Health officials in Pierce County, Washington, are investigating what may be the state’s first locally acquired case of malaria. An East Pierce County woman who has not recently traveled was diagnosed with the mosquito-borne disease on Aug. 2. She is currently receiving treatment as health authorities monitor her condition and work to determine how she contracted the infection.
If confirmed, this would mark the first known instance of local malaria transmission in Washington state history. Malaria cases in the United States are typically tied to international travel, with Washington averaging 20 to 70 travel-related cases per year. The nation as a whole sees about 2,000 to 2,500 such cases annually, most of them imported. Local transmission is exceedingly rare; the US reported just 10 locally acquired malaria cases in 2023, spread across four states — the first such cases in two decades.
The Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department is working closely with the Washington State Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to identify the source of the infection. The most likely explanation is that a mosquito in the area bit an individual who had traveled to a malaria-endemic country and then transmitted the parasite to the local woman.
Officials have launched a mosquito surveillance operation, which includes trapping and testing, although mosquito populations in the area are currently on the decline.
Malaria symptoms have a long incubation period, anywhere from 7 to 30 days after infection, include fever, chills, body aches, headaches, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. While malaria can be life-threatening, it is treatable with antimalarial drugs, including artemisinin-based combination therapies, chloroquine, and other medications depending on the severity.
The public health risk remains very low, the Pierce County Health Department said. Still, locals are being encouraged to take preventive measures such as using insect repellent, wearing long-sleeved clothing, keeping window screens repaired, and eliminating standing water around homes to limit mosquito breeding.
Travelers heading to countries where malaria is common are being advised to consult healthcare providers in advance to obtain appropriate preventive medication.
The number of attack ads targeting Sen. Dan Sullivan over the last year by Democrat-aligned special interest groups is astounding. The 2026 election is 16 months away. It’s clear that the Democratic Party wants to win that Senate seat and is even pressuring Sen. Sullivan to change his stance on key issues advantageous to Alaska.
It hasn’t worked in the past, it isn’t working now, and it won’t work in the future.
In Sen. Sullivan’s 2020 race, he faced a tsunami of “dark money” ads supporting his opponent and was outspent 2-1. Yet, he won handily with a winning percentage approaching 13%, a greater margin than polls predicted.
Five years later, Sen. Sullivan is not taking anything for granted and is gearing up for another battle. So far in 2025, Sullivan’s reelection campaign has raised over $4.8 million total, with more than $3.9 million cash on hand.
More importantly, Sen. Sullivan keeps proving he can deliver on his promises through a series of actions and consequential votes that will benefit Alaskans for generations to come.
Since his 2020 re-election, Sen. Sullivan has focused on numerous issues with beneficial impacts for Alaska including the following:
Economic Development and Resource Expansion: Sen. Sullivan has led the fight to unlock Alaska’s economic potential by advocating for resource development. He supported President Trump’s reversal of Biden’s executive orders preventing Alaska from strengthening our country with our vast energy and mineral resources.
Infrastructure and Public Services: Sullivan has secured billions in federal infrastructure funding to fix Alaska’s roads, bridges, water and sewer systems (especially in Native communities), broadband, and ferry services. All are critical investments given Alaska’s vast size and limited infrastructure compared to other states.
Fisheries and Coastal Community Support: Sen. Sullivan has worked to protect Alaska fishermen and coastal communities by ensuring fisheries open on schedule and challenges such as declining salmon runs on major rivers are addressed.
Military and National Security Strengthening: In light of rising geopolitical threats in proximity to Alaska, Sen. Sullivan has advocated for bolstering national security, with billions anticipated in new military construction in the state.
As a Senate Armed Services Committee member, Sen. Sullivan is a leader in strengthening America’s military services particularly in Alaska and the Arctic. He is frequently a guest of national news outlets commenting on America’s military capabilities and their importance in protecting America’s national security.
As Chairman of the Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Coast Guard, Maritime, and Fisheries, Sen. Sullivan’s top priority has been to expand Coast Guard assets stationed in Alaska.
His actions have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of additional investments as well as additional personnel in our region.
The Coast Guard’s presence in the communities of Sitka, Kodiak, Seward, Ketchikan, and Juneau will be strengthened and expanded with the addition of six Fast Response Cutters and the nation’s first polar icebreaker in a generation, the Coast Guard Cutter Storis. The Storis’s commissioning is scheduled for August 10 at 9:30 a.m. in Juneau, where the vessel will be homeported.
The icebreaker funding was secured after four years of advocacy by Sen. Sullivan. His laser-focused commitment to the project spanned two administrations and included regular engagement with senior leaders in the U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, National Security Council, Office of Management & Budget, and his colleagues in the House and the Senate.
Dan Sullivan’s dedicated service to Alaska and the nation stands out. Before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2014, he served as Alaska’s Attorney General and Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources. He also brings the experience and perspective of an infantry officer and recently retired as a Colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves.
Dan and his wife, Julie Fate Sullivan, have spent over 30 years together, beginning their life as a couple in Julie’s hometown of Fairbanks, and later moving to Anchorage to raise their three daughters.
With deep roots in Alaska, Dan has demonstrated an ability to look beyond political divisions to do what’s best for Alaskans.
After retiring as the senior vice president in charge of business banking for Key Bank in Alaska, Win Gruening became a regular opinion page columnist for the Juneau Empire. He was born and raised in Juneau and graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1970. He is involved in various local and statewide organizations.
The Juneau Assembly this week opted to delay its decision on whether to adopt ranked choice voting for local elections. Rather than voting on the proposal later this month, Assembly members agreed to hold off until November — after the city’s upcoming municipal election on Oct. 7. Enacting the ranked-choice voting system could invigorate the conservative base in advance of the elections.
The ordinance under consideration would introduce ranked choice voting for municipal elections beginning in 2026. Under this system, voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than selecting just one. It is already in use for Alaska’s statewide elections, having been implemented in 2022, though it has faced a repeal effort that almost succeeded in 2024, and a current repeal effort.
Assembly member Ella Adkison, who introduced the ordinance, has been a vocal advocate for its adoption. But members of the public pushed back on the idea that such a radical change should be made without a public vote.
Public testimony on the ordinance is still scheduled for Aug. 18. If approved, Juneau would become the first major city in Alaska to adopt ranked choice voting for its municipal elections. Anchorage Assembly is also considering enacting the irregular voting system that it, too, would enact via ordinance.
Left-wing activist Katie Wilson emerged as the top vote-getter in Seattle’s mayoral primary, edging out incumbent Democrat Mayor Bruce Harrell.
Wilson is co-founder of the Transit Riders Union and a former writer for The Stranger newspaper. She secured 46.21% of the vote in the nonpartisan contest, compared to Harrell’s 44.86%, with the two advancing to the November general election under Seattle’s top-two primary system.
Katie Wilson
Harrell, who has been mayor since 2022, is widely seen as a more moderate Democrat, while Wilson’s is being compared to Zohran Mamdani, the socialist nominee who won New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary this summer.
Even though they are both Democrats, Wilson has the support of the King County Democratic Party and several Democratic district committees. Her campaign is centered on taxing the rich, housing, transportation, and progressive governance.
A June op-ed in The Urbanist called Wilson “a progressive who would break a long run of timid centrist leadership” in Seattle, comparing her rise to that of Mamdani and Minneapolis socialist candidate Omar Fateh.
Like those candidates, Wilson is seen as a challenge from the Left to establishment Democrats.
While Harrell maintains a base of support among more centrist voters and has overseen a relatively stable term during a tumultuous time for the city, he has faced criticism from both the right and the left. Conservatives blasted him for describing a Christian concert and pro-life event in the city as an “extreme right-wing rally.”
Still, a victory in November would make Harrell Seattle’s first two-term mayor since Greg Nickels left office in 2009.
Tuesday’s primary also delivered setbacks for other incumbents. Republican City Attorney Ann Davison trailed progressive challenger Erika Evans, a former federal prosecutor, in her re-election bid. Evans left the US Attorney’s Office after President Trump’s second-term immigration policies took effect, and she has sharply criticized Davison’s tough-on-crime stance. Evans supports a public health and social service-based approach to crime, including expansion of the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion program.
A key message of Evans’ campaign, as explained by The Stranger, has been that Davison is “Not Like Us,” highlighting the city attorney’s party affiliation in a city where Republicans are a minority.
Wilson’s strong showing comes amid a series of left-wing primary wins in Democratic strongholds, including Mamdani’s victory in New York and the July endorsement of socialist Omar Fateh over incumbent Mayor Jacob Frey in Minneapolis by the local Democratic Party. In Anchorage, the pattern is the same: MayorSuzanne LaFrance, who changed her affiliation to undeclared, is the Democrats’ candidate.
In 2009, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation released a 10-year plan for how to address homelessness. This plan defined how taxes would be used to reduce homelessness by 50% in a 10-year period. Overall, the plan was estimated to cost about $300 million over 10 years. The plan also included evaluations of metrics each year to determine if the plan was in fact working as intended.
Here we are in 2025, having essentially followed AHFC’s spending plan as precisely as possible. However, we did not follow the guidance of the plan in terms of evaluating metrics to determine if the plan was working.
In fact, instead of a 50% decrease in homelessness over 10 years as the plan stated was the goal, we have a 50% increase in homelessness, while spending almost exactly as the plan originally laid out. So instead of halving homelessness in 10 years, we almost doubled it in five years.
AHFC is designated as the entity which is supposed to find and report this data to the governor. The agency laid out a plan in 2009, and now when the plan is failing us it is silent. Prior to implementing this spending plan, Anchorage spent far less on homelessness each year with similar results as we have now. Arguably, the results were better then. When will we accept reality and lay out a plan that we actually stick to? Why continue spending money on a plan that hasn’t worked out even a little bit?
The author is an Alaskan-grown small business owner/operator with a background in software engineering. Experience includes work at the Hanford nuclear site in Washington state and contract work for GCI, ConocoPhillips, and Alaska DOT.
Alaska imports $3 billion in food annually through a fragile supply chain that could break down with little warning. Less than five percent of our food is produced in-state, despite our massive agricultural potential. To address this, Governor Dunleavy issued Executive Order 136 to create a standalone Department of Agriculture. It was a necessary, constitutional step toward food security, but the Legislature rejected it on March 19 by a vote of 32–28. That vote wasn’t about constitutional efficiency; it was about politics.
When the governor reissued the proposal as Executive Order 137 during the August special session, legislative leadership in both houses refused to even introduce it. That obstruction violated both the separation of powers and the governor’s constitutional authority under Article III, Section 23.
The Alaska Food Strategy Task Force’s February 2024 report made the need for a Department of Agriculture clear. With over 365 million acres of land and a growing agriculture sector, Alaska has the potential to feed itself and even export food. But right now, agriculture is buried within the Department of Natural Resources, where it competes with oil, gas, and mining priorities. Responsibilities for agriculture are also scattered across multiple agencies, leading to duplication, inefficiency, and neglect. A Department of Agriculture would consolidate these functions, streamline regulation, and support local producers more effectively. It would, in fact, make government more efficient.
All 50 states already have dedicated agricultural departments. Many operate with far larger budgets than the modest fiscal note that accompanied EO 136. Even redirecting a small share of our $3 billion in food imports into local production would grow our economy, create jobs, lower poverty, and improve access to fresh, healthy food.
House Bill 140, introduced just two days before the rejection of EO 136, would have created the same department through the legislative process. But that bill never even received a hearing. So this is not a dispute over executive authority versus legislation. The problem is a Legislature unwilling to work with the governor to improve food security for Alaska.
The Alaska Constitution gives the governor the authority to reorganize the executive branch for more efficient administration. The Legislature can disapprove an executive order within 60 days of a regular session, but that rejection must be based on efficiency—not politics or policy disagreements. The rejection of EO 136 failed that test.
Lawmakers raised three objections: the projected $2.7 million annual cost, a preference for passing a bill rather than an executive order, and a desire for a broader food security focus. But the cost was later challenged, and the administration found a way to make it cost-neutral. Preferring a bill over an executive order is a procedural opinion, not a constitutional standard. And wanting a broader mission does not make EO 136 inefficient.
The records of Alaska’s Constitutional Convention are clear: executive reorganization is an executive function, not a legislative prerogative. Legislative disapproval is meant as a check, not a tool for micromanaging policy or blocking executive action. Rejecting EO 136 for political reasons is a violation of the Constitution’s intent.
Gov. Dunleavy then included EO 137 in the Aug. 2 special session. Legislative leadership refused to introduce it, claiming it couldn’t be submitted during a special session or reissued at all. Both claims are constitutionally unfounded.
The Constitution states that reorganization plans may be submitted “during the first 60 days of a regular session, or a full session if of shorter duration.” That language does not prohibit submission during a special session. If a special session is shorter than 60 days, it qualifies as a “full session of shorter duration.” I cannot imagine a session of shorter duration that is not a special session. This interpretation aligns with Alaska courts’ common-sense approach to constitutional language.
And nothing in the Constitution prohibits a governor from reissuing an executive order. Citing Mason’s Manual – which governs legislative motions, not executive authority – is a smokescreen and thus irrelevant. The governor’s decision to reissue the order is justified, especially given the Legislature’s refusal to act on HB 140 or provide valid constitutional reasons for rejecting EO 136.
By refusing to introduce EO 137, the presiding officers of the House and Senate violated the process outlined in Article III, Section 23. That section requires the Legislature to hold a joint session and vote to disapprove. There is no constitutional authority for leadership to block introduction or return the order without debate by the members of both bodies.
This action undermines the separation of powers and sets a dangerous precedent. It allows personal disagreement to override constitutional duties. The governor is correct to consider EO 137 effective unless it is introduced and a resolution disapproving it is debated and voted on in a joint session, as required by law.
The framers of Alaska’s Constitution envisioned a strong executive branch, capable of efficient administration. Legislative review was intended as a safeguard, not a weapon. Refusing to consider EO 137, combined with the rejection of EO 136 and the failure to hear HB 140, looks less like reasoned policymaking for Alaska and more like obstruction driven by personalities.
Alaska’s reliance on imported food is a growing risk. Creating a Department of Agriculture is a strategic move toward food security, economic diversification, and improved public health. The governor acted within his constitutional authority. The Legislature did not.
Governor Dunleavy should continue pressing forward, using the Food Strategy Task Force’s findings to build public support and, if needed, seek a judicial ruling. The people of Alaska deserve food security. They also deserve a government working for Alaskans that respects the Constitution, not one that rewrites it on the fly for political convenience.
Rep. Kevin McCabe serves in the Alaska Legislature on behalf of District 30.
The Nova Scotia government has enacted a ban on public access to the province’s forest areas, citing extreme wildfire risk amid ongoing hot and dry conditions.
Effective 4 pm on Aug. 5, the ban applies to nearly all recreational activities in the woods, including hiking, camping, fishing, and the use of bikes or off-road vehicles such as ATVs.
The restrictions cover both the government’s land and private land and will remain in effect until Oct. 15, or until the province sees significant rainfall. Anyone caught violating the ban faces a fine of $25,000.
There are limited exceptions. Camping is permitted only in official campgrounds, and landowners may access and use their own private property, but they may not host others on their land if it lies within wooded areas.
Beaches and open park spaces that do not include forests remain open to the public, but all trail systems running through wooded land are now off-limits.
For commercial operators such as forestry and mining companies, work requires special permits, often with a requirement to limit activity to nighttime hours, when fire risk is supposedly lower.
The oppressive measure follows a province-wide burn ban issued on July 30. Both measures come in response to what provincial officials describe as tinder-dry conditions and a worrisome lack of rain in the forecast. The province has recorded approximately 100 small wildfires this season, and the government says it is trying to avoid a repeat of the 2023 wildfire season, which caused widespread evacuations and damage.
The move is reminiscent of laws enacted in California during the Covid pandemic scare, when people were arrested for going to the beach or even surfing the waves.
The search for a new manager to lead Juneau International Airport has entered a pivotal phase, with Andres Delgado, the airport’s current operations and maintenance superintendent, now standing as the sole active applicant for the position.
The vacancy was created earlier this year following the retirement of longtime Airport Manager Patty Wahto. The Airport Board engaged ADK Executive Recruitment to lead the national search and began screening candidates in coordination with the Hiring Committee. After an initial round of interviews, two finalists were invited to Juneau for an in-person process held June 11–13. However, neither candidate was selected to fill the role.
Delgado, a well-known figure within the airport’s leadership structure, submitted his application shortly before the finalist interviews but was not considered at the time due to timing. When the original search failed to yield a hire, the board decided to interview Delgado on July 21.
At present, he remains the only active applicant for the position.
With Interim Airport Manager Dave Palmer scheduled to step down later this month, the Airport Board is now evaluating next steps. During its Aug. 7 meeting, the board is expected to discuss three potential options in executive session:
Appoint Andres Delgado as the new Airport Manager. While a formal appointment is not expected at the Aug. 7 meeting, the board may choose to authorize the Human Resources and Risk Management director to explore the terms of a conditional offer to Delgado, pending full board approval.
Reengage ADK Executive Recruitment to reach out to additional candidates who previously expressed interest but did not complete the screening process. This would allow for a renewed round of interviews and potentially reopen the finalist phase.
Repost the position and accept new applications. ADK has offered to conduct a second round of recruitment for a reduced fee of $4,000 — down from the original $6,000 — or the board could opt to manage the posting through the City and Borough of Juneau’s internal recruitment process.
Should the board decide to pursue additional recruitment, or if Delgado declines an offer, the board would also need to appoint a new interim airport manager, as Palmer has indicated he will not remain in the role beyond his original term.
The Airport Board is expected to provide direction on the next steps at the Aug. 7 meeting.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. continued his tour through Alaska Wednesday with Sen. Dan Sullivan and Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
Kennedy visited the federally funded Chief Andrew Isaac Health Center in Fairbanks, meeting with tribal leaders and touring the Native healthcare facility. He was joined by Alaska’s US Senators Dan Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski.
Outside the building and along the road, tensions rose as dueling groups gathered. Protesters who are anti-Kennedy shouted “Vaccines save lives!” in opposition to he health secretary’s cancellation of funding for research promoting the controversial mRNA vaccines, which have been linked to cases of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the sac surrounding the heart), particularly in male teens.
One man was detained by officers after making a move toward Kennedy that appeared aggressive. The man had been yelling about genocide in Palestine.
Meanwhile, pro-Trump demonstrators waved American and Trump flags. One Trump supporter, an older woman with a service dog, returned to her car to find a window smashed out.
A window in a vehicle belonging to a Trump rally participant was smashed.
Anti-Trump protesters seen near the car of a Trump supporter that had the window smashed just before the incident in Fairbanks.
A handful of protesters were on hand to protest the arrival of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Alaska senators.
This scene mirrored Kennedy’s stop in Anchorage on Tuesday, where similar liberal protesters greeted him.
Pro-Trump rally was also part of the day in Fairbanks.
Following the Fairbanks clinic visit, Kennedy, Sullivan, and Murkowski took questions from the press. Kennedy said the trip was focused on listening to tribal health leaders and understanding the challenges of healthcare delivery in remote communities.
