NOTN- State transportation officials say that the Back Loop Bridge will be closed to all traffic during the anticipated Glacier Lake outburst flood also known as GLOF, while Brotherhood Bridge will remain open to vehicles but closed to pedestrians for safety.
“Much like last year, we’re going to close the bridge that’s on Back Loop when the gauge level on Mendenhall Lake hits 12 feet, or at 8:30 at night if it’s predicted to go over 12 feet overnight.” Said Department of Transportation Incident Commander Travis Eckhoff, “Folks will remember last year during the flood we had some damage to an approach that totally washed the approach out on the east side of the bridge. And so, just for everyone’s safety, we’re going to go ahead and close that bridge once it hits 12 feet, and we’ll open it back up once our engineers have had a chance to go and inspect the bridge to make sure everything’s okay.”
Engineers will inspect the bridge before reopening it once water levels subside.
Eckhoff urged residents to heed evacuation boundaries, avoid driving through floodwater and sign up for alerts at 511alaska.gov and with the City and Borough of Juneau.
Drone flights will also monitor infrastructure during the event.
“When the basin releases we’ll be putting out a temporary flight restriction for a specific area. So we advise you don’t fly your drones in that area. We’ll be posting that on our socials. There will be drones in the sky, monitoring important infrastructure and HESCO barriers.” Echkoff said.
The U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — For the second time in as many weeks, a War Powers Resolution aimed at curbing President Donald Trump’s war with Iran failed to pass the U.S. Senate Thursday.
The vote breakdown, 49-50, fell along familiar lines as previous War Powers votes, with Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine supporting the measure.
Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania voted no, as he’s done in just over a dozen similar measures.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., continues to be absent while in medical rehab.
A similar War Powers Resolution to rein in Trump’s military conflict in Iran passed in the U.S. House on July 23, but failed in the Senate — both led by Republican majorities.
War heats up
The regional war reignited yet again this week after Trump ordered retaliatory strikes Tuesday, along with Saudi Arabia’s armed forces, on Iran-backed militias in eastern Iraq. The strikes on “multiple terrorist logistics and weapons sites” were in response to Iranian drone attacks on U.S. forces in the region, according to U.S. Central Command.
Trump told Fox News on Wednesday, “We are going to beat the f—– s—- out of them.”
The United States launched a “heavy wave” of strikes on Iranian military sites beginning at 10 p.m. Eastern Wednesday “in response to yesterday’s attempted missile attacks on U.S. forces,” according to U.S. Central Command.
The cost of oil jumped to just over $90 a barrel Wednesday in response to renewed fighting and a continued chokehold on traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, where one-fifth of the world’s petroleum traveled prior to the U.S. and Israel launching the war in late February.
This means Americans are again paying more for fuel. According to AAA, the U.S. national average for a gallon of regular gasoline rose to $4.09 Thursday.
Before the volley of strikes began again, Trump had announced a pause, after the U.S. and Iran traded rocket fire for nearly two weeks following the collapse of ceasefire talks.
Service members killed
The president on July 22 attended the dignified transfer, in which the remains of soldiers are transferred from an aircraft arriving from the theater of operations back to the United States, for four U.S. service members killed as a result of the conflict with Iran.
Three of the service members were killed July 17 and July 18 in an Iranian strike at a U.S. airbase in Jordan, and a fourth was killed during a controlled detonation of an Iranian drone July 19 at a U.S. base in Iraq.
The most recent deaths of U.S. soldiers in the conflict bring the total killed to 18, while the number of injured increased to 653.
But the Pentagon does not recognize the four most recent deaths among those in the Iran war, dubbed by the administration as Operation Epic Fury.
Instead, the Pentagon is categorizing the latest deaths and injuries as casualties of “overseas operations starting July 7, 2026.”
The administration is asking Congress for an additional $67 billion for the war in Iran. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Senate appropriators July 21 that the war has already cost $37.5 billion.
Elections workers double-check the results of Alaska's Aug. 16, 2022 primary election during a meeting of the state review board on Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2022 at the Alaska Division of Elections in Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Elections workers double-check the results of Alaska’s Aug. 16, 2022 primary election during a meeting of the state review board on Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2022 at the Alaska Division of Elections in Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Early, in-person voting begins Monday for Alaska’s Aug. 18 state primary election, and thousands of voters have already cast absentee ballots by mail.
Regardless of when — or how — Alaskans vote, ballots will be counted starting on election day, according to a preliminary schedule provided by the Alaska Division of Elections.
Polls close at 8 p.m. Alaska Daylight Time, and the division expects to have the first preliminary results “between 8:45 p.m. and 9 p.m.”
“There are additional results updates that follow but how many or at what time they will be published will vary,” the division said in an information packet given to reporters.
The final unofficial tally will take place Aug. 28, 10 days after election day, and the division expects to certify official results by Aug. 31.
Any recounts must be requested by Sept. 5, and any lawsuit challenging a result must be filed by Sept. 10.
Timeline of the 2026 primary election
Aug. 3 – Early voting begins in person.
Aug. 11 – Elections officials begin ID checks on absentee ballot envelopes. Absentee votes in those envelopes are not counted until at least Aug. 18.
Aug. 18 – Election day. Polls open across the state.
Late Aug. 18 – Absentee ballots begin to be counted, in-person votes are counted.
9 p.m. Aug. 18 – First results expected online.
Early morning Aug. 19 – final election day results expected online.
Aug. 25 – Absentee votes counted to this point are added to the unofficial tally.
Aug. 28 – Final unofficial results available online.
Aug. 31 – Official results certified. Deadline for final four candidates to withdraw from the November election.
Sept. 5 – Deadline to request recounts.
Sept. 10 – Deadline to challenge election results in court.
Under Alaska’s election system, voters pick one candidate for each race in the primary election. The top four vote-getters, regardless of political party, advance to the general election in November. If there are four or fewer candidates in a race, all advance to the general election.
In practice since 2022, lower-finishing Republican candidates have preferred to withdraw after the primary rather than compete against another Republican.
The Valley Republican Women, a notable group from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, are running ads this year to promote the strategy. Those ads urge Republicans to “consolidate the vote” and “don’t split the field.”
In races with many competitors, a withdrawn candidate will be replaced by another until there are four options on the ballot or no more replacements are available. Any replacements may themselves withdraw.
The deadline to withdraw after the primary is Aug. 31.
Normally, ballots cast in person are counted on election day itself. Since 2020, votes cast in person have leaned Republican.
It’s common for some rural Alaska precincts to not report results on election night itself.
Two years ago, for example, only 387 of 403 precincts had reported results by 1 a.m. Wednesday, the day after election day. Four years ago, four precincts needed more than four days to report results from election day.
Historically, some rural precincts have had staffing problems that prevented them from opening on election day. In 2024’s primary, two precincts failed to open, and one opened only in the afternoon. In 2022, two precincts failed to open. In both 2024 and 2022, voters in the affected places were able to cast absentee ballots instead.
Absentee ballots are counted starting on election day, but that counting process extends until Aug. 28. Under Alaska law, absentee ballots — if they are postmarked on or before Aug. 18 — can reach the Division of Elections up to 10 days after election day and still be counted.
Counting an absentee ballot requires the division to first verify the identity information on the outside of the ballot envelope. That verification process starts Aug. 11, the division said, though the ballot inside the envelope won’t be counted until at least election day.
The verification process continues after election day, with ballots added to the tally in batches. The division expects to update results on Aug. 25 and again on Aug. 28, with additional updates possible between those two dates.
A sample ballot seen at the headquarters of the Alaska Division of Elections on Thursday, July 9, 2026, shows the language for the campaign finance ballot measure. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
On Aug. 18, Alaskans will be asked if they want to change the way the state’s elections operate, but not in the way that most voters are thinking.
The sole ballot measure before voters in the primary election would reimpose limits on the amount of money that individuals and groups can donate to political candidates in state elections.
A well-funded campaign to repeal the state’s system of open primaries and a ranked choice general election — known as Ballot Measure 2 — won’t be voted on until November.
The measure on the ballot in August would prohibit political donors from giving a candidate more than $2,000 per election. Groups would be allowed to give no more than $4,000 per candidate per election.
Both limits would be adjusted for inflation every 10 years, and they would only apply to state-level elections — for governor, state House and state Senate.
Federal elections, those for President, U.S. Senate and U.S. House, operate under different limits enshrined in federal law.
In the state’s official election pamphlet, the chairs of the group — former state attorney general Bruce Botelho; Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage; dog musher David Monson — state their case, explaining that they view campaign donation limits as “guardrails” on democracy.
“Without these guardrails, wealthy individuals and special interests can have an oversized impact and shift a candidate’s focus away from the constituents they are supposed to serve,” they wrote.
Speaking in a public hearing on Monday, Schrage said, “When a single donor can spend hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars on a single candidate, it creates a dangerous environment. It not only grants undue influence to the ultra-wealthy, but it also exposes our elected officials to the risk and perception of quid pro quo corruption.”
In the pamphlet, three Republicans, all former legislators, argue against the initiative.
“Campaign contributions are a form of political speech. To limit someone’s ability to support a candidate is to limit their voice in the democratic process,” said former Rep. Ben Carpenter, R-Nikiski; former Sen. David Wilson, R-Wasilla; and former Rep. Liz Vazquez, R-Anchorage.
In addition, imposing limits on outside donations gives an advantage to candidates who are wealthy enough to pay for their own campaigns, they said.
In Monday’s hearing, another Republican, Amy Demboski, spoke in support of their position.
“Reintroducing new caps creates a pay-to-play barrier where only those who already possess significant name recognition can thrive, effectively silencing the grassroots support necessary for insurgent or unconventional candidates,” she said.
The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that it is unconstitutional to limit the amount of money that a candidate may spend on their own campaign.
Ballot Measure 1 also does not limit the amount of money that a third-party group can independently spend to support or oppose a candidate. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision, known as Citizens United, allows unlimited amounts of spending by groups that don’t coordinate directly with candidates.
Also this year, the Supreme Court ruled that political parties may spend unlimited amounts of money in coordination with federal candidates. That decision may affect state races in the future.
Ballot Measure 1 is the consequence of a lengthy and successful legal challenge by a group of Republicans inside and outside the state.
Until 2021, Alaska had some of America’s lowest limits on financial donations to candidates — $500 per candidate, per year. Those were installed by a 2006 ballot measure that passed with the support of 73% of participating voters.
But a group of Republicans challenged the legality of those limits in 2015, arguing that they unduly restricted free speech. The case was appealed and remanded multiple times before a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the limits in July 2021.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy declined to appeal the issue further, and the limits were removed ahead of Dunleavy’s successful re-election campaign the following year.
In 2022 and 2024, state lawmakers attempted but failed to pass a bill reimposing limits. Legislators this year passed a bill identical to Ballot Measure 1, but Gov. Mike Dunleavy vetoed that bill.
In his veto statement, the governor said the new limits “would radically tilt in the favor of the wealthy when it comes to elected office.”
The lack of limits has had its biggest effect on Alaska’s races for governor. In 2022, all three leading candidates — Dunleavy, independent Bill Walker and Democratic candidate Les Gara — recorded large contributions from individual donors.
Most of the other 15 candidates in the governor race, including most of the Republicans, have taken similarly large donations, but not to the extent that the leading Democrats have.
The Republican candidate who has raised the most money, podiatrist Matt Heilala, has spent more than $1.25 million on his own campaign. Click Bishop, a Republican who has raised a middling amount of money, is also being boosted by a large union-funded third-party group. Those latter types of spending would not be affected by Ballot Measure 1.
A sample ballot seen at the headquarters of the Alaska Division of Elections on Thursday, July 9, 2026, shows the language for the campaign finance ballot measure. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
On Aug. 18, Alaskans will be asked if they want to change the way the state’s elections operate, but not in the way that most voters are thinking.
The sole ballot measure before voters in the primary election would reimpose limits on the amount of money that individuals and groups can donate to political candidates in state elections.
A well-funded campaign to repeal the state’s system of open primaries and a ranked choice general election — known as Ballot Measure 2 — won’t be voted on until November.
The measure on the ballot in August would prohibit political donors from giving a candidate more than $2,000 per election. Groups would be allowed to give no more than $4,000 per candidate per election.
Both limits would be adjusted for inflation every 10 years, and they would only apply to state-level elections — for governor, state House and state Senate.
In the state’s official election pamphlet, the chairs of the group — former state attorney general Bruce Botelho; Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage; dog musher David Monson — state their case, explaining that they view campaign donation limits as “guardrails” on democracy.
“Without these guardrails, wealthy individuals and special interests can have an oversized impact and shift a candidate’s focus away from the constituents they are supposed to serve,” they wrote.
Speaking in a public hearing on Monday, Schrage said, “When a single donor can spend hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars on a single candidate, it creates a dangerous environment. It not only grants undue influence to the ultra-wealthy, but it also exposes our elected officials to the risk and perception of quid pro quo corruption.”
In the pamphlet, three Republicans, all former legislators, argue against the initiative.
“Campaign contributions are a form of political speech. To limit someone’s ability to support a candidate is to limit their voice in the democratic process,” said former Rep. Ben Carpenter, R-Nikiski; former Sen. David Wilson, R-Wasilla; and former Rep. Liz Vazquez, R-Anchorage.
In addition, imposing limits on outside donations gives an advantage to candidates who are wealthy enough to pay for their own campaigns, they said.
In Monday’s hearing, another Republican, Amy Demboski, spoke in support of their position.
“Reintroducing new caps creates a pay-to-play barrier where only those who already possess significant name recognition can thrive, effectively silencing the grassroots support necessary for insurgent or unconventional candidates,” she said.
The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that it is unconstitutional to limit the amount of money that a candidate may spend on their own campaign.
Ballot Measure 1 also does not limit the amount of money that a third-party group can independently spend to support or oppose a candidate. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision, known as Citizens United, allows unlimited amounts of spending by groups that don’t coordinate directly with candidates.
Also this year, the Supreme Court ruled that political parties may spend unlimited amounts of money in coordination with federal candidates. That decision may affect state races in the future.
Ballot Measure 1 is the consequence of a lengthy and successful legal challenge by a group of Republicans inside and outside the state.
Until 2021, Alaska had some of America’s lowest limits on financial donations to candidates — $500 per candidate, per year. Those were installed by a 2006 ballot measure that passed with the support of 73% of participating voters.
But a group of Republicans challenged the legality of those limits in 2015, arguing that they unduly restricted free speech. The case was appealed and remanded multiple times before a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the limits in July 2021.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy declined to appeal the issue further, and the limits were removed ahead of Dunleavy’s successful re-election campaign the following year.
In 2022 and 2024, state lawmakers attempted but failed to pass a bill reimposing limits. Legislators this year passed a bill identical to Ballot Measure 1, but Gov. Mike Dunleavy vetoed that bill.
In his veto statement, the governor said the new limits “would radically tilt in the favor of the wealthy when it comes to elected office.”
The lack of limits has had its biggest effect on Alaska’s races for governor. In 2022, all three leading candidates — Dunleavy, independent Bill Walker and Democratic candidate Les Gara — recorded large contributions from individual donors.
Most of the other 15 candidates in the governor race, including most of the Republicans, have taken similarly large donations, but not to the extent that the leading Democrats have.
The Republican candidate who has raised the most money, podiatrist Matt Heilala, has spent more than $1.25 million on his own campaign. Click Bishop, a Republican who has raised a middling amount of money, is also being boosted by a large union-funded third-party group. Those latter types of spending would not be affected by Ballot Measure 1.
You’ll love this like a love song.
Benny Blanco just dropped his latest single, “Te Olvido (La La),” an upbeat Latin single with wife Selena Gomez and Becky G from his upcoming album Hermoso. And… E! Online (US) – Top Stories
This week, members of the Senate staged a would-be show trial of Dr. Anthony Fauci, putting on a performance for the cameras of asking him “tough” questions.
Dr. Fauci’s name in the news apparently had Nicki Minaj thinking back to her own famously unhinged vaccine skepticism in 2021.
At the time. the head of the US COVID-19 pandemic response had gently cautioned her against promoting vaccine hesitancy.
Five years later, the Trump collaborator is openly posting a fantasy about him suffering, while blaming him for … what, exactly? Let’s take a look.
Nicki Minaj attends the Treasury Department’s Trump Accounts Summit on January 28, 2026. (Photo Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images)
‘The collective pain & long term ramifications …’
In a tweet on Thursday, July 30, Minaj took aim at Dr. Fauci alongside a hideous slop portrayal of him as a ’90s teen.
“Feeding tubes will be his portion,” she fantasized. “He will lose the ability to speak.”
Minaj continued: “& then & only then will he feel the collective pain & long term ramifications he caused to [newborns], young children who are still trying to become acclimated into society & schools.”
Her list went on: “Traumatized pregnant women who couldn’t even have family in the delivery rooms & visits, the elderly who died alone & afraid, young ppl still struggling w/mental health, suicide, people turned away from hospitals at their most vulnerable moments.”
Shifting into rambling mode, Minaj wrote: “the trust that is now gone from innocent people toward their governments forever.”
On July 30, 2026, Nicki Minaj seemed to blame Dr. Anthony Fauci for a lot of things that seem like they were beyond his, perhaps anyone’s, control in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Image Credit: twitter)
She complained about “billions of stolen money from hard working tax payers via con artists.”
Minaj alleged: “I’ve been struggling to find the humor in any of this.”
Her tweet concluded: “God bless everyone who made it to the other side. You’re stronger than you thought. God is in control.”
Some of Minaj’s tweet is a little difficult to parse.
However, it appears that she is saying that COVID restrictions during the final year of Trump’s first term were more destructive than the deadly virus that, even with restrictions, killed over 9 million people and disabled countless more.
Attempting to refer to constructing an Ark, as if to escape a mythical flood, Nicki Minaj suggests vaccine hesitancy regarding booster shots. Great. (Image Credit: twitter)
She meant to write ‘Nicki’s Ark’
In a follow-up tweet, Minaj once again expressed her vaccine hesitancy, this time by misspelling the work “ark” repeatedly.
“Once they started telling yall to get a new booster shot every 5 to 10 business days like it was the new Jordans droppin?!?!!!!!!! That’s when I knew,” she wrote.
“I went in my backyard & started building the Arc. Nicki’s Arc,” Minaj wrote. “I know the Lord won’t send another flood but still.”
Most people are aware a virus that is allowed to mutate uncontrollably will require additional vaccines to help the immune system recognize and target the virus more quickly. Old antibodies might not immediately target a new version of the virus.
Minaj, who once claimed that the COVID-19 vaccine had caused a man’s testicles to swell to extreme size and thus canceled his wedding (an investigation by the government found that no such event took place), does not seem to understand the concept.
So, what’s going on with her?
Some people believe that Minaj has cynically sold her soul to the Trump regime, endorsing fascism and coddling white supremacy in exchange for various political favors.
Others believe that she simply feels entitled to government responsiveness, blaming California Governor Gavin Newsom for not doing enough to halt harassment, including SWATting, that targeted her home, setting her down a weird downward spiral into conservatism.
There is also the theory that it simply began with her weird reaction to COVID. There are definitely some people who disconnected from reality over pandemic fears and had kneejerk contrarian reactions to the idea that they should bear any inconvenience for the safety and protection of others.
But, as Matt Bernstein and his guests suggest in the video above, perhaps the most likely explanation is that Minaj was, deep down, always like this. That she spent years semi-pretending to be halfway decent on the surface, and has dropped the facade.
Before joining dynasties, Sadie Robertson and Christian Huff established some ground rules.
The 29-year-old shared that she and her husband practiced abstinence before their marriage, explaining… E! Online (US) – Top Stories
Kim Kardashian knows middle daughters have to stick together.
That’s why the SKIMS founder shared a super sweet glimpse into bonding time with her 8-year-old daughter Chicago and sister Kourtney… E! Online (US) – Top Stories
During a recent appearance on The Jamie Kern Lima Show, Meghan Markle made a passing remark about Prince Harry’s military service.
And because everything she does is subject to intense scrutiny and criticism, the Duchess of Sussex might be regretting those remarks today.
The topic came up when Meghan reflected on getting through life’s difficult moments by recalling advice her husband once shared with her.
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, during a forum about digital responsibility at EAN University during a visit around Colombia on August 15, 2024 in Bogota, Colombia. (Photo by Diego Cuevas/Getty Images)
“But you know, he was a helicopter pilot in the British Army for 10 years,” Meghan said (via Radar Online).
“And sometimes, on really hard days, he said, ‘Hey, but my love, you know, even if there’s a storm happening, above the storm the sun’s always shining.’”
The remark quickly caught the attention of royal watchers, who argued that Meghan’s description blurred the line between Harry’s overall military service and the years he actually spent flying helicopters.
To be clear, there is no dispute that Harry served in the British Army for roughly a decade.
He entered the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 2005 and remained in military service until 2015, eventually leaving with the rank of Captain.
However, his aviation career began several years after he enlisted.
Harry started formal helicopter flight training in 2009, earned his wings in 2010, qualified as an Apache co-pilot gunner in 2012, and later became an Apache Aircraft Commander in 2013.
He flew operational missions during his second deployment to Afghanistan before transitioning to a desk assignment in 2014.
Critics therefore argued that describing him as a helicopter pilot for the entirety of his 10-year military career was inaccurate.
The interview sparked debate online, with several commenters insisting Meghan had exaggerated Harry’s credentials.
One Reddit user wrote, “He did not serve as a pilot for 10 years because in his earlier years of service he hadn’t done that training.”
Another added that Harry “served for 10 years in the Army, not as a helicopter pilot.”
One commenter even went so far as to accuse Meghan of “stolen valor.”
Another person claimed, “Suspicious. I don’t think he was allowed to fly on his own, only as a co-pilot. And he doesn’t seem to have a license now. We never heard of him flying after the military like William,”
Others suggested the statement was likely a simple mix-up between the length of Harry’s military service and the years he spent flying military helicopters.
Harry has long described his decade in the Army as one of the most meaningful periods of his life.
The Duke of Sussex completed two deployments to Afghanistan, although only the second came after he had qualified to fly Apache helicopters. His military experience has remained central to much of his charitable work since leaving royal duties, including his continued involvement with the Invictus Games.
Neither Meghan nor Harry has publicly addressed the criticism surrounding her remarks.
You’ll love this like a love song.
Before joining dynasties, Sadie Robertson and Christian Huff established some ground rules. 
Kim Kardashian knows middle daughters have to stick together. 