A curious ballet around the Alaska LNG Project has been unfolding on the international stage with some of America’s allies in Asia.
It’s raising questions about whether the pipeline will at last find the funding that it needs after so much song and dance. It is a story some four decades long. The difference now, though, is that President Donald Trump is showing potential investors abroad both the carrot and the stick, i.e., the threat of tariffs.
Early into his administration, the president began to pressure Asian countries into exploring Alaska’s ample energy reserves. Whether the approach will bear fruit is yet to be determined.
Last week, the Ministry of Energy of Thailand asked two major energy companies, Ego and PTT, to engage the United States in discussions about LNG development in Alaska.
Assuming Thailand commits to investing in gas exploration and production, the country could import between 3 Mt/year and 5 Mt/year of LNG through the proposed 800-mile pipeline. But that might be assuming a lot.
In March, the Taiwanese state-owned CPC Corporation entered into an agreement with the administration of Gov. Mike Dunleavy to buy Alaskan LNG if the pipeline ever gets built. “It is a bridge connecting the future prosperity of both Alaska and Taiwan,” Dunleavy said.
That, however, could be a big “if,” and the fine print is notable.
What Taiwan actually inked was a non-binding letter of support. That is far from anything like a concrete commitment to the completion of the beleaguered LNG project.
Japan and South Korea have also joined Taiwan and Thailand in exploring potential investment opportunities in the $44 billion natural gas project.
Many of these countries could indeed benefit from buying Alaskan fuel, as it would likely be cheaper than acquiring it from other sources, like those in the Middle East. Such a collaborative endeavor would also be consistent with Trump’s broader energy agenda.
The issue of commitment, or a lack thereof, remains. South Korea’s Industry Minister Ahn Duk-geun has merely agreed to establish a “working-level group” to discuss the project, which has spooked investors for nearly as long as Alaska has been part of the Union.
However, all that could change in June, when the Trump administration’s National Energy Dominance Council will hold a summit in Anchorage with the LNG project as the centerpiece. Delegations from both Japan and Korea will be present.
The main reservations of potential Asian partners with regard to a long-term commitment will likely center on the pipeline’s big price tag and its sustainability. Japan recently reaffirmed its goal of aggressively expanding its nuclear power capabilities by 2030.
“We can use renewable power to the maximum, and we will restart nuclear power, the safe one, as much as possible,” Japanese Industry Minister Yoji Muto told reporters late last year.
South Korea has likewise made huge investments in nuclear power with a $100 million financial pledge in February to businesses in the sector. Just this week, Taiwan announced that it would restart its atomic plants in a major energy policy shift that indicates growing concerns over geopolitical instability.
A long-term commitment to developing and importing Alaskan LNG might not make a great deal of sense to countries that plan on leaning into nuclear power in the near future. So the question is whether the Trump administration thinks it can convince them that there is more to gain than lose from buying American.
Pedro Gonzalez writes news and opinion at Must Read Alaska.
The Alaska Department of Law filed a formal request for a hearing to challenge the Alaska Superior Court’s recent determination that the Department of Fish and Game acted in bad faith by adopting and implementing an emergency regulation for bear removal in support of the Mulchatna caribou herd.
The court’s May 12 ruling followed a temporary restraining order issued earlier, halting predator control efforts initiated under a regulation adopted by the Board of Game.
The emergency measure by the Board of Game was aimed at reducing predation by bears on the declining Mulchatna caribou herd, a critical resource for rural subsistence users in western Alaska, which has been dramatically reduced in the past decade. In 2016, the herd was estimated at around 27,000 caribou. As of 2025, the population is around 15,000 caribou, well below the department’s minimum population objective of 30,000.
Attorney General Treg Taylor defended the State’s actions, stating that the Fish and Game operated within its legal and constitutional boundaries. He emphasized that the agency followed all applicable laws and judicial directives, asserting that the characterization of the State’s conduct as bad faith was unfounded.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commissioner Doug Vincent-Lang echoed this defense, characterizing the accusations as harmful to the department’s credibility.
He highlighted the program’s support among local communities and its early signs of success, including increased calf survival rates. Vincent-Lang underscored the Department’s compliance with the Court’s orders and affirmed the State’s intent to seek legal remedies to resume the program.
“As the filing and affidavits show, neither I nor the Department acted in bad faith in authorizing predator control activities to rebuild the Mulchatna caribou herd,” said Vincent-Lang. “Such accusations are baseless and attack the credibility of the Department. Our predator control program, supported by local users, communities, advisory committees, and the Alaska Federation of Natives, had already shown success with improved calf survival and herd growth.
Stopping this effort in its third year puts that progress — and our commitment to rural subsistence users—at risk. We are complying with the newly released order but will pursue legal avenues to restore this program, which is clearly authorized under Alaska’s intensive management statute.”
The controversy centers on a five-hour hearing held on May 6, during which the Superior Court declined to evaluate the legitimacy of the emergency regulation, citing jurisdictional limitations.
The court’s May 7 Order explicitly stated that it did not prohibit predator control efforts and did not address the validity of the emergency regulation itself.
On May 9, the State informed both the court and plaintiffs of its intent to proceed with bear removal activities under the still-active emergency regulation. These efforts were halted once the court issued the temporary restraining order.
In its May 12 ruling, based solely on the limited record from the May 6 hearing, the court concluded that the State acted in bad faith. However, the State argues that the court’s decision was premature and based on an incomplete record, without evidence or examination of the emergency regulation process.
Emergency regulations in Alaska are governed by distinct statutory provisions and remain valid for 120 days. The State maintains that plaintiffs had not formally challenged the regulation’s legality through the current case or separate legal action. The court also did not evaluate the Board of Game’s emergency finding before concluding that the State’s actions were irrational and arbitrary.
The State’s latest filing seeks a hearing to present excluded information, including the statutory authority for the emergency regulation, the subsistence importance of the Mulchatna caribou, and whether the emergency regulation’s validity was ever properly before the Court.
A decision on whether the court will grant the requested hearing remains pending.
Updated: Why West provoked and prolongs Russia-Ukraine war?
Thirty-five years ago, this spring, Mikhail Gorbachev, then President of the Soviet Socialist Republic, was awarded an Honorary Doctorate in Humanities from the University of Alaska Southeast. Then-UAS Chancellor Marshall Lind invited Soviet Ambassador Yuri Dubinin to accept this award on Gorbachev’s behalf.
Dubinin arrived at Juneau with an entourage of six Soviet officials. Back then, I taught Russian Studies and archaeology at UAS and was assigned to accompany the delegation. In fact, Dubinin was the first Soviet ambassador to visit Alaska, post-World War II.
Dubinin was the Soviet ambassador to the United States during much of the turbulent 1980s’ perestroika period. In a Washington post piece, he described himself as a “popularizer of perestroika”—the radical reform efforts of Gorbachev. Dubinin also oversaw opening the Russian embassy to news conferences under Gorbachev’s initiatives.
In Alaska, the mid-1980s through 1990s and early 2000s was an enthusiastic period of the Soviet/Russian–Alaska relationships in nearly all cultural, educational and governmental spheres. I was a busy person, translating, almost daily, for all involved in the Russian-Alaska affairs; the enrollment in my Russian language classes at UAS was over the limit, with a long waiting list. Indeed, it was a promising hope to end Cold War tensions and begin a new era of mutually productive and friendly relationship between two great nations.
Nevertheless, whether under Soviet/Russian leadership of Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov, Gorbachev, Yeltsin or Putin, the U.S. and West never stopped its Cold War policies of undermining USSR/Russia. In the late 1970s, President Jimmy Carter provided military and logistical support to the Afghan Mujahideen, the precursor to the Taliban, thereby provoking Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
In fact, every successive U.S. president continued covert and overt interference in countries on Russia’s southern borders, including former Soviet Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirgizstan, Tadzhikistan and Turkmenistan, and Georgia and Ukraine.
The ideological architect of the strategy to contain the Soviet Union during Carter presidency was Zbigniew Brzezinski—the U.S. national security advisor and antagonist of the Soviet regime. Indeed, Ukraine played a pivotal role in the so-called Brzezinski Doctrine, which identifies the country as key to preventing Russian–European economic and political integration. Still today, the U.S. foreign establishment is rife with Brzezinski proteges and anti-Russian Cold War ideology.
With Ukraine, because of Brzezinski’s anti-Russian ideology, the West made a major strategic bet that eventually failed. The crippling sanctions against Russia since 2014 were expected to crater the Russian economy, resulting in a popular uprising and leading to the replacement of Vladimir Putin with a pro-Western leader. The hope was that this wishful dream would lead to a pro-Western globalist taking control of the Kremlin, resulting in a boon for Wall Street, as Russia is the richest country in the world in terms of natural resources.
With the growing demand for natural resources, Russia represents a rich investment opportunity in the unforeseen future. However, these Western sanctions against Russia completely failed. In 2024, European Union’s GDP grew 1.7%, while Russia’s grew 4.2%.
Soon after the dissolution of the Soviet Union—as early as 1993—President Bill Clinton started pushing for NATO expansion in Europe, including Ukraine, to which many strategically thinking American sociologists and historians strongly objected. This is how the slippery road to the current crisis might escalate into potential nuclear conflicts.
After gaining its independence in 1991, Ukraine could expect a bright future. At that time, Ukraine (with exception of Russia) was the largest country (territory) in Europe, with a population of nearly 52 million citizens, and sixth largest GDP in Europe. Today, Ukraine population is under 30 million citizens with lowest GDP per capita in Europe (per capita GNI of US$3,540).
Having vital industrial and agricultural sectors, a favorable climate, and fertile land, the country needed effective anti-corruption reforms, a certain level of autonomy for its regions with large Russian ethnic populations, and, most importantly, neutral status with no membership in any military blocs to become one of the most prosperous European states within its 1991 borders.
Instead, billions of dollars from the U.S., Canada, other Western countries, and George Soros poured into Ukraine—not to boost its economy but to reformat public opinion, which overwhelmingly favored neutral status and opposed joining NATO. This influence from the West helped to instigate the “Orange” revolution regime change in 2004, and then “Maidan” in 2014, which was directly coordinated by then-Vice President Joe Biden with Victoria Nuland from the White House in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv.
The new Ukrainian government, selected by Washington and the West, immediately declared its intention to join NATO. In fact, if not for this 2014 coup, there would be no annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by Russia in 2014, no war today in East Ukraine, and no risk of potential nuclear World War III.
In short, the U.S. and Western policies of using Ukrainians as cannon fodder to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia denigrates and contradicts the fundamental spirit and soul of America itself. While claiming to adhere to Western/Judeo-Christian values, the U.S. and European Union provoked and continues to fund a prolonged war between two nations that have lived together for over three centuries and are bound together by close historical, linguistic, religious, economic, cultural, and family ties.
No one can predict how the Russian-Ukrainian/West conflict will end; but one thing is certain that the Russian government and people do not take ultimatums very well. Recent pledges and demands of the European Union to accelerate and increase military assistance to Ukraine will only prolong this war. Indeed, as drums of World War III keep banging, those who are not among decision-makers or on the battlefields should, at least, try to clear the smog of this war.
Alexander Dolitsky was born and raised in Kiev in the former Soviet Union. He received an M.A. in history from Kiev Pedagogical Institute, Ukraine in 1976; an M.A. in anthropology and archaeology from Brown University in 1983; and enrolled in the Ph.D. program in anthropology at Bryn Mawr College from 1983 to 1985, where he was also lecturer in the Russian Center. In the USSR, he was a social studies teacher for three years and an archaeologist for five years for the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. In 1978, he settled in the United States. Dolitsky visited Alaska for the first time in 1981, while conducting field research for graduate school at Brown. He then settled first in Sitka in 1985 and then in Juneau in 1986. From 1985 to 1987, he was U.S. Forest Service archaeologist and social scientist. He was an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Russian Studies at the University of Alaska Southeast from 1985 to 1999; Social Studies Instructor at the Alyeska Central School, Alaska Department of Education and Yukon-Koyukuk School District from 1988 to 2006; and Director of the Alaska-Siberia Research Center from 1990 to 2022. From 2006 to 2010, Alexander Dolitsky served as a Delegate of the Russian Federation in the United States for the Russian Compatriots program. He has done 30 field studies in various areas of the former Soviet Union (including Siberia), Central Asia, South America, Eastern Europe and the United States (including Alaska). Dolitsky was a lecturer on the World Discoverer, Spirit of Oceanus, and Clipper Odyssey vessels in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic regions. He was a Project Manager for the WWII Alaska-Siberia Lend Lease Memorial, which was erected in Fairbanks in 2006. Dolitsky has published extensively in the fields of anthropology, history, archaeology and ethnography. His more recent publications include Fairy Tales and Myths of the Bering Strait Chukchi, Ancient Tales of Kamchatka, Tales and Legends of the Yupik Eskimos of Siberia, Old Russia in Modern America: Living Traditions of the Russian Old Believers in Alaska, Allies in Wartime: The Alaska-Siberia Airway During World War II, Spirit of the Siberian Tiger: Folktales of the Russian Far East, Living Wisdom of the Russian Far East: Tales and Legends from Chukotka and Alaska, and Pipeline to Russia: The Alaska-Siberia Air Route in World War II.
As Republicans move forward with a sweeping budget reconciliation bill aimed at funding President Donald Trump’s legislative priorities, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski is emerging as a vocal opponent, urging caution on efforts to dismantle former President Joe Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act.
According to Politico, Murkowski is advocating for a more measured approach to rolling back the IRA’s “clean energy” subsidies, which are now a primary target in the GOP’s proposed budget cuts. The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022 without any Republican support. Murkowski voted no to the bill back then and Vice President Kamala Harris broke the 50-50 tie to pass the spending bill, which is estimated to cost more than $1 trillion by 2032 and up to $4.7 trillion by 2050. While Republicans are seeking significant savings to fund their agenda, Murkowski is warning that an overly aggressive repeal could have long-term consequences, particularly for energy projects in Alaska.
“Taking a big hammer to these credits isn’t the way,” Murkowski reportedly said to Politico, pushing for what she described as a “cautious and conscientious approach.”
Her words come at the same time Moody’s has downgraded the United States’ long-term issuer and senior unsecured credit ratings from Aaa to Aa1, stripping the US of its last top-tier credit rating; Fitch had done so in 2023, and Standard & Poor had in 2011. Moody’s cited the rising US debt burden, now over $36 trillion, persistent fiscal deficits, and political polarization as key reasons for the downgrade. Federal deficits are expected to reach nearly 9% of GDP by 2035, driven by increased interest payments, rising entitlement spending, and low revenue generation.
Murkowski’s defense of the Inflation Reduction Act landed just as House Republicans are preparing to vote on a reconciliation package that would eliminate billions in subsidies for electric vehicles, household energy efficiency improvements, and clean hydrogen and nuclear energy development.
The “Big Beautiful Bill,” as it’s known, also proposes ending the transferability of energy tax credits, which allows companies to sell the tax credits, and includes provisions to limit foreign, particularly Chinese, entities from benefiting.
Murkowski is with a small group of Republicans working behind the scenes to salvage the IRA’s “clean energy” provisions. In April, she and three other GOP senators asked Senate Majority Leader John Thune to protect certain tax credits tied to “clean energy” technologies.
The senator has previously expressed concern about retaliation from the Trump administration and remains one of the more liberal members of her party. Earlier this week she said she would work to block the bill’s provision that cut funding to Planned Parenthood, as she remains a staunch supporter of abortion on demand.
According to an April 2025 CNBC report, Brendan Duval, CEO of Glenfarne Group, noted there is “quite a lot of inquiries from India,” in being an investor and possibly buyer of Alaska gas.
Glenfarne is the company that has the contract to build and majority own the proposed gasline project that is moving quickly due to aggressive work by Gov. Mike Dunleavy and President Donald Trump.
India could become a potential partner alongside Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
However, no concrete deals or agreements with India have been reported, unlike Taiwan, which signed a non-binding letter of intent in March 2025 to purchase six million metric tons of LNG annually, or Thailand, which is negotiating for up to five million tons.
The interest from India appears to be part of broader Asian engagement spurred by Trump’s push for the project and tariff policies.
Fox business writer Charles Gasparino wrote on X on Thursday: “SCOOP: According to people close to the White House the deal w Japan is still not ready to be announced. Could be a week or so away. Negotiations center on Japan buying from the Alaska LNG pipeline. India is there, my sources say.”
Later, he wrote: “BREAKING: @SecScottBessent confirms my reporting that trade deals w India and Japan are on deck with, and as I reported last week, India being the likely first. Story developing.” The negotiations appear to be with the White House, according to MRAK sources.
Meanwhile, interest from the Trump Administration continues to build.
“We are thinking about a big LNG project in Alaska that South Korea, Japan [and] Taiwan are interested in financing and taking a substantial portion of the offtake,” Sec. Bessent told reporters in April. The agreement would help meet Trump Administration goal of reducing the US trade deficit.
“You can imagine the geopolitical enhancements whether it’s for tariff or military reasons — Taiwan is really, really focused on getting that signed up,” Duval told CNBC in an interview. Taiwan has also offered to invest directly in Alaska LNG and supply equipment, said Duval, who will attend the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference June 3-5.
The India interest has not been widely reported but is sure to emerge as a topic at the conference, a meeting that has attracted top energy representatives from Japan, Korea, Thailand, and Taiwan, as well as Interior Sec. Doug Burgum, Energy Sec. Chris Wright, and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.
A new report released by the Alaska Small Business Development Center highlights a shift in the challenges and outlooks faced by small businesses across the state in the first quarter of 2025, driven largely by inflation, rising operating costs, and political uncertainty.
The findings stem from the SBDC’s 2025 Quick Pulse Survey, which followed up on an initial survey conducted at the end of 2024. Of the 958 businesses that participated in the earlier survey, 273 — nearly 29% — responded to the new round of 13 questions issued in April. The new round of questions was issued due to the center’s sense that business conditions had shifted and that the 2024 report might not reflect attitudes in 2025.
While the 2024 survey focused heavily on workforce challenges and client acquisition, the 2025 data shows a dramatic shift in business concerns. The top three challenges cited in the new survey were:
Increase in the cost of goods/inflation
Operating costs
Political uncertainty
This marks the first time political uncertainty has cracked the top three challenges in the survey’s eight-year history, even during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, it had never placed in the top 10, according to the SBDC.
The shift in concerns may indicate that Alaska’s small businesses are moving from a growth-focused mindset to one more centered on economic survival. Rising costs, often linked to volatile global marketplace, replaced prior concerns such as attracting customers and hiring qualified employees.
“The difference this year appears to be rooted in the nature of the disruption,” the report notes. “While the COVID-19 crisis was health-related, the current pressures stem from global economic policies and trade tensions.”
The financial outlook of business owners has also taken a sharp turn. After four consecutive years of increasing optimism, the percentage of businesses expecting their financial situation to be “good” or “very good” in the next 12 months dropped from 60% at the end of 2024 to just 46% in early 2025.
This was the lowest level of optimism since the manufactured Covid pandemic crisis in 2020.
One of the most telling changes was in how businesses are preparing for the year ahead. For the first time since 2021, there was a noticeable uptick in the number of businesses planning to seek outside capital, rising from 32% to 36%. However, unlike the pandemic-era surge, which was driven by federal relief programs and investment in growth, today’s interest in capital is viewed as a defensive move to help maintain operations in the face of mounting costs.
The SBDC noted that Alaska’s unique economic and geographic challenges, including remote location, small population, and labor shortages, continue to exacerbate broader economic issues. High shipping costs, already a longstanding issue, are now colliding with inflation and global trade disruptions, making it even harder for some small businesses to remain competitive.
“The 2024-2025 comparison reveals a significant shift toward uncertainty in Alaska’s small business outlook. Positive sentiment has declined sharply, with businesses reporting “Good” or “Very Good” conditions falling from 60% to 46%. Most notably, neutral responses (“Neither Good nor Poor”) jumped by 10 percentage points to reach 41%, indicating businesses are increasingly hesitant to make definitive forecasts. Negative sentiment nearly doubled from 8% to 14% in the first few months of 2025. This is the highest level of negative sentiment since the height of the COVID pandemic in 2020 and indicates that businesses are struggling to adjust to the new economic headwinds,” the report says.
Hiring qualified help remains a challenge. A substantial portion of businesses (22%) cite a lack of qualified applicants as the primary challenge, highlighting the need for skilled workers in Alaska’s small business sector. Another 15% struggle with compensation, noting that they cannot offer competitive pay to attract talent. Other challenges include seasonal issues (13%) and inconsistent workloads (14%), which create uncertainty and make long-term hiring decisions difficult.
“This is becoming a more pressing issue as Alaska’s population continues to decline in the 18-65 year old range, reducing an already limited population of potential workers,” the report says. One respondent lamented that “Everyone wants $30/hour but brings no experience to the table.”
Pacific Dataport, Inc., a satellite middle-mile provider based in Anchorage, has officially launched its Nome Gateway, a major step in expanding broadband access to some of the state’s most remote communities.
The new gateway leverages Starlink’s low-earth orbit satellite technology to deliver the company’s Aurora LEO enterprise “backhaul service” to internet service providers serving the North Slope and Northwest regions.
The Nome Gateway is a notable infrastructure achievement for the region, offering more than 10 gigabits per second (a unit of measurement for data transfer rate) of satellite capacity to local ISPs.
It’s the largest commercial satellite capacity ever deployed in a single location globally, the company said. The gateway is designed to meet the growing demands of remote learning, telemedicine, and emergency response in rural Alaska.
By integrating Starlink’s high-speed, low-latency LEO technology into its service platform, Pacific Dataport is providing ISPs with the tools needed to offer reliable broadband to areas where traditional infrastructure is often infeasible due to harsh climate and rugged terrain, the company explained. The gateway also acts as a resilient backup network, helping maintain continuity of service in the event of weather-related or other disruptions.
The collaboration between Pacific Dataport and Starlink combines local expertise with global satellite innovation, creating a scalable and redundant system that can adapt to the evolving needs of Alaska’s underserved regions. The Nome Gateway supports critical connectivity for institutions such as schools, healthcare facilities, tribal organizations, and emergency responders, fundamentally changing how remote Alaskan communities engage with essential services.
This new deployment builds on Pacific Dataport’s broader mission to close the digital divide across the state. In addition to the Nome Gateway, the company continues to develop and operate infrastructure projects like Aurora 4A, a dedicated micro-GEO satellite launched in 2023 with partner Astranis that is designed specifically to serve Alaska’s unique geographic and connectivity needs.
As broadband demands grow, Pacific Dataport plans to replicate the Nome Gateway model in other parts of Alaska, extending service to more rural areas from the Arctic Circle to the Aleutian Islands.
Senate Bill 64 continued to be heard by the House Finance Committee, with Democrats pushing the bill to allow more fraud, and Republicans pushing back.
Hours of phone testimony came from the public on Thursday, most of it against the bill that does things like eliminate the witness signature requirement on absentee ballots, establish “drop boxes” for ballots (Anchorage style), and having the state pay for the postage stamp for those mailing in ballots.
Rep. Nellie Jimmie, a Democrat, played the race card repeatedly and said that people in rural Alaska are disenfranchised, although what she was really saying was that they cannot figure out how to perform their civic duty of voting. Jimmie read her questions and statements that were being provided to her from someone outside the committee — presumably the bill sponsors in the Senate.
The Democrats want, among other things:
Removing witness signature requirement on absentee ballots
Ballot drop boxes everywhere
Special needs ballot changes — no limit on ballot harvesting
Hiring of rural liaisons to help rural voters, who are somehow seen as too simple-minded to vote
Permanent absentee voting — once you register to vote absentee, you can get a ballot in perpetuity
Ballot curing, which may delay results for weeks
Use of electronic signatures on voter registration documents
Pre-paid postage on all mail-in ballots
Very little attention is being paid to cleaning up voter rolls.
The bill is being supported by the Alaska Federation of Natives and Outside Democrat groups, as well as Democrats in the House and Senate. AFN says there are too many barriers to voting and that people in rural Alaska need “rural liaisons.”
SB 64 is being fast-tracked through the House because Democrats want to roll out these and other changes before the 2026 election. More details on the bill are found here:
For more than a century, the American auto industry stood as a beacon of global leadership, technological ingenuity, and economic mobility. But under the long shadow of the modern American Left, this engine of prosperity has been systematically transformed into a tool of political enforcement.
From Franklin Roosevelt to Joe Biden, Democratic administrations have imposed an anti-growth, anti-productivity, and ultimately anti-American agenda that warps one of our most innovative sectors into an instrument of ideological conformity.
From FDR’s union favoritism to Biden’s green mandates, the pattern is clear: comply with centralized control and reap the rewards; resist and face regulatory and reputational punishment. No clearer example exists today than Tesla—the most successful electric vehicle manufacturer in the world—being deliberately targeted for exclusion, destruction, and failure, not due to performance or innovation failures, but because of its refusal to unionize and Elon Musk’s refusal to bend to progressive orthodoxy.
FDR’s New Deal: The Beginning of Command Economy Politics
In the 1930s, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal restructured the economy to favor political loyalty over market dynamism. The Wagner Act (1935) institutionalized union dominance, catalyzing the rise of the United Auto Workers. When GM resisted, Roosevelt looked the other way during the illegal Flint Sit-Down Strike. Henry Ford’s anti-union stance earned him national condemnation. Compliance was rewarded; independence vilified.
Regulatory Weaponization: Carter to Clinton
In the 1970s, Jimmy Carter’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards imposed engineering burdens that undercut U.S. manufacturers and favored foreign imports. By the 1990s, Bill Clinton’s NAFTA accelerated offshoring, gutting American auto towns in the name of global trade. The policy was clear: labor deals and environmental standards trumped the health of domestic industry.
Obama’s Bailout Blueprint: Cronyism Over Competence
Barack Obama used the 2008–09 financial crisis to launch the most overtly political transformation of the auto sector since the New Deal. Under the guise of economic recovery, the federal government took de facto control of General Motors and Chrysler, wiping out secured bondholders in favor of the UAW and shuttering non-union dealerships—disproportionately located in red-state and rural areas. Meanwhile, remember all the fuss over the Prius?
Just like Tesla these last few months, the Left and its mainstream media targeted the Prius. Toyota faced a high-profile federal investigation into supposed acceleration defects. Despite later evidence that driver error was largely responsible, Toyota paid a record fine of $1.2 billion. Its crime? Outperforming GM and doing so without political dependency. Obama’s message was clear: even a successful company must kneel if it stands outside the favored circle.
Biden’s Green Ideology: Market Destruction by Design
President Biden elevated this model to new heights. His 2032 gas car ban and regulatory throttling of internal combustion engines are not market corrections—they’re political mandates. Tesla, which should be the poster child of clean innovation, has been excluded from EV summits, penalized in federal subsidies, and attacked in the press for the “crime” of non-unionization.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk, especially after his appointment of a Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) team in partnership with Donald Trump, has become a particular target. Social media mobs, encouraged by Democratic influencers, resorted to vandalizing Teslas in liberal cities. Ironically, many of these cars belonged to Democrats themselves—a self-inflicted economic tantrum that only underscored the irrationality of politicized industrial policy.
In today’s America, The Left wants it to be clear: Economic merit is no longer the determinant of policy favor. Non-union innovators like Tesla face exclusion, while floundering union-backed firms like GM and Ford enjoy endless subsidies despite mass layoffs and delayed rollouts. The result: less innovation, more stagnation, and rising costs for consumers.
Republican Response: Passive and Incomplete
With rare exceptions, Republicans have failed to mount a sustained defense of free enterprise in the auto sector. Donald Trump’s first term reversed many EPA overreaches and renegotiated NAFTA, but these were temporary moves. Without a permanent counteragenda to centralized industrial control, the Left’s blueprint resets itself by default.
From Innovation to Indoctrination
The auto industry once embodied American exceptionalism. Now, under the Left’s regime, it is rapidly devolving into a sector managed by political favor, not performance. Tesla’s rise should have signaled a new era of American dominance. Instead, its success triggered a campaign of bureaucratic sabotage. The message is unmistakable: build what Washington approves, or be broken.
Restoring industrial freedom starts by recognizing what we’re losing—not just cars, but capitalism itself. If we continue down this road, the question won’t be whether America leads in auto manufacturing, but whether we still have an industry worthy of the name.
But Wait! There’s More.
Donald Trump’s approach to his second term stands in stark contrast to the cautious, reactive posture typical of establishment Republicans. Unlike the incrementalism of past GOP administrations, Trump has demonstrated an aggressive and unapologetic willingness to destabilize the institutional Left — not merely resist it.
Whereas most Republicans have failed to sustain a long-term defense of free enterprise in the auto industry, Trump recognized that regulatory rollback alone is not enough. His trade renegotiations, attacks on weaponized environmental policy, and direct criticism of politicized unions reflect a broader doctrine: the deep state and its corporate satellites must not be managed — they must be confronted and defunded.
In his second-term planning — particularly through the revival of Schedule F and the establishment of the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) — Trump appears poised to dismantle the administrative infrastructure that enables Leftist dominance over key industries like energy, education, and automotive manufacturing. This signals a shift from defense to offense — a deliberate strategy to not just pause the Left’s agenda but cripple its enforcement arms within the federal bureaucracy.
His targeting of ideological compliance as the root disease—where subsidies, grants, and regulatory shields reward companies aligned with progressive narratives—reveals a deeper understanding than most Republicans. Trump has proven that economic freedom cannot survive without executive disruption of the mechanisms used to suppress it.
In short, Trump’s second term, if realized, will not be a repeat of the first. It will be a deliberate campaign of institutional deconstruction, designed not to compromise with entrenched interests, but to neutralize them — permanently.
