On January 21, 2026, the Alaska House Finance Committee convened a teleconference that buzzed with unprecedented optimism about the state’s oil industry. Co-chaired by Representatives Andy Jospehson and Neal Foster along with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the meeting painted a vivid picture of resurgence on the North Slope. Director Derek Nottingham set an enthusiastic tone, declaring, “This is the year we’ve been waiting for.” With construction underway, facilities being installed, and drilling in full swing, the discussion centered on the FY2026 production forecast, ongoing projects, and the remarkable turnaround at Milne Point—a testament to innovation in a mature field.
The FY2026 forecast emerged as a beacon of hope, projecting Alaska’s oil output at 465,000 barrels per day (bopd). Reservoir Engineer Travis Peltier presented forecast charts underscoring this figure, noting it stems from DNR’s independent analysis of production among the oil fields. Notable among the discussion was that between FY2024 and FY2025, a 1.5% production increase was realized, equating to about 7,000 bopd, with Kuparuk and Milne Point averaging the largest production increases.
Legislators probed the forecast’s reliability. Representative Stapp asked when Alaska last saw such volumes, prompting Nottingham to highlight tangible progress: “The difference this year is that there are boots on the ground, facilities are being installed—this is reality rather than concept.” He pointed to projects like Pikka, now at a “point of no return,” with commissioning underway for first oil. Stapp echoed the excitement, exclaiming, “This is the first time in my lifetime Alaska will see this big of a production increase—we should recognize this!” The forecast’s optimism is further fueled by federal opportunities under the Trump Administration, including four planned wells in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). Peltier noted these developments on federal lands signal broader investment potential.
Current projects amplified the positive vibe, with discussions revealing active advancements across the North Slope. When asked how Alaska compared to other Lower 48 states, Peltier stated higher costs and inflation but stressed the need for a competitive environment. When Stapp inquired about legislative actions, Peltier advised, “Maintaining a competitive environment for investment because there are other places around the country and the world for companies to develop.” Despite global volatility—Representative Bynum raised concerns about Northern Hemisphere impacts like Venezuela or the Middle East disruptions—Peltier reassured that legacy fields remain resilient. Even during 2014’s $100/bbl highs or 2020’s COVID lows, production persisted to maximize volumes.
The highlight, however, was Milne Point’s success story, a narrative of revival that captivated the committee. Acquired by Hilcorp in 2014 when production languished near 19,000 bopd, the field has been transformed through relentless reworking. Hilcorp’s strategies—continued drilling and polymer flooding—propelled output back to near-peak levels, defying expectations for a mature reservoir with heavy, viscous oil. Nottingham elaborated on page 9 of the presentation: “Revitalization of a mature field to replicate peak production is almost unheard of.” The existing facilities, ill-equipped for the oil’s viscosity, were upgraded alongside innovative drilling methods. This not only boosted volumes but exemplified how mature fields can be rejuvenated, contributing significantly to the recent statewide production increase.
Representative Josephson wrapped up optimistically, noting “good things for future legislatures.”
Alaska’s oil sector, long challenged by declines, now stands on the cusp of growth. With forecasts grounded in real progress, projects advancing, and Milne Point as proof of ingenuity, the meeting left attendees hopeful. As Nottingham put it, this isn’t just projection—it’s happening now, promising economic vitality for the Last Frontier.
Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published in Northern Journal, a newsletter and news website. Nathaniel Herz is an independent journalist and the founder and editor of Northern Journal.Nathaniel has given Must Read Alaska express permission to republish his gubernatorial candidate survey series.
It’s campaign season in Alaska.
Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola made national news Monday when she said she’s entering what’s expected to be a hard-fought and expensive race for the Alaska U.S. Senate seat currently held by Republican Dan Sullivan.
Meanwhile two-term GOP Gov. Republican Mike Dunleavy is barred by state law for seeking re-election — and more than a dozen candidates have already announced bids to replace him.
Here at Northern Journal, we expect the governor’s race to be one of Alaska’s most interesting in years.
The winner will face a huge array of policy questions expected to remain unresolved after Dunleavy finishes eight years in office.
Educators accuse policymakers of chronic underfunding of schools in recent years, as lawmakers continually battle over how much to spend on state services compared to Alaska’s annual oil wealth checks, known as Permanent Fund dividends. Urban areas of the state face huge increases in energy costs and contend with a homelessness and housing crisis; rural areas contend with eye-wateringly expensive food prices amid catastrophic crashes of salmon populations.
Candidates for governor are already laying out their visions of how to respond and gearing up their campaigns — but at this early stage of the race, they’re often doing so at untelevised, out-of-the-way forums attended by insiders and special interest groups.
Here at Northern Journal, we saw an opportunity to cut through some of the noise and focus candidates’ and voters’ attention on key issues.
For the next 10 months, we plan to distribute a regular survey of the gubernatorial candidates, each with two questions — one on policy, and one that’s more personal.
We see the survey as a chance to provide Alaskans with clear answers about where candidates stand on the issues that matter most to them — and as a chance for candidates to reach a wide audience of readers and voters directly. As with all other Northern Journal stories, we’ll make the answers republishable by any Alaska-based outlet.
This week’s policy question is about a proposal to boost taxes on oil company Hilcorp, which some lawmakers support as a way to raise revenue for state government. Then, we hear from candidates about their favorite way to cook fish.
Republicans Dave Bronson, Bernadette Wilson, Matt Heilala and Adam Crum did not respond to this week’s survey; Northern Journal sent each candidate multiple emails, as well as text messages, reminding them to complete the survey.
If you have feedback about the survey, or want to suggest a question for the candidates, please drop Northern Journal publisher Nat Herz a line: [email protected]. Thanks for reading.
Question 1: Would you support and sign a bill like SB 92 if elected? Why or why not?
Alaska lawmakers have struggled to keep the state’s budget balanced in recent years. One option to raise revenue is Senate Bill 92, which would apply Alaska’s corporate income tax to oil and gas “pass through entities” with more than $5 million in taxable income.
This legislation targets Hilcorp, a major oil and gas producer in Alaska which, because of its S-corp structure, doesn’t currently pay corporate income tax like publicly traded companies that operate in the state — businesses like ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil.
The Alaska Department of Revenue says SB 92, if enacted, would generate as much as $150 million for the state treasury. Would you support and sign a bill like SB 92 if elected, and why or why not?
Former State Senator Tom Begich
Democratic former state Sen. Tom Begich
Yes. Because, as (Wasilla Republican) Sen. (Rob) Yundt has observed, it’s a matter of fairness. When Hilcorp purchased BP’s assets, it removed $100 million in annual tax receipts from the state through a loophole. That law was never intended to help large, out-of-state companies; it was to foster the development of our own small businesses. It needs to be fixed.
Former Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor
Republican former Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor
No, imposing new taxes is not the way to create high-paying jobs for Alaskans.
Mat-Su Borough Mayor Edna DeVries
Republican Matanuska-Susitna Borough Mayor Edna DeVries
I would not. There are two sides to a budget — income and expenditures. Both sides must be examined.
Former State Senator Click Bishop
Republican former state Sen. Click Bishop
Alaska must ensure a healthy oil and gas industry that contributes fairly while protecting jobs, development, and revenues. With current oil prices and global uncertainty, our fiscal challenges are real.
SB 92 deserves careful review to ensure a fair, competitive tax system. In this regard, the current version of SB 92 contains provisions that give me some pause. While I respect legislators advancing and modifying these bills, as governor, I would evaluate legislation based on economic impact, long-term revenue stability, and keeping Alaska competitive for responsible energy development.
Oil development requires billions of private investment years before production begins. Future revenues depend on decisions today.
Former State Senator Shelley Hughes
Republican former state Sen. Shelley Hughes
Targeting an S-Corp that doesn’t get the tax breaks C-Corps do, has been saving our bacon as a gas supplier, has put oil in TAPs, and has added billions to state coffers we otherwise wouldn’t have is a bad idea. I wouldn’t sign the bill.
I also oppose SB 92 because we’ve just 3 years to maximize opportunities with a federal administration keen on moving resource projects forward. Raising taxes signals to companies Alaska is not business-friendly, lacks fiscal discipline, and would chase industry away.
Growing/diversifying our economy via cheap energy and more lands in Alaskans’ hands will increase participants to ensure adequate revenue. Increasing the tax base, not increasing taxes, is the answer.
Alaska Lieutenant Governor Nancy Dahlstrom
Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom
I don’t believe it’s appropriate for the lieutenant governor to get ahead of the governor on legislation that is still moving through the process. That said, SB 92 raises important questions about its broader economic impacts and needs careful review. We must ensure any revenue proposals to change Alaska’s tax system strengthen and support our state’s economy rather than inadvertently cost jobs, discourage investment, or weaken Alaska’s long-term energy outlook.
State Senator Matt Claman
Democratic state Sen. Matt Claman
Most revenue from the oil industry comes from production taxes and royalties. All producers pay production taxes and royalties. Hilcorp stopped BP’s decline and maintained production. Hilcorp likely pays more production taxes and royalties than any other — more than BP projected.
Under SB 92, projected revenue is $0 to $150 million. This uncertainty is problematic, because the new tax cost is $500,000.
We have 11,700 S-Corps in Alaska. Hilcorp was already an S-Corp. It is problematic to target Hilcorp with a tax that no other S-Corp pays.
There is division over SB 92. I do not support SB 92 as written. Before moving forward with a new revenue measure, we must find common ground that reflects Alaska’s diverse priorities.
Henry Kroll
Republican commercial fisherman Henry Kroll
I support SB 92.
James Parkin IV
Republican James Parkin
Yes, but we could do much better if we had a Big Bargaining Stick (one of my campaign planks — a discussion for another time).
We should also charge companies a fair share fee for all of the out of state workers they hire (approximately 40% of oil and gas workers). These people take jobs that Alaskans could have and money from Alaska’s resources and then live in other states where they don’t pay taxes on the money and don’t contribute a penny to our state’s economy. I am not proposing a tax, but a “Fair Share Out of State Fee” to be paid by the companies. I will not support a tax of any kind on the people and local businesses of Alaska! Alaskans already pay more for state services than any other state in the nation!
Bruce Walden
Republican Bruce Walden
I’d have to say no. The entire structure needs to be looked at. I am for the oil companies paying their fair share, and it should be equal across the board, percentagewise. But we’re missing the bigger picture. The bill talks about pipelines.
The proposed gas pipeline will never pencil out effectively, and makes little sense. To liquefy gas on Alaska’s warmer southern coast, as opposed to the North Slope, makes no sense. However, a billion-dollar extension of the railroad to the slope makes very good sense. Before we begin looking at new taxes, we need to look at the production of oil/gas/helium (byproduct of liquefication and in short supply world-wide) and coal. ALL are fossil fuels, but only oil is taken seriously.
Next in Series: Candidates for Governor Share Their Favorite Fish Recipes!
Alaska’s Senator Lisa Murkowski is on a trip to Copenhagen along with a group of Congressional Democrats. They are there to reassure the Danes that the US Congress will use political strategies to prevent President Trump from taking over Greenland. However, Murkowski is not our secretary of state, and no one else on the trip is either. By going there, she is interfering with the President’s foreign policy and may hinder whatever President Trump is trying to accomplish.
I admit President Trump’s Greenland initiative is a bit of a puzzler. The president may really want to make Greenland part of the United States, or his comments may be a negotiating tactic for something else. I don’t know what the president’s goal is, and Lisa Murkowski doesn’t know either, but I am sure there is some purpose to his comments.
We can look at his tariff strategy to get some insight into how he negotiates deals. If you recall, early last year, the president believed our country was being taken advantage of by other countries around the world, which imposed one-sided tariffs on our goods entering their countries. The biggest culprit was China. He raised tariffs on China, and they responded with increased tariffs of their own. This went back and forth a few times, until tariffs on Chinese goods entering the US were up to 145%. The political pundits predicted this would destroy our economy and urged President Trump to reconsider. He didn’t blink, and the reality was that his aggressive action forced China to come to the negotiating table.
We eventually signed a fair trade deal with them, setting the current reciprocal tariff to 10%, with higher tariffs on certain intellectual property/technology items, and some agricultural goods exempted. This is probably what he wanted all along. The initial outrageous tariffs President Trump imposed were a negotiating tactic. His standard mode of operation is to ask for something shocking and then settle for the best deal he can get.
This may be what is going on with Greenland. The president’s opening bid was to suggest that the US take over the island. Considering that Denmark is a NATO member and the US pays the vast majority of the costs defending their country, including the defense of Greenland, maybe he is trying to get some benefit in return.
Russia or China may be cozying up to the Greenlanders to access their mineral resources, and the president might figure that if we have to defend them, then we should be the first in line to benefit. Perhaps he sees the strategic value of opening new military bases there and wants to negotiate to do so. Maybe he really does want to make Greenland part of the US. Nobody knows for sure, but whatever his objective is, Murkowski isn’t helping by meddling in the situation.
Unfortunately, when she goes to Denmark behind the president’s back, it undercuts the president’s negotiating position. Think of it this way. If you wanted to buy a house and your realtor leaked to the seller what price you were willing to pay, you wouldn’t get the best deal. This kind of unethical behavior is prohibited in the real estate profession. However, that is exactly what Lisa is doing over in Denmark: destroying the president’s leverage.
Our government has an official cabinet-level position responsible for international negotiations, which is the United States Secretary of State, a position currently held by Marco Rubio. That is not Lisa’s role as a member of the Senate. Perhaps her visit to Denmark is a way to get back at the president because she doesn’t like the man. Perhaps she is tilting at windmills from a liberal sense of what is fair. Whatever the reason for her trip, Snow White and the ten Democrats need to remember their roles in our government. Princess Lisa does not represent the people of Greenland; she is supposed to represent Alaska, and is not doing that when she goes to Copenhagen. She needs to get back to Washington DC and start doing the job we pay her for.
This story was reprinted with permission from the author. It was originally published 1/21/26 on “Seward’s Folly,” the author’s Substack.
Greg Sarber is a lifelong Alaskan. He is a petroleum engineer who spent his career working on Alaska’s North Slope. Now retired, he lives with his family in Homer, Alaska. Greg is a former board member of Alaska Gold Communications, Inc., the publisher of Must Read Alaska.
The State of Alaska continued to allow taxpayer money to fund elective abortions for four months after President Trump suspended Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood and other clinics.
The Big Beautiful Big (H.R.1) was signed into law on July 4, 2025. The bill included a one-year ban on Medicaid funding for certain pro-abortion clinics. The State of Alaska failed to comply until November 5th. However, the restriction does not apply to all providers, and Alaska continues to use Medicaid funds for elective abortions performed in hospitals and other medical providers.
Editor-in-Chief Joel Davidson from Alaska Watchman dove into the story after hearing from Alaska Right to Life Director Pat Martin. According to Pat Martin, “it wasn’t until he began working behind the scenes, pressing Gov. Dunleavy’s office and top officials in the Alaska departments of health and law, that Alaska finally halted Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood.”
In response to Alaska Watchman’s questions, Alaska Health Department Communications Director, Shirley Sakaye, stated that Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid funding was placed on hold on November 5, 2025. According to Sakaye, the delay was due to “additional analysis of federal requirements.”
Sakaye also stated that Medicaid funds issued to Planned Parenthood and other ineligible abortion clinics during the delay period will be rescinded. Although the money can be rescinded, the deaths of innocent babies resulting from the illegal funding cannot be undone.
Do Pro-Life Laws Harm Women?
Although pro-abortion advocates often declare pro-life laws harmful to women because they prevent medical professionals from saving the life of the mother when necessary, this claim is false. Alaska law specifically excludes situations where an abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life from the definition of abortion.
Alaska law (§18.16.090) defines abortion as “[T]he use or prescription of an instrument, medicine, drug, or other substance or device to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant, except that ‘abortion’ does not include the termination of a pregnancy if done with the intent to: (A) save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child; (B) deliver the unborn child prematurely to preserve the health of both the pregnant woman and the woman’s child; or (C) remove a dead unborn child.”
All states either have this definitional exclusion, or they provide a specific “life-of-the-mother” exemption.
Fact: 95.9% of Abortions Are Performed on Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies
Not only is the claim that abortion bans threaten the life of the mother unfounded and false, but data shows that 95.9% of abortions performed in America are completely elective, meaning they are performed on healthy mothers and healthy babies. 0.3% of abortions are performed to save the life of the mother (which is legal in every state), 0.4% of abortions are performed for the reason of rape or incest, 1.2% are performed because of fetal anomalies, and 2.2% are performed for other physical health concerns.
With over a million abortions committed in the U.S. per year, that is approximately 2,600 innocent babies killed every day in the U.S. for no medical reason whatsoever.
Fact: Most Women with Abortion History Wanted Their Babies but Felt Pressured
Despite abortion advocates claiming, “her body, her choice,” a peer-reviewed study published in the medical journal Cureus found that “nearly 70% of women with a history of abortion describe their abortions as inconsistent with their own values and preferences, with one in four describing their abortions as unwanted or coerced.” Additionally, 60% of women stated they would have “preferred to give birth if they had received either more emotional support or had more financial security.”
Tessa Longbons, Charlotte Lozier Institute Senior Research Associate and co-author of the study, states: “No woman should have to endure an unwanted abortion. This ought to be a point of common ground in the abortion debate. Instead it is a rarely discussed third rail, even as pro-abortion politicians work to shut down the life-affirming safety net. It’s time for a national conversation about abortion coercion that respects the range of women’s lived experiences, while acknowledging that the overwhelming majority of abortions are in some degree of conflict with what women actually want. Their stories deserve to be told and not erased from the conversation.”
Here is the reality: the majority of women choosing abortion actually want their babies. Tragically, they choose abortion because they do not have the emotional and financial support that they need, which is largely due to absent or irresponsible fathers.
State Forces Taxpayers to Subsidize Abortion Industry
From July to November, the State of Alaska illegally used taxpayer money to subsidize the ending of innocent lives by Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. And even now, taxpayers continue to subsidize abortions performed in hospitals and by other medical professionals.
Yesterday, Jan 20, the Senate State Affairs Committee met at 3:30pm for the first hearing of SJR 2, which proposes amending the State Constitution to allow a legislative override of a gubernatorial veto by 2/3 vote of the Legislature instead of 3/4 vote. The amendment applies specifically to “bills to raise revenue and appropriation bills or items.”
The bill’s sponsor, Senator Matt Claman (D-Anchorage) introduced the bill to the committee. He stated: “SJR 2 makes an important change to our State Constitution to improve the public’s ability to influence executive and legislative decisions on revenue and appropriation matters.”
Senator Claman emphasized that Alaska has the highest voting requirement for overriding a veto on revenue or appropriations matters in the nation. Most states require a 2/3 vote from both legislative chambers to override a gubernatorial veto. A handful of states have lower requirements.
If passed by the Legislature, voters will see the amendment on the ballot in November this year.
Impact on Public Education
Laura Capelle, who is serving her first term as NEA-Alaska President, was invited to give testimony regarding SJR 2. Capelle has been a public educator in Fairbanks since 2004. She spoke on the impact the current Constitutional requirement of a 3/4 vote has on public education in Alaska.
According to Capelle: “The direct impact to public education of this veto override prevision [in the current Constitution] is it creates instability within our public education system. School boards, school board administrations, families, and educators are caught in the quagmire of uncertainty of education funding that’s essential for supporting students in their communities.”
She referred to Governor Dunleavy’s line-item veto of education funding in HB 57, claiming the veto could have caused a $51 million shortfall for public schools if the Legislature had not overridden the veto. The Legislature did override the veto, but only one less vote would have sustained the governor’s veto. When the Legislature passed HB 57, school districts had to “hedge their bets” when making budget decisions based on whether they thought the funding would survive the veto process.
Arguing that the current State Constitution unduly favors the Executive branch, Capelle stated, “The Framers of the U.S. Constitution thought that any veto requiring an override vote of over 2/3 of the Legislature as leading to undemocratic, unbalanced, excessive executive power. And now we can see why.” The U.S. Constitution allows Congress to override a presidential veto by 2/3 vote for any type of bill.
Public testimony
The Senate State Affairs Committee heard public testimony from three individuals.
Caroline Storm, a private citizen of Alaska, testified in person that she supports the amendment.
Theresa Obermeyer, an Anchorage resident, testified over the phone that she supports SJR 2, but not because Sen. Claman sponsored it. She spent most of her testimony criticizing Sen. Claman, asking why he had not done anything about the issue sooner during his 11-year career in Congress.
Calling from Homer, Therese Lewandowski testified in support of the amendment. She stated, “There is too much executive power… it just doesn’t seem right.”
Governor Misses Scheduled Hearing of SJR 13
In the same Senate State Affairs meeting on Jan 20, SJR 13 was scheduled for a second hearing. SJR 13 was requested by Governor Dunleavy, but no representative from the governor’s office attended the meeting.
Expressing frustration, Senator Bill Wielechowski (D-Anchorage) said, “The governor was notified. This was a publicly noticed meeting. He was notified; his office was notified several weeks ago that he would be heard on the first day, and they refused to attend. Is that correct?”
Committee Chair Senator Scott Kawasaki (D-Fairbanks) responded, “Well, that is what it appears.”
Sen. Wielechowski indicated that the bill is not likely to be heard again due to the governor’s absence at the hearing.
The Legislative Audit and Budget (LB&A) Committee met this morning, Jan 20, at 10am to discuss approval of a contract with consulting group Pegasus-Global Holdings, Inc. The contract, which is not to exceed $250,000, will enable Pegasus to provide the legislature with key information regarding the Alaska LNG pipeline project.
LB&A received a “key issues” report from the GaffneyCline Energy Advisory on December 12, 2025. GaffneyCline’s report concluded: “The AK LNG project and associated gas pipeline is one of the most ambitious gas infrastructure projects ever attempted globally and would require resolution of a host of complex commercial, technical and logistical features to come to fruition.”
The contract with Pegasus was proposed by Senate Majority Leader Cathy Giessel (R-Anchorage), Chair of the Senate Resources Committee, to provide the legislature with “assistance in understanding the implications of project ownership; governance structure as laid out in the current project; cost controls and supervision of costs and finance agreements; engineering procurement and construction contracts; offtake agreements for in-state gas; financial decisions related to tax structure, royalty, and production tax; schedule risk; and the need for independent, ongoing monitoring as the project evolves.”
Senators Giessel and Stedman highlighted the success of Pegasus’s prior consulting role for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
LB&A passed the motion and adjourned 10:13am.
Pegasus is scheduled to present to the Senate Resources Committee this Friday.
At 11:30am today, Jan 20, the Senate Majority met with the press to discuss priorities for the second regular session of the 34th Alaska State Legislature, which will gavel in at 1pm today.
Senate President Gary Stevens (R-Kodiak) began the meeting by emphasizing that the State has “tighter revenue constraints than ever before.” He stated the session will focus on fiscal discipline, continuing essential services for Alaskans, and making decisions that Alaskans can afford now and in the future.
Senate Finance Chair Lyman Hoffman (D-Bethel) stated Governor Dunleavy has proposed a full Permanent Fund Dividend, which will be a center of discussion this session. Hoffman warned that a full dividend will cause a $1.5 billion deficit for the State. He also highlighted $200 million worth of items not addressed by the Governor’s budget.
Senate Finance Chair Bert Stedman (R-Sitka) emphasized the lack of maintenance funding for K-12 school facilities, court buildings, universities, and DOT infrastructure in the proposed budget. “We have to maintain our infrastructure… the dam is going to break,” he stated.
Then the conversation turned toward education with Senate Education Chair Löki Tobin (D-Anchorage) speaking on actions taken by the Education Task Force. The task force has met with schools and students across the state and will hold several meetings this session, the first being this Friday.
Senate Rules Chair Bill Wielechowski (D-Anchorage) highlighted efforts regarding election integrity. He stated that Alaska is the hardest state in the nation to conduct elections due to its unique geographical challenges. Several concerns need to be addressed: 1) there is 106% more registered voters in Alaska than there are adults in Alaska and 2) a high percentage of rural, military, and assisted living home residents’ votes are thrown out over technicalities. Wielechowski seemed hopeful of passing non-partisan changes to the election system to better this year’s election integrity.
Other priorities discussed during the meeting regarded the LNG pipeline project, disaster relief funding, and public pension.
On Monday, Jan 26, the Local Boundary Commission (LBC) will meet to discuss Governor Dunleavy’s Administrative Order 360 which requires all regulatory authorities, including LBC, to reduce regulatory requirements by 15% by the end of 2026 and by 25% (cumulative) by the end of 2027.
The public can attend the meeting at 1pm via Zoom:
The purpose of AO 360 is “to improve the quality, transparency, and efficiency of the State’s regulatory environment.” It instructs all executive branch agencies, including departments, boards, commissions, and public corporations to “review existing regulations, guidance documents, and materials incorporated by reference to identify provisions that are outdated, redundant, or unclear.” Each agency is required to “reduce the number of regulatory requirements by 15 percent by December 31, 2026, and 25 percent (cumulative) by December 31, 2027.”
Michael Tavoliero submitted “Argument in Support of Repealing 3 AAC 110.270(e)” to the LBC, proposing 3 AAC 110.270(e) as one of the regulations LBC should cut. This regulation directly impacts the Eaglexit effort by requiring ” that a petition for detachment and simultaneous incorporation propose a borough encompassing a substantially larger population and area than the detaching territory.”
Tavoliero argues that LBC should eliminate 2 AAC 110.270(e) because “it serves no continuing necessity, obstructs maximum local self government, and exceeds the authority delegated to the Local Boundary Commission (LBC).”
Boards and Regulations Advisor and Agency Regulatory Liaison Sara Chambers provided LBC and all other regulatory authorities with “Strategies for Board to Get the Most Out of the AO 360 Regulatory Review Process.” The document will help guide the discussion on Monday. Readers can review the document here:
According to a press release from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Trump reversed his decision to allow wage-garnering to collect outstanding federal student loan debt. Although Trump restarted the Treasury Offset Program in May 2025; last Friday, he revived and extended a pandemic-era, indefinite pause of the collection of defaulted federal student loan debt.
President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Maya MacGuineas commented on the reversal: “Congress enacted historic cost-saving reforms to the federal student loan program this year that put the program on a sustainable path and fair repayment system, and the Trump Administration has been implementing that plan with fiscal costs in mind. Preventing the actual collection of the debt puts that all at risk. Not only will it increase costs to the taxpayer, but it will also actually worsen affordability challenges by allowing student loan burdens to balloon and putting upward pressure on interest rates and inflation.”
However, the press release does not tell the full story. Rather than a reversal, the decision to pause the Treasury Offset Program and wage garnishing is a temporary delay to enable the Department of Education “to implement major student loan repayment reforms under the Working Families Tax Cuts Act (the Act) to give borrowers more options to repay their loans.”
Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent clarified that Trump’s position on student debt has not changed, but rather the temporary delay will make repayment easier and more efficient. “After the Biden Administration misled borrowers into believing their student loans would not need to be repaid, the Trump Administration is committed to helping student and parent borrowers resume regular, on-time repayment, with more clear and affordable options, which will support a stronger financial future for borrowers and enhance the long-term health of the federal student loan portfolio,” stated Kent.
On July 1, 2026, borrowers in default can choose between a single standard repayment plan or income-driven repayment (IDR) plan. In the meantime, “the delay in collections will give defaulted borrowers additional time to evaluate these new repayment options once they consolidate their loans or complete a repayment or rehabilitation agreement.”
Fact: Trump did not change his position on student loan debt. Borrowers will still be required to pay back their loans.
