Category: Alaska News

In the days leading up to Alaska’s primary election, two super PACs have poured nearly $2 million into the U.S. Senate race.

The twist: Alaska’s unusual election format is likely to negate the spending campaigns’ efforts to tear support away from the front-runners.

With Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan and Democratic former Rep. Mary Peltola comfortably leading in both fundraising and polls ahead of the Aug. 18 primary, outside groups are directing much of their cash toward secondary candidates in an apparent attempt to manipulate Alaska’s top-four ranked-choice system before the general election in November.

“People are kind of trying to pull the wool over their eyes,” said Deb Otis, the senior director of research and policy at FairVote, a nonprofit that advocates for ranked-choice voting and proportional representation.

Outside groups have become “pretty sophisticated” in the level of “gamesmanship” they deploy, she said. While those tactics often work in states with conventional election formats, Alaska’s system is built differently and may be harder to exploit.

“In most elections around the country, it really is effective,” Otis told OpenSecrets. “If you can prop up a lesser known candidate, they really can take away votes and deny the election to a front-runner. But with ranked-choice voting, when voters get a backup choice, the possibility to alter the outcomes is much narrower, so I think they’ll be disappointed with the impact here.”

All of the spending by the two super PACs took place in July and August, after the Federal Election Commission’s pre-primary reporting cutoff. And because Alaska’s anti-dark-money law doesn’t apply to federal races, voters won’t learn the original sources of most of that money until well after ballots are cast – if ever.

Fair Deal Alaska formed July 28 and within days began spending, dumping more than $768,000 into the race through Aug. 8. Most was spent in support of two frequent candidates from out of state: the Green Party’s Richard Grayson – who told OpenSecrets that running for public office is merely a “hobby” – and Democrat Carol Hafner.

Another super PAC, Right For Alaska, poured $1.2 million into the race between July 30 and Aug. 7, with much of it backing two other minor candidates.

“I think it’s a waste of money,” said Grayson, the beneficiary of more than $300,000 in outside spending by Fair Deal Alaska. Citing rules that prevent super PACs and candidates from coordinating, he added, “I can’t call them and tell them to stop it.”

In a clear sign of their broader strategic motives, Fair Deal Alaska also spent nearly $152,000 on negative ads opposing Peltola while Right For Alaska spent nearly $574,000 to oppose Sullivan. The race, which Democrats view as central to their aim of claiming control of the Senate, is rated as a toss-up by the Cook Political Report.

“I wonder if these tactics are just being carried over from organizations that have worked in other states, where this is a more well-established tactic,” Otis said.

None of the candidates supported by those super PACs reported any significant fundraising activity to the FEC. That leaves the money race dominated by the two heavyweights: Peltola raised $18.5 million and held $4.6 million in cash on hand, while Sullivan took in $11.7 million with a war chest of nearly $7.3 million, according to pre-primary filings through July 29.

How top-four voting complicates super PAC strategy

Alaska operates under a nonpartisan top-four system, placing all primary candidates on a single ballot regardless of party affiliation. The top four advance to the general election, which uses ranked-choice voting. In that system, voters rank candidates by preference. If no candidate earns an immediate majority, the lowest-performing candidate is eliminated and that person’s votes are redistributed to the voters’ next choice until a candidate clears the majority threshold.

The super PAC surge is intended to foster strategic vote-splitting. The more candidates on the ballot who appeal to the same ideological base, the greater the potential to dilute a front-runner’s support.

“The Republicans – I don’t guess, I know – they would like to see Sen. Sullivan on the ballot with Mary Peltola and two Democrats or two liberals,” Grayson said.

Such a maneuver typically doesn’t work as well in a ranked-choice system, Otis said.

“If one of these lesser-known candidates makes it into the top-four candidates and goes on to the general election, it looks like the hope here is that those lesser-known candidates will siphon votes away from one of the front-runners,” she said.

But, Otis continued, voters who place an underdog No. 1 on their ballots tend to favor a more prominent candidate as a second or third choice.

“Even if you do get your candidate into the general election, and you get some substantial share of voters to vote for them, most of those voters will rank a front-runner as a backup choice,” she added. “You’re not taking votes away in the same way that gamers can do in other states.”

Late spending keeps donors hidden

That hasn’t stopped the super PACs from pouring in big bucks in a relatively short period of time: During the 10-day window between July 30 and Aug. 8, Fair Deal Alaska and Right For Alaska combined to spend nearly $2 million.

Fair Deal Alaska began its spending spree two days after it formed as a quarterly filer with the Federal Election Commission. That timeline matters. Under FEC rules, quarterly filers must submit a pre-primary report covering spending through the 20th day before the primary that wasn’t included in the previous quarterly report.

For the Aug. 18 Alaska primary, the 20-day cutoff was July 29 – the day before the group’s first expenditure. While the super PAC must file 24-hour reports for its independent expenditures that aggregate $1,000 or more after that day, it will not have to identify its funders until well after the election.

And while state law requires disclosure of the “true source” of contributions greater than $2,000 within 24 hours, that requirement does not apply to federal races, which operate under FEC rules.

“It certainly is [timed] so they don’t have to release their donors ahead of the election,” Otis said.

Fair Deal Alaska is headquartered in a Wasilla office building that also houses a gun shop and two medical training facilities. A sign in a window visible on Google Street View advertises virtual office and mail services. OpenSecrets reached out to the super PAC’s treasurer and custodian of records, Sam Praytor, but did not immediately receive a response.

A bit more information exists about the money behind the other super PAC spending heavily on the race’s underdogs: Right For Alaska formed March 23 and is based in Hudson, Wisconsin. Its only disclosed contribution so far is a $100,000 donation on March 30 from William Harris, a retiree in Lexington, Mass. The address Harris listed in FEC records matches one used by the William H. Harris Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that supports higher education and medical research and disbursed $3.6 million in 2024, IRS filings show. OpenSecrets reached out to the super PAC’s treasurer, Thomas Datwyler, and to the email address listed in the foundation’s IRS filing for comment but did not immediately receive responses from either. Datwyler has served in a similar role for numerous other political entities, has been fined thousands of dollars for breaking FEC rules and was accused of being the “shadow treasurer” for the re-election bid for former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.). FEC records also show a Thomas Datwyler of Hudson, Wisconsin, as a frequent donor to Republican-aligned groups.

Of Right For Alaska’s $1.2 million in spending through Aug. 7, nearly $574,000 went to oppose Sullivan with $410,000 backing Republican Gerald Heikes and nearly $219,000 to support Earl “Skip” Southworth of the Alaskan Party – the successor to the right-leaning Alaskan Independence Party. An Earl Southworth of Dutch Harbor, Alaska, donated to Democratic nominee Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign in 2024 and to Democratic state Sen. Forrest Dunbar a decade earlier, FEC records show. OpenSecrets reached out to Heikes and Southworth but did not immediately receive responses from either.

Fair Deal Alaska started spending on July 30, pouring roughly $17,000 into mailers supporting Grayson and Hafner along with $34,000 into those opposing Peltola. Its largest expenditures came the next day: a $275,000 investment in media placement and production that consisted of $137,500 to back both Grayson and Hafner. In a statement to OpenSecrets, Hafner said she was “totally unaware” of any super PAC interest in her candidacy prior to the spending, adding that she has no involvement in its messaging, which she hypothesized was taken from her website without her knowledge.

Grayson said he has fielded calls from residents blaming him for mailers sent by Fair Deal Alaska, with one leaving a voicemail demanding removal from his mailing list “because my postcard has lies in it.”

He also shared a video ad to YouTube produced by the group that includes an image of him with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) alongside text saying he “will stand with Bernie and AOC” followed by an image of a red X covering President Donald Trump’s face. He characterized it as a “bizarre AI video ad” from a “mysterious” super PAC.

“There’s no false claims in it,” Grayson said. “The ad was not false advertising. I guess it’s the kind of advertising I would put if I were a serious candidate and had money.”

This article was originally published by OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. View the original article.

The post Why super PACs are suddenly spending big on Alaska’s US Senate underdogs appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.

In the days leading up to Alaska’s primary election, two super PACs have poured nearly $2 million into the U.S. Senate race.

The twist: Alaska’s unusual election format is likely to negate the spending campaigns’ efforts to tear support away from the front-runners.

With Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan and Democratic former Rep. Mary Peltola comfortably leading in both fundraising and polls ahead of the Aug. 18 primary, outside groups are directing much of their cash toward secondary candidates in an apparent attempt to manipulate Alaska’s top-four ranked-choice system before the general election in November.

“People are kind of trying to pull the wool over their eyes,” said Deb Otis, the senior director of research and policy at FairVote, a nonprofit that advocates for ranked-choice voting and proportional representation.

Outside groups have become “pretty sophisticated” in the level of “gamesmanship” they deploy, she said. While those tactics often work in states with conventional election formats, Alaska’s system is built differently and may be harder to exploit.

“In most elections around the country, it really is effective,” Otis told OpenSecrets. “If you can prop up a lesser known candidate, they really can take away votes and deny the election to a front-runner. But with ranked-choice voting, when voters get a backup choice, the possibility to alter the outcomes is much narrower, so I think they’ll be disappointed with the impact here.”

All of the spending by the two super PACs took place in July and August, after the Federal Election Commission’s pre-primary reporting cutoff. And because Alaska’s anti-dark-money law doesn’t apply to federal races, voters won’t learn the original sources of most of that money until well after ballots are cast – if ever.

Fair Deal Alaska formed July 28 and within days began spending, dumping more than $768,000 into the race through Aug. 8. Most was spent in support of two frequent candidates from out of state: the Green Party’s Richard Grayson – who told OpenSecrets that running for public office is merely a “hobby” – and Democrat Carol Hafner.

Another super PAC, Right For Alaska, poured $1.2 million into the race between July 30 and Aug. 7, with much of it backing two other minor candidates.

“I think it’s a waste of money,” said Grayson, the beneficiary of more than $300,000 in outside spending by Fair Deal Alaska. Citing rules that prevent super PACs and candidates from coordinating, he added, “I can’t call them and tell them to stop it.”

In a clear sign of their broader strategic motives, Fair Deal Alaska also spent nearly $152,000 on negative ads opposing Peltola while Right For Alaska spent nearly $574,000 to oppose Sullivan. The race, which Democrats view as central to their aim of claiming control of the Senate, is rated as a toss-up by the Cook Political Report.

“I wonder if these tactics are just being carried over from organizations that have worked in other states, where this is a more well-established tactic,” Otis said.

None of the candidates supported by those super PACs reported any significant fundraising activity to the FEC. That leaves the money race dominated by the two heavyweights: Peltola raised $18.5 million and held $4.6 million in cash on hand, while Sullivan took in $11.7 million with a war chest of nearly $7.3 million, according to pre-primary filings through July 29.

How top-four voting complicates super PAC strategy

Alaska operates under a nonpartisan top-four system, placing all primary candidates on a single ballot regardless of party affiliation. The top four advance to the general election, which uses ranked-choice voting. In that system, voters rank candidates by preference. If no candidate earns an immediate majority, the lowest-performing candidate is eliminated and that person’s votes are redistributed to the voters’ next choice until a candidate clears the majority threshold.

The super PAC surge is intended to foster strategic vote-splitting. The more candidates on the ballot who appeal to the same ideological base, the greater the potential to dilute a front-runner’s support.

“The Republicans – I don’t guess, I know – they would like to see Sen. Sullivan on the ballot with Mary Peltola and two Democrats or two liberals,” Grayson said.

Such a maneuver typically doesn’t work as well in a ranked-choice system, Otis said.

“If one of these lesser-known candidates makes it into the top-four candidates and goes on to the general election, it looks like the hope here is that those lesser-known candidates will siphon votes away from one of the front-runners,” she said.

But, Otis continued, voters who place an underdog No. 1 on their ballots tend to favor a more prominent candidate as a second or third choice.

“Even if you do get your candidate into the general election, and you get some substantial share of voters to vote for them, most of those voters will rank a front-runner as a backup choice,” she added. “You’re not taking votes away in the same way that gamers can do in other states.”

Late spending keeps donors hidden

That hasn’t stopped the super PACs from pouring in big bucks in a relatively short period of time: During the 10-day window between July 30 and Aug. 8, Fair Deal Alaska and Right For Alaska combined to spend nearly $2 million.

Fair Deal Alaska began its spending spree two days after it formed as a quarterly filer with the Federal Election Commission. That timeline matters. Under FEC rules, quarterly filers must submit a pre-primary report covering spending through the 20th day before the primary that wasn’t included in the previous quarterly report.

For the Aug. 18 Alaska primary, the 20-day cutoff was July 29 – the day before the group’s first expenditure. While the super PAC must file 24-hour reports for its independent expenditures that aggregate $1,000 or more after that day, it will not have to identify its funders until well after the election.

And while state law requires disclosure of the “true source” of contributions greater than $2,000 within 24 hours, that requirement does not apply to federal races, which operate under FEC rules.

“It certainly is [timed] so they don’t have to release their donors ahead of the election,” Otis said.

Fair Deal Alaska is headquartered in a Wasilla office building that also houses a gun shop and two medical training facilities. A sign in a window visible on Google Street View advertises virtual office and mail services. OpenSecrets reached out to the super PAC’s treasurer and custodian of records, Sam Praytor, but did not immediately receive a response.

A bit more information exists about the money behind the other super PAC spending heavily on the race’s underdogs: Right For Alaska formed March 23 and is based in Hudson, Wisconsin. Its only disclosed contribution so far is a $100,000 donation on March 30 from William Harris, a retiree in Lexington, Mass. The address Harris listed in FEC records matches one used by the William H. Harris Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that supports higher education and medical research and disbursed $3.6 million in 2024, IRS filings show. OpenSecrets reached out to the super PAC’s treasurer, Thomas Datwyler, and to the email address listed in the foundation’s IRS filing for comment but did not immediately receive responses from either. Datwyler has served in a similar role for numerous other political entities, has been fined thousands of dollars for breaking FEC rules and was accused of being the “shadow treasurer” for the re-election bid for former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.). FEC records also show a Thomas Datwyler of Hudson, Wisconsin, as a frequent donor to Republican-aligned groups.

Of Right For Alaska’s $1.2 million in spending through Aug. 7, nearly $574,000 went to oppose Sullivan with $410,000 backing Republican Gerald Heikes and nearly $219,000 to support Earl “Skip” Southworth of the Alaskan Party – the successor to the right-leaning Alaskan Independence Party. An Earl Southworth of Dutch Harbor, Alaska, donated to Democratic nominee Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign in 2024 and to Democratic state Sen. Forrest Dunbar a decade earlier, FEC records show. OpenSecrets reached out to Heikes and Southworth but did not immediately receive responses from either.

Fair Deal Alaska started spending on July 30, pouring roughly $17,000 into mailers supporting Grayson and Hafner along with $34,000 into those opposing Peltola. Its largest expenditures came the next day: a $275,000 investment in media placement and production that consisted of $137,500 to back both Grayson and Hafner. In a statement to OpenSecrets, Hafner said she was “totally unaware” of any super PAC interest in her candidacy prior to the spending, adding that she has no involvement in its messaging, which she hypothesized was taken from her website without her knowledge.

Grayson said he has fielded calls from residents blaming him for mailers sent by Fair Deal Alaska, with one leaving a voicemail demanding removal from his mailing list “because my postcard has lies in it.”

He also shared a video ad to YouTube produced by the group that includes an image of him with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) alongside text saying he “will stand with Bernie and AOC” followed by an image of a red X covering President Donald Trump’s face. He characterized it as a “bizarre AI video ad” from a “mysterious” super PAC.

“There’s no false claims in it,” Grayson said. “The ad was not false advertising. I guess it’s the kind of advertising I would put if I were a serious candidate and had money.”

Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy allowed two bills to become law without his signature and vetoed two more on Monday, extending the record for the most vetoes in a two-year session of the Alaska Legislature.

The governor vetoed a bill that would have required the University of Alaska to provide fee notices to students, and his second veto canceled a bill that would have set Permanent Fund dividend-like requirements for resident hunting and fishing licenses.

Dunleavy permitted an omnibus agriculture bill that names the giant cabbage the Alaska state vegetable. He also permitted a local-government bill that mandates local school boards undergo budget and ethics training, and allows small communities to have smaller city councils.

In the 34th Legislature, Dunleavy has vetoed 31 of the 115 bills passed by lawmakers. Of those 115, only two have not yet been considered by the governor.

Dunleavy’s actions this week extend the record for the most vetoes by an Alaska governor during a single Legislature. The previous record, 25 vetoes, was set by Gov. Tony Knowles in the 19th Alaska State Legislature, which ran from 1995 to 1996.

Gov. Jay Hammond has the career vetoes record, with 74 in his eight years as governor. Knowles is second with 69. Gov. Bill Egan, who had 12 years in office, vetoed 56. Dunleavy’s career tally stands at 46. 

Veto cancels university fee notice mandate

House Bill 176, from Rep. Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks, and Sen. Robb Myers, R-North Pole, would have required the University of Alaska to give students notice of any fee increases and to provide students with itemized billing statements.

The university system testified that it viewed the bill as unnecessary because it could provide itemized statements under existing powers. The sponsors of the bill, however, said the university’s current actions do not provide sufficient information and do not give students enough advance notice.

In his veto message, the governor appeared to side with the university, saying that “while transparency for students is an important objective, the university should retain the discretion to determine the most effective and efficient methods for providing notices and billing information.”

No tougher requirements for resident hunting licenses

Dunleavy’s other veto negated House Bill 93, from Rep. Rebecca Himschoot, I-Sitka. Had that bill been enacted, it would have required people to live in the state for one year, with absences allowed for military service, college and medical treatment among other exemptions, before receiving a resident hunting, fishing or trapping license. 

The exemptions are those listed in the Permanent Fund dividend eligibility law. 

Current law permits someone to obtain a resident license if they have a home in Alaska and do not establish residency in another state. They do not need to physically live in the state but do need to declare their intent to return.

The change was intended to limit the abuse of resident hunting and fishing rights, but it drew opposition from pilots and snowbird residents who live in Alaska only seasonally.

In his veto message, Dunleavy said the PFD law was written for a “different purpose and may exclude otherwise bona fide Alaska residents such as military members, students, pilots, and seniors.”

Agriculture bill becomes law without governor’s signature

Under the Alaska Constitution, a bill becomes law if the governor takes no action on it after lawmakers send it to him.

That happened with Senate Bill 208, from Sen. Jesse Bjorkman, R-Nikiski. That bill reduces the preconditions for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to sell or lease state land for agricultural uses.

The House amended the bill to include two others — a bill regulating industrial hemp as agriculture rather than a controlled substance from Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake, and a bill declaring the giant green cabbage Alaska’s state vegetable, from Rep. DeLena Johnson, R-Palmer. 

Legislature, governor approve smaller city councils

The governor also allowed Senate Bill 143, from Sen. Robert Yundt, R-Wasilla, to become law without his signature.

As written by Yundt, the bill reduces the minimum size of city councils to three members in towns and villages with fewer than 1,000 residents. The previous limit was seven members. 

In addition, the bill allows boroughs and cities to elect school board members to terms longer or shorter than three years. Prior law limited school board terms to three years only.

The state House amended Yundt’s bill to add additional requirements. Newly elected school board members must take ethics and budget training provided by the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

The Trump administration has pulled federal support from the Arctic Report Card, an annual, peer-reviewed report that has been published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration since 2006.

NOAA will no longer provide administrative support for the report, though NOAA scientists and programs will continue to collect climate data, said a statement released by the agency on Tuesday.

“Coordination of the 2026 Arctic Report Card will not be facilitated through NOAA,” the statement said. “All data historically contributed by NOAA to the product will continue to be collected and will remain publicly available.”

“The Global Ocean Monitoring and Observing Arctic Research Program will continue to support observations, models and products that contribute to national security, weather prediction, safety of navigation, and the economic vitality of coastal communities,” the statement continued, naming one of NOAA’s programs.

The report card is typically released in mid-December and has been a regular NOAA service since the administration of former President George W. Bush.

It synthesizes peer-reviewed studies about Arctic conditions such as sea ice extent and thickness, air temperature, vegetation changes, glacial melt, marine productivity and the status of Arctic wildlife species. In recent years, the report has included special chapters on Indigenous knowledge and concerns.

The University of Alaska Fairbanks is a major contributor to the report. Rick Thoman, a scientist with UAF’s Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness, is one of the three main editors. 

In last year’s Arctic Report Card, about two-thirds of the chapters had lead or contributing authors from Alaska, usually from UAF but also from other Alaska-based institutions like the University of Alaska Anchorage, University of Alaska Southeast, the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island and the Alaska-based offices of the National Park Service and U.S. Geological Survey.

The NOAA decision leaves Arctic scientists and scientific institutions with a challenge of trying to put out their own annual report without NOAA’s support, said Melody Brown Burkins, a polar scientist and director of Dartmouth College’s Institute of Arctic Studies.

“The people coming together and talking about  the state of the Arctic, it’s too valuable to lose. So I think we are immediately moving to ‘How do we continue this.’ I don’t think we know yet,” said Burkins, who grew up in Fairbanks.

The Arctic Report Card has been a critical tool used to inform decisions and policies about the fastest-warming part of the world, she said. The NOAA support that put all the Arctic knowledge in one place in a publicly accessible way has “been pulled out from under our feet,” she said.

“But that doesn’t mean the planet stops changing and the Arctic has stopped changing and the science has stopped happening or the humans have stopped trying to live up there and have thriving lives,” she said.

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said NOAA’s withdrawal from the project is bad for Alaskans.

“For 20 years, the Arctic Report Card has helped Alaskans track the profound changes taking place across our state. Through this work, we have learned more about the tundra shifting from a carbon sink to a carbon source, thawing permafrost, changing sea ice, and coastal erosion, all of which have helped shape policies to support our fisheries and communities across the region,” Murkowski said in a statement.

“My understanding is that the 2026 report is already underway and may still continue under another sponsor. But this reflects a troubling federal trend that I am working to push back against: the undercutting of scientific research at a pivotal time for the Arctic. We need to invest more in the region, not less,” she said.

Also criticizing the change was Wáahlaal Gíidaak, vice president of Arctic and northern waters for the environmental group Ocean Conservancy.

“What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic. Its rapid warming has profound consequences for Arctic communities, ocean health and our global climate,” Gíidaak, who is from Southeast Alaska’s Prince of Wales Island, said in a statement. “We are already seeing the devastating impacts of extreme heat around the world, and those changes are even more pronounced in our ocean, which acts as a global heat sink. We cannot afford to look away from what is happening in the Arctic, or stop measuring it. We should continue to fund critical NOAA programs, such as the report card, which are essential to protecting our ocean and keeping Americans safe.”

Trump administration policies

The withdrawal of NOAA from the Arctic Report Card fits with a pattern of Trump administration policies limiting action to study and respond to climate change. Those policies have affected NOAA in particular.

Early on in President Trump’s second term, the administration took down NOAA’s climate change website, climate.gov.

Mass firings across government agencies hit NOAA functions, including those highly important to Alaska: weather forecasting and fisheries science.

The administration also ended the NOAA data deliveries to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, forcing the Colorado-based center to reduce services that track sea ice, snow and glacier conditions in Alaska and elsewhere.

There were earlier signs that the Trump administration was targeting the Arctic Report Card, so the news about this year’s report was not entirely unexpected, Burkins said.

“We’re in some respects not surprised but incredibly sad,” she said.

Last year, even though NOAA issued the Arctic Report Card on schedule, it declined to issue a press release announcing the event. And authors, at a news conference held at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, fielded questions about the possibility that the 2025 report would be the last one issued by NOAA.

President Donald Trump has referred to climate change as a “hoax,” and a key member of his administration has expressed particular animus toward NOAA because of its climate science.

Project 2025, the blueprint for a second Trump administration that the Heritage Foundation published prior to the 2024 election, recommended breaking up the agency, which is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The report blasted the climate-related science performed by NOAA’s six divisions, including the National Marine Fisheries Service and the National Weather Service

“Together, these form a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity,” Project 2025’s chapter on the Department of Commerce says.

Russel Vought, the lead author of Project 2025, now directs the Office of Management and Budget in the Trump White House.

Courts have blocked some of the Trump administration efforts to end climate science work, at least temporarily. For example, after the administration announced its intention to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a Colorado center that began operating in 1960 and has worked in partnership with NOAA, a federal judge in May issued an injunction that prevented such action, for now.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.

When dinner plans fall apart, these 17 ground beef recipes give you plenty of ways forward, including tacos, pasta, casseroles, chili, burgers, stuffed vegetables, nachos, and slow cooker meatloaf.The post 17 ground beef recipes to save a dinner that feels…

Familiar flavors are becoming the biggest bet in the food industry this year, and it is not by accident. Companies are digging through their own … Read moreThe post M&M’s and Lay’s just proved comfort food is a science, not…

When dinner needs one dish to do most of the work, these cozy casserole recipes bring baked pasta, beef, chicken, cheesy rice, vegetables, and layered mains that are substantial enough to lead the plate.The post 15 cozy casserole recipes worth…

Grabbing a bottle of wine before a dinner party can feel like a coin flip: bold red versus safe white, splurge versus bargain shelf. Psychologists … Read moreThe post New research links personality to wine, and the bottle you bring…

Post Content

To manipulate voter perception, political action committees are adopting names that signal the opposite political goals from what those groups intend. And research shows the strategy is working.