On December 7, 1941, the serene shores of Oahu, Hawaii, erupted into chaos as Japanese forces launched a devastating surprise attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor. This assault, meticulously planned amid escalating tensions, stemmed from Japan’s aggressive expansion in Asia, including its 1937 invasion of China, which prompted U.S. economic sanctions and oil embargoes. Negotiations between Tokyo and Washington faltered, leading Japan to strike first to cripple the Pacific Fleet and secure resources for its imperial ambitions.
The raid, executed just before 8 a.m., involved hundreds of Japanese aircraft bombing battleships, airfields, and facilities. In under two hours, the attack claimed 2,403 American lives—sailors, soldiers, and civilians—with 1,178 wounded. Over half the fatalities occurred aboard the USS Arizona, which exploded after a bomb hit its ammunition magazine. The toll on U.S. naval power was immense: eight battleships were damaged or destroyed, including the Arizona and Oklahoma, which capsized. Nearly 20 vessels total and more than 300 aircraft were lost or wrecked, though key aircraft carriers escaped unscathed.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt swiftly addressed Congress on December 8, declaring the attack “a date which will live in infamy” and urging a declaration of war on Japan. Congress approved it almost unanimously (388-1), propelling the U.S. into World War II. Days later, America declared war on Germany and Italy after they allied with Japan, uniting a nation in resolve against tyranny.
Eighty-four years later, on December 7, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued a proclamation for National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, honoring the “Greatest Generation” and their sacrifices. In the memo, Trump reflected on how the attack “rallied our shattered citizenry and fueled our resolve,” emphasizing vigilance against threats to liberty. He called for flags at half-staff and ceremonies to remember the fallen, noting Japan’s transformation from foe to ally. This annual observance, established by Congress, underscores enduring lessons of courage and peace.
The disparity between oil and gas operators, utilities, and the state government towards Cook Inlet natural gas volumes leaves residents of Southcentral Alaska caught between the expiring gas contracts and the higher costs of imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). Current prices for Cook Inlet gas hover around $8 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf), according to data from the November 2024 Wood MacKenzie analysis, providing a stable and relatively affordable source for heating and electricity. However, with Railbelt utility gas contracts expiring and utilities diversifying towards renewables, importing LNG could push prices to $12-$14 per Mcf, an increase that would burden households with higher bills.
Alaska vs. The Lower 48: Residential Gas Prices
The distinction between Henry Hub (the U.S. benchmark wholesale price at about $5.07/Mcf) and Cook Inlet prices highlights Alaska’s isolation from the Lower 48 pipeline network. Henry Hub drives commodity costs nationwide but Alaska’s local market keeps residential rates lower at $15.38/Mcf in September 2025, per EIA data. This contrasts with the U.S. average of $24.56/Mcf. Electric power prices, which utilities pass on for gas-fired generation, mirror wholesale trends more closely; in the Lower 48, they’re often near Henry Hub levels, while Alaska’s could rise with imports, straining the customers.
Compared to other states, Alaska ranks fifth lowest in residential gas prices, behind New Mexico ($5.73), Utah ($12.09), Idaho ($12.49), and Montana ($14.33). Texas stands at $33.22 and New York at $26.67— illustrating how southern states face higher markups from distribution and demand.
The LNG Project as Path to Relief
The proposed Alaska Gasline and LNG project provides a path to relief but is still years away. Phase 1, an 800-mile pipeline from the North Slope, is projected to deliver gas at $11.62/Mcf by 2031, competitive with imports at $10.59-$14.24, while the full project drops to $2.31/Mcf, potentially yielding billions in savings.
The majority of the value in the Gasline will come from exporting LNG where a fraction of the total volume has been allocated for instate use. The Trump and Dunleavy administrations have secured various letters of intent and agreements from the governments of Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, and others totaling half of the projects expected gas volume.
Director of Division of Oil and Gas Speaks on the Cook Inlet Resource Management
At the 2025 Resource Development Council Conference, Derek Nottingham, Director of the Division of Oil and Gas, shared a volume forecast of Cook Inlet as recent as July 2025.
Nottingham was enthusiastic when describing how operators in the Cook Inlet are optimizing drilling programs and bringing forward new gas wells in fields where they know there are good gas targets, like the Beluga River field.
“We know there are big, undeveloped gas resources in the Cook Inlet,” Nottingham stated, “this represents the current view of what we have right now which is new gas being brought online in the Kitchen Lights Unit (KLU). Excess gas now has the potential to be stored for the future to curb annual decline and have gas available for use.”
When discussing the demand gap, Nottingham made a point to illustrate that if a renewable project could reduce the electric demand by 10% every other year, roughly equal to 2.5-3BCF per year, it only reduces the electrical demand 25BCF in the next decade.
The main chart still reflects the outcome of the 2022 and 2023 studies where there is no drilling assumed in the Cook Inlet beyond 2030. A stark contrast, made evident by the fact that the operators have more than fulfilled the gap in supply with new wells planned to be drilled in the coming years. This should provide confidence to the utilities to come back to the table and secure new gas contracts to mitigate the risk of higher gas import costs.
“We are going to depend on natural gas in the Cook Inlet for a long time. We absolutely have to find new sources of that,” said Nottingham.
To date, neither Enstar nor the Railbelt electric utility co-ops have signed connection agreements with 8 Star LLC or AGDC for gas offtake from the proposed gas pipeline. This leaves Southcentral dependent on the Cook Inlet operators to continue innovating and bring new volumes to market as a firm alternative to importing LNG.
In a pivotal step toward managing power reliability for the majority of Alaskans, the Alaska Railbelt Reliability Council (RRC) has chosen engineering firm Black & Veatch to spearhead the development of the Railbelt’s inaugural systemwide Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). Announced December 2, 2025, this comprehensive strategy aims to ensure a reliable, affordable, and future-ready electricity system across the 700-mile corridor from Fairbanks to Homer, which serves about 75% of the state’s population.
Historically, Railbelt utilities have operated independently, consistent with seven co-op principles. The new IRP shifts this paradigm by creating a central planning organization among the region’s five key utilities: Golden Valley Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, and Seward Electric System. It will also incorporate input from independent power producers (IPPs), businesses, consumer advocates, and energy experts to create a roadmap for generation, transmission, and storage investments. This approach is expected to minimize costs, bolster grid resilience against Alaska’s harsh conditions, and integrate renewables while balancing environmental and affordability goals.
The RRC, established by the Alaska Legislature, emphasizes shared standards to avoid redundant expenses and deliver optimal value. Black & Veatch, with over 40 years of IRP experience—including projects in Alaska—will employ advanced modeling and real-world data to craft the plan.
“I am excited for the opportunity to lead the RRC and realize the value provided through Railbelt-wide standards and regional planning. This IRP will help achieve long-term reliability, sustainability and affordability for Alaskans,” said Ed Jenkin, CEO of the Alaska Railbelt Reliability Council.
The two-year process kicks off with public engagement, including webinars, meetings, and workshops for feedback. An initial open webinar will outline participation details, with registration soon available on the RRC website. The final plan is slated for submission to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska in early 2027.
Part X: The People’s Right to the PFD Based on Quiet Title
By Michael Tavoliero
Quiet title is a legal remedy that can be applied to Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD). It signifies valid ownership rights when possession has been long-settled but competing claims arise that disrupt the status-quo. It does not create ownership; it recognizes ownership that already exists. Its purpose is to eliminate uncertainty by affirming rights matured through use, reliance, and acknowledgment.
Shilts v. Young (1977)
In Shilts v. Young, 567 P.2d 769 (Alaska 1977), the Alaska Supreme Court reaffirmed that adverse possession requires the possessor’s use to be open, notorious, continuous, exclusive and hostile in order to put the true owner on notice of the possessor’s claim, so that the owner may act to protect his rights. Because the doctrine serves to quiet the title of long-settled possession, it reflects the principle that a beneficial interest acquired through visible and uninterrupted control must ultimately be recognized by law.
Where possession is uninterrupted, acknowledged, and relied upon for decades, title should not remain uncertain.
Not Limited to Land
Although AS 09.45.053 prevents adverse possession from transferring title to state-owned land, the principle underlying the doctrine is not confined to soil. Alaska courts have repeatedly recognized that:
Longstanding public practice may mature into protected civic rights (e.g., Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975)).
Deeply rooted family autonomy rights cannot be extinguished by statute (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)).
State sovereignty over navigable waters, continuously exercised, becomes recognized and exclusive (Sturgeon v. Frost, 577 U.S. 424 (2016)).
In each case: use + recognition + reliance = enforceable right.
PFD Meets Criteria from Sturgeon v. Frost (2016)
The Permanent Fund Dividend satisfies these criteria fully:
Directly relied upon for household, family, and economic stability.
Acquiesced
Affirmed by every legislature and governor for decades.
Recognized
Validated as lawful in Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55 (1982).
This uninterrupted chain of state administration and public reliance has matured into a settled beneficial property interest.
The legislature’s authority to adjust the PFD was never the source of the PFD benefit; it was merely the adopted mechanism by which the constitutionally-backed benefit was delivered. When the legislature began diverting realized Permanent Fund earnings into general government operations, it ceased acting as trustee and began acting as beneficiary. This is something the Constitution does not permit.
Alaska Trust Law
Thus, the question is no longer whether the people deserve the PFD, but whether the legislature may convert beneficiary property to its own use.
Under Alaska trust law and the Mental Health Trust case law, the answer is clear:
Conversion of trust income requires restoration, not reinterpretation.
The remedy is confirmation of the beneficiary right, not legislative discretion.
When beneficial use is long-settled, the appropriate legal action is quiet title.
Recognizing a pre-existing right, not creating a new one
The PFD arises from the constitutional trust framework established in Article VIII of our Constitution, under which natural resource wealth is held not for the State itself, but “for the maximum benefit of its people.” Over more than forty years, the State continuously, openly, and uniformly distributed a defined share of the Permanent Fund’s realized earnings to eligible residents under a statutory formula. This practice was not incidental; it constituted the State’s own long-term acknowledgment that the people hold the beneficial interest in those earnings.
This sustained pattern of administration created widespread and reasonable reliance. For two generations, families incorporated the PFD into household budgeting, community economies integrated it into local circulation, and the State’s institutions treated the PFD as a fixed, structured distribution of trust income. Under Ravin v. State and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, long-standing rights exercised openly and acknowledged in law mature into constitutionally protected interests. Under Sturgeon v. Frost, jurisdiction or benefit continuously exercised and never disclaimed becomes legally exclusive and resistant to later government recapture.
The PFD follows that same doctrinal arc: use + recognition + reliance = enforceable right.
Equitable estoppel further prevents the State from now characterizing the PFD as a discretionary appropriation. Under Municipality of Anchorage v. Schneider, the State may not repudiate a long-established policy on which the public reasonably relied where doing so would produce injustice. And under State v. Weiss and Weiss v. State, when the State holds revenue in trust, it must (1) protect the corpus, (2) administer income solely for the beneficiaries, and (3) restore distributions if diverted for the trustee’s benefit. The State may not convert trust income into general revenue simply because of fiscal pressures.
Conclusion
Thus, the PFD is not a subsidy, grant, program, or legislative preference. It is the quantified distribution of the people’s beneficial interest in a sovereign resource trust. The legislature may manage the corpus, but it may not unilaterally diminish the beneficiaries’ share of trust earnings without their consent — for authority in Alaska originates in the people themselves (Alaska Const. art. I, § 2).
Accordingly:
The PFD must be restored as a beneficiary distribution of trust income.
Any alteration of the original PFD distribution formula must be made only with the consent of the beneficiaries, the people of Alaska, not by legislative or executive decision alone.
The shift beginning in 2016, where trust earnings were diverted to general government operations, constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty and requires legal remedy.
To secure this right is not to create something new. It is to confirm what has already matured.
To restore this right is not to take from the State. It is to return the trust to its rightful beneficiaries.
The people have held this benefit openly, continuously, and with the State’s affirmative acknowledgment for more than a generation. Under Alaska law, under trust law, under constitutional structure, and under the principles of fairness that precede them all, what the people have possessed cannot now be taken back.
The Great Debate Complete Series
Check out previous articles in The Great Debate: The People of Alaska vs the Legislature:
Filmed entirely in Ketchikan, The Ladder boasts award-winning cinematic captures of Alaskan beauty and showcases local Alaskan talent. Alaska-raised writer and director, Emilio Miguel Torres, brings his film home to Anchorage after a nationwide screening tour. Torres introduced the proof-of-concept short film at the Anchorage International Film Festival in 2021.
The Ladder follows the story of an aging fisherman who undergoes a futuristic medical procedure that gives him a new lease on life. According to a press release, The Ladder is an “Alaskan sci-fi drama exploring the universal questions of aging, purpose, and the longing for second chances.”
During its tour across America, the feature won 18 official selections and more than 10 major jury awards, including Best Feature Film, Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Cast, and Best Editing.
Torres states: “I first had the spark of wanting to be a filmmaker as a child in Anchorage. This is the festival that believed in the short film in 2021. And now, after years of work and a beautiful journey around the country, we get to come home.”
The screening will be on Sunday, December 7, 6pm, at the Anchorage Museum. General admission tickets are $12 per person. An opportunity for Q&A with both Torres and award-winning lead actor and Ketchikan resident Keith Smith will follow the screening.
On Tuesday night, Dec 2, the public gathered at the Loussac Library Assembly Chambers to discuss the Municipality of Anchorage’s proposed 3% sales tax. The Assembly did not vote on the proposal at this meeting but instead chose to extend public hearing to January 13, 2026. According to Assemblyman Christopher Constant: “The intent of the sponsors is to continue the public hearing… to allow more time for public process and conversation.”
Public hearing on Ordinance No. AO 2025-133 lasted a little over 1 hour with each person receiving a maximum of 3 minutes to speak. Here is a sampling of what the public testified regarding the proposed 3% sales tax:
Support for the 3% Sales Tax
Anchorage resident, who is a private property owner, small business owner, and spent 24 years in law enforcement: “I strongly support this ordinance. I strongly support the things we do for the city to run it in the right way.”
Representative from Covenant House Alaska: “We are here to speak in support of the proposed sales tax… Stabilizing childcare providers and expanding access will help young parents remain employed, support their families and avoid future homelessness.”
Anchorage resident from Fairview neighborhood: “We take care of the most homeless in Alaska. I see that all the time. I think this is a very good tax… I think this is a good way to take the burden off the people in Anchorage.”
Requests for Revision/ Clarification
Anchorage resident, who was born and raised in Anchorage and recently moved back from Nevada: “I think the public would love to know exactly why this 1, 1, 1 is needed and have good information about that so they can make a decision.”
President and CEO of Foraker, Lauri Wolf: “Alaska’s nonprofits are significant economic drivers in the municipality. We represent 11% of the municipal’s employment base and 10% of employment on average across Alaska.” Wolf asked the Assembly to revise the ordinance to exempt non-profits from the sales tax and to make the exemption process easy, online, and at no cost to non-profits.
Opposition to the 3% Sales Tax
Anchorage resident from Midtown neighborhood: “I strongly oppose this new tax. Government spending is notoriously inefficient. If you wanted to provide property tax relief, you could simply lower the property tax.”
Eagle River resident: “I’m here to speak against the proposal for 3% sales tax. The concern is not with the goals of supporting childcare, housing, public safety, or property tax reduction. These are very real needs. My concern is with the structure of the tax and the long-term damage that rigid earmarks inflict on Anchorage’s fiscal resilience… if Anchorage ever adopts a sales tax, it should strengthen our fiscal future, not reduce it. This AO does not do that. I urge you to reject this ordinance or substantially revise it before placing on the ballot.”
Former Attorney General and Candidate for Governor, Treg Taylor: “This tax proposal is bad for Anchorage. It is bad for Anchorage families… You don’t stimulate economy by taxing it. You don’t encourage families to stay in Anchorage by taxing them. The new tax reflects unwillingness by Anchorage to tighten its own fiscal belt, despite Anchorage families having to make hard decisions on their budgets every day due to increased costs for goods, services, housing, and energy.”
Senior from Service High School, testifying for the first time: “Implementing a significant new tax for the municipality of Anchorage is the wrong move at this time… Our focus for Anchorage should not be on taxation, but it should be growing the economy and the private sector for revenue.”
Anchorage resident: “What is bad about this tax? You get it started; where does it end? It’s not going to. It’s just going to keep rising and rising and rising… Clean up your wasteful spending, and once you’ve done that, then if you need tax revenue, come back with that. Put it out for general vote.”
These quotes were taken from the first 10 testimonies. Many more testimonies were given at the meeting. You can watch the full public hearing below (3:54:05-5:15:55):
In a bold move to challenge what it calls pervasive misinformation in mainstream media, the White House under President Donald Trump has launched a new online portal dedicated to tracking and exposing alleged biases, lies, and distortions in news coverage. The initiative, announced in late November 2025, features a “Media Offenders” section on the official White House website, highlighting outlets like The Washington Post, MSNBC, and CNN as repeat offenders in categories such as “left-wing lunacy” and “omission of context.” The portal includes interactive leaderboards ranking networks by repeated inaccuracies and a “Hall of Shame” for persistent violators, aiming to provide Americans with “unfiltered truth” amid ongoing tensions between the administration and journalists.
The launch coincides with a call to action for the public to submit tips on biased or false reporting. White House officials describe the effort as a “service to truth and transparency,” emphasizing that “the days of the Fake News Media controlling the narrative with lies, fake anonymous sources, and willful bias are over.” Valid submissions will update the database weekly, potentially amplifying public scrutiny of media practices. Supporters hail it as a necessary counter to perceived liberal bias, with the administration tying it to recent legal victories, including multimillion-dollar settlements from ABC and Paramount over alleged misrepresentations.
Critics, however, view the portal as an escalation in Trump’s war on the press, warning it could intimidate journalists and undermine First Amendment protections. Press freedom advocates argue it blurs the line between accountability and government overreach.
The rollout follows a series of personal attacks by Trump on reporters, including derogatory remarks toward female journalists from major networks. As of December 3, 2025, the portal has drawn mixed reactions on social media, with some users praising its transparency while others decry it as authoritarian. With trust in media at historic lows, the initiative tests the boundaries of executive influence over public discourse, potentially setting a precedent for future administrations.
A recently shared internal FDA email has sparked controversy, revealing that agency staff identified at least 10 child deaths potentially linked to COVID-19 vaccines. The findings, based on VAERS data analysis, highlight concerns over delayed safety signals and mandate policies during the pandemic. The email, obtained and shared by the Washington Post on November 29, 2025, calls for major reforms at the FDA.
In the email, FDA Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) Vinay Prasad wrote, “It is horrifying to consider that the US vaccine regulation, including our actions, may have harmed more children than we saved. This requires humility and introspection.” The deaths, involving children aged 7 to 16, were rated as “likely, probable, or possible” attributions to vaccination, with Prasad noting the analysis was long overdue despite reports dating back to 2021.
Myocarditis was one of the main adverse reactions for young boys attributed to the COVID-19 vaccine. It is highly likely that the FDA knew of the risks of heart damage among teenagers when they issued an EUA to Pfizer in May 2021.
“Worse, the FDA delayed acknowledgement of the safety signal until after it could extend marketing authorization to younger boys 12-15, had the acknowledgement come early, these younger boys, who likely did not require COVID-19 vaccination, may have chosen to avoid the products.”
In Alaska, according to data from the Association of Immunization Managers, as late as April of 2023, a total of 165,187 children under the age of 18 had received one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The physical effects on these children are likely to get overlooked due to the evolution of reporting COVID related events. Prasad described this as, “any small differences in opinion about specific cases are due only to the fact that subjective attribution of death is inherently a topic where reasonable people may have subtle disagreements.”
Dr. Prasad acknowledges that VAERS is passively reported and it is incumbent on the provider to input the information for safety surveillance. Due to the cumbersome nature of the process, Prasad stated that “many more deaths may be unreported.”
Prasad concludes the memo asserting openness to vigorous debate on matters of public health. He states that all debates should remain internal until ready to be made public, stopping any selective reporting of information. “Some staff may not agree … submit your resignation letters” stated Prasad not mincing words.
The HHS under the leadership of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is moving forward to restoring gold standard evidence based medicine. This email from the FDA indicates that serious introspection is occurring to understand the direct health effects related to the COVID-19 vaccines, especially on children.
Despite receiving approximately 500 community complaints about pornographic material in the public-school library, the Fairbanks School Board refused to revise school library policy. School Board Member Loa Carroll-Hubbard proposed the revision in a school board meeting on November 18, 2025: “There should be no sexually explicit material in our libraries. Period.” As of now, current policy permits pornographic literature.
Superintendent’s Response
Superintendent Dr. Luke Meinert responded to the request for revision by emphasizing the current policy’s provision of parental rights: “Parents do have the full rights and responsibilities. If they don’t want their student to check books out from our library, they certainly have that right. They can also restrict certain books that they don’t want their children to have access to.”
Caroll-Hubbard addressed Dr. Meinert’s argument, stating: “I get that parents have a right to decide, but not all parents are engaged.” She points out that even highly successful parents with demanding jobs may not have time to monitor their kids’ choice of library books. Furthermore, she says, “I don’t know that I ever shared my library books with my mom and dad.”
Real Harm to Children
According to the American College of Pediatricians: “Consumption of pornography is associated with many negative emotional, psychological, sociological, and physical health outcomes. These include increased rates of depression, anxiety, acting out and violent behavior, younger age of sexual debut, sexual promiscuity, increased risk of teen pregnancy, child sex abuse, sexual trafficking, and a distorted view of relationships between men and women.”
Despite the real harm pornographic literature causes children, the majority of Fairbanks School Board Members stated they support the library policy as written.
Prioritizing Sexual Content Over Proficiency in English, Math, and Science
Board President Bobby Burgess and Vice President Meredith Maple defended two books with sexually explicit content: Looking for Alaska by John Green and The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison. Both Maple and Burgess contended that books like these help children process life’s complexities, and that the books taken as a whole offer valuable lessons.
Burgess argued that John Green’s intention in Looking for Alaska was to argue “really in a rather pointed way that emotionally intimate kissing can be a whole lot more fulfilling than emotionally empty oral sex.”
He also explained Toni Morrison’s intention in The Bluest Eye: “[The book] was really about humanizing people, understanding patterns of violence and the internalized racism and systemic racism that leads to additional harm.”
The lessons highlighted by Board President Burgess seem strange to prioritize, considering the majority of kids in Fairbanks public schools test below proficiency levels for English, Math, and Science.
Children need proficiency in reading, writing, math, and science to succeed after graduation. Public schools have a responsibility to impart to students the basic knowledge they need to succeed, not to burden their still-developing brains with literature that contains sexually explicit, intense, adult concepts.
Failed Motion
On Tuesday, December 2, the school board revisited the issue, listened to public comments, and voted on a motion to review library policy and poll the community for input.
School Board Clerk Morgan Dulian highlighted concerns regarding legal ramifications: “Mat-Su school district is a perfect example. They paid out $89,000 and had a long legal battle and a lot of time (and time is money) and had to return the books to the library.” She admits, “there are obvious concerns from the community on certain books that are in the library;” however, she contends that the legal battle would cause more harm than good.
The motion failed 4-7. Yes votes: Post Representative Colonel John Campbell, Base Representative Colonel Timonthy Foster, Treasurer Loa Carroll-Hubbard, and Board Member Audra Hull. No votes: Board President Robert Burgess, Vice President Meredith Maple, Clerk Morgan Dulian, Board Member Timothy Doran, Board Member Naomi Hewitt, Regional Student Council Representative Liam Wade, and FNA Representative Melissa Charlie.
November 18 Regular Meeting
Board Discussion: 2:20:18-2:42:24
December 2 Regular Meeting
Relevant Public Testimony: 26:12:00-29:11, 32:50-43:21
