighting her national fundraising efforts and the fact that she sold out her donors by hawking their donor information to a political company based in Nebraska.
Sullivan’s growing campaign war chest and the absence of a clear Democratic challenger underscore his strong standing going into 2026, in a state that has leaned Republican in recent cycles.
