Federal Government

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced this summer it was moving to rescind the Roadless Rule, a 2001 law that protects large swaths of National Forest land from development. 

That includes more than half of the Tongass National Forest, where Juneau is located. On Saturday, more than 100 people gathered in the state capital to protest the move. 

It’s not the first time protections for the Tongass have been in question. The first Trump administration repealed protections for the Tongass National Forest specifically, which were reinstated by the Biden administration.

The USDA’s announcement called the Roadless Rule “burdensome, and outdated.” It said the rule threatens livelihoods and stifles economic growth. 

Alaska’s Congressional delegation unanimously supports the rollback of the Roadless Rule. U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski has said that most of the Tongass would still be protected without it — the parts of the forest that are already designated as wilderness. U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan said rescinding the rule would open the door for economic growth in rural Alaska, and U.S. Rep. Nick Begch said the rule inhibits local management of forests. 

But protesters say Alaskans have more to lose in risks to the land and waterways than what they have to gain through further development. Lingít elders and fishing and tourism industry experts took the mic Saturday to deliver a message: the Roadless Rule should be left alone.

Kaatssaawaa Della Cheney told the crowd her mother had protested clear cutting on Haida Gwaii in Canada in the 1980s. She said when young people stepped up to form a blockade, their parents and grandparents came too. 

“The elders showed up with their regalia and put the young people aside and said, ‘We are going to form the line to keep machines away from our lands, our trees, are ways of life,’” Cheney said. “And that’s what they did.”

Now Cheney said, as an elder herself, she is speaking up in favor of keeping the Roadless Rule. 

Seikoonie Fran Houston is Áak’w Ḵwáan, who originally lived in Juneau. She said development threatens sacred salmon runs and Lingít burial sites.

“This was our territory, and it was taken away from us,” she said. “And now hundreds of hundreds of years later, here I am standing on the grounds of my ancestors fighting to try and protect what they had.” 

Houston said the damage to sacred land isn’t worth the potential financial gain.

And others said the financial math doesn’t actually add up in favor of rescinding the rule. 

Kate Troll has worked in fisheries and climate management in Southeast Alaska for more than 30 years. She says old growth logging, which the rule limits, is a very small piece of Alaska’s economy. And the rule protects resources the tourism and fishing industries rely on, which make up a far greater piece. 

“If doing right by the numbers — right by our economy — was the real objective, we wouldn’t be having this debate,” she said. “If facts really mattered, the Trump administration would realize there’s absolutely no overall economic benefit to be gained by tossing the Roadless Rule out.”

She said the forests serve as irreplaceable carbon sinks, which combat the effects of climate change.  

Xaawk’w Tláa Yolanda Fulmer advocated for the codification of the Roadless Rule, which is being considered by Congress. She said she wants the future of the Tongass to be guaranteed for her grandchildren. 

“So we don’t keep going back and forth with this whiplash politics that keeps happening to us, where one day we’re feeling safer and we’re feeling protected,” she said. “And the next it’s being ripped from us, just like our trees are being threatened.” 

Fulmer referenced a comment Rep. Begich made last month, saying that he’s heard Southeast Alaskans asking for the timber industry to be revived.

“You’re not listening to the people I’ve been talking to from Kichx̱áan all the way to Yaakwdáat that says, ‘Stay out of our lands. Leave our trees alone. Find another way,’” she said, using the traditional names for Ketchikan and Yakutat. 

The public can comment on the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule through Friday, Sept. 19 at federalregister.gov. 

The U.S. Department of Education has terminated grant funding for universities’ Alaska Native and Native-Hawaiian-serving programs and support services, an act that University of Alaska Fairbanks Chancellor Mike Sfraga said “will have a substantial and negative impact on a large number of Alaskans, including our Alaska Native students.”

Sfraga announced the federal decision in a campus-wide email on Thursday.

Sfraga said the funding cut for UAF is estimated at $2.9 million, and the full effects are still under review. More than 20%, or an estimated 1,450 students at UAF are Indigenous, Sfraga noted.

The full extent of the grant funding freeze across the University of Alaska system is still being analyzed, said Jonathon Taylor, UA director of public affairs, by email on Friday.

UA President Pat Pitney said in an emailed statement on Friday that the university will continue to create a welcoming environment for all students.

“We are evaluating the impact these changes will have on our services to Alaska Native students, and are communicating directly with students, staff, and faculty who may be affected,” Pitney said. “A significant part of UA’s identity is our commitment to Alaska Native culture, language, art, heritage, business, and tribal management and governance; that remains unchanged. We proudly embrace our global leadership in Alaska Native and Indigenous studies, and will continue to sustain a welcoming environment where all – including our Alaska Native and Indigenous students – can thrive and succeed.”

Taylor said the University of Alaska Southeast has at least one grant-funded program on the Sitka campus aimed at improving student services, and university officials are waiting to hear whether it will be eliminated. Taylor said the University of Alaska Anchorage does not have any programs funded by this federal grant.

Taylor said on Monday the University of Alaska Anchorage has at least one program funded by the grant, but it is based on different eligibility requirements, and the university does not expect it to be affected.

As of fall 2024, there were 3,254 students enrolled at the University of Alaska that identified as Alaska Native or American Indian, and 266 that identified as Hawaiian Native or Pacific Islander, according to the university, and 19,629 students total across the UA system.

The University of Alaska announcements came after the Trump administration said Wednesday it will withhold an estimated $350 million of congressionally-approved funding for minority serving colleges and universities, saying the money will be allocated elsewhere. The measure continues President Donald Trump’s initiative to eliminate programs that focus on diversity, equity and inclusion.

Sfraga said the federal government is allowing up to a year to close out the programs. UAF has multiple grants which fall under the program, Sfraga said, and most are under the College of Indigenous Studies and the UAF Community and Technical College.

Sfraga said the grant program does not fund student aid, but it does support degree programs and support services like student advising and recruiting, workforce development and student success initiatives across campuses.

University officials report that to date, the Trump administration has cancelled $6.6 million in research grants and almost $45 million has been frozen.

Each year, the university receives an estimated $250 million in federal research funds, Taylor said, adding that “95% of the university’s broad research portfolio remains intact. UA has experienced only minor disruptions as a result of the rapidly shifting policy picture in Washington, D.C., and we are closely monitoring developments as they evolve.”

WARNING: This story contains disturbing details about residential and boarding schools. If you are feeling triggered, here is a resource list for trauma responses from the National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition in the U.S. In Canada, the National Indian Residential School Crisis Hotline can be reached at 1-866-925-4419.

For Ponka-we Cozad, the National Day of Remembrance for Indian boarding school survivors is personal.

Members of her family attended boarding schools and shared hurtful stories about their days in the schools.

“In some way, shape or form, as Native peoples, we all have a story to share about the Indian boarding school era,” said Cozad, director of policy and advocacy at the National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition. Cozad is Tohono O’odham Nation of Arizona and the Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma.

“This is why I’m doing this work; when we talk about something always being in our hearts, it’s personal,” she told ICT.

The annual National Day of Remembrance for U.S. Indian boarding school survivors on Sept. 16 in Washington, D.C., includes a special event sponsored by the coalition, known as NABS, from 5-7 p.m. EST at the Indian Gaming Association building.

The theme of this year’s event is “Always in our hearts.”

A number of other gatherings are scheduled across Indian Country to commemorate the Day of Remembrance with vigils, prayers, and other events in museums, churches and local communities.

September is an important month on both sides of the U.S. border. September 30 is the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation in Canada, known as Orange Shirt Day, in memory of the residential school students and the harsh conditions they endured. It became a national holiday after more than 1,000 unmarked graves were found at residential schools, including at the Kamloops Indian Residential School.

In the U.S., where thousands of Native children died in boarding schools, the National Day of Remembrance provides an opportunity for tribal leaders, survivors, descendants of survivors as well as congressional members and the public to come together to honor and recognize children who never returned home from the schools.

This year, the event coincides with the National Congress of American Indians Tribal Unity Impact Days, Sept. 16-18, also in Washington, D.C.

During the Impact Days,  NCAI organizes sessions in which tribal leaders can meet with members of Congress and federal agency officials in order to advocate for priorities such as fiscal year 2026 appropriations, public safety, economic development, housing, self-determination and other issues.

The Day of Remembrance also coincides with the fall session of the U.S. Congress, which convened on Sept. 2, giving lawmakers another opportunity to consider passing the Truth and Healing Commission on the Indian Boarding School Policies  Act (S.761). The act would establish a commission to investigate, document and report on the histories of Indian boarding schools, develop recommendations for federal efforts based on those findings and promote healing for survivors and descendants.

Although the bill passed  the Senate with a unanimous vote in December 2024, the House of Representatives did not bring the bill up for a vote before the legislative session ended.

In March, 2025, U.S. Sens. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, and Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, reintroduced the bill. It is now awaiting further consideration and a full vote in the Senate.

At the event in Washington, a light reception and candlelight vigil will be held, and will include remarks from Deb Parker, the chief executive officer of NABS and a citizen of the Tulalip Tribe and descendant of the Yaqui and Apache tribes.

This story was originally published by ICT.

President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act that passed in July will likely have sprawling impacts to Alaska, from oil and gas production to a tax cut for whaling captains. But because of the way the nearly one thousand page bill was written, it’s hard to make specific predictions.

Some elements, like changes to Medicaid, don’t take effect until 2027.

Alaska Public Media’s Ava White spoke with Kevin Berry, a professor and chair of the economics department at the University of Alaska Anchorage. He says those dates may be far out, but that doesn’t necessarily minimize the impacts.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Kevin Berry: To the extent that the current law stays current law and doesn’t change, it just delays the impact for these things. In some cases, though, it gives the state a chance to prepare or remove some of those impacts.

So for instance, when we talk about the impacts to SNAP – from the requirement for states to basically pay a penalty for payment mistakes, the delay in the implementation of that gives the state the opportunity to reduce those error rates, and if we show a good faith effort, avoid some of those impacts.

Now the state has a high error rate for SNAP payments, and it depends on whether or not we can actually do those things over time. To the extent that we can’t, we’re just delaying the impacts.

I think that one open question is that a lot of the provisions in the bill that kick in later can potentially change over time. To the extent that that law stays the way that it is right now, we can make projections of what the bill looks like, but some of these things that, you know, are going to come into effect in the next couple of years may change in response. There could be political will to change impacts to different programs or different rules or dates that things kick in. And so it makes it really hard, I think, to forecast exactly what this is going to look like in 10 years.

We can really only look at a lot of these baselines as what’s under current law, but we’ve seen very recently that current law can change dramatically, very quickly. So I think it’s worth keeping in mind that there’s room to sort of discover and discuss and advocate around impacts from the bill that are really important.

Ava White: Many economists in the state talk about how Alaska’s economy, it sits on a three legged stool. One is gas and petroleum, one’s other industries, and one is the federal government. What does our stool look like now, and will it continue to – I don’t know if teeter is the right word, but shift?

KB: The three legged stool analogy comes from my now retired colleague, Scott Goldsmith at ISER. And I’ll say first, there’s a pretty regular conversation amongst the economists in the Department of Economics and the Institute of Social and Economic Research about updating that report and making sure that we still have exactly a three legged stool. None of us expect that it’s changed dramatically, though.

These new developments potentially mean the oil sector is stronger into the future, and to the extent that that economic activity filters through the rest of the economy, our other sectors may perform better too.

To the extent that the federal government is 1/3 of our economy, I think that there’s questions about the increase in the budget deficit, and whether or not that’s filled with spending cuts or tax increases in the future, or more borrowing as well, and it’s unclear what the strategy will be to deal with the deficit in the long run.

AW: How do you think the impacts of the Big Beautiful Bill are changing the way people think about their own money and how they spend it? Or will it change?

KB: When I think about what’s possibly going to happen, I most often think about what happened when we initially passed these tax cuts in 2017. We’ve got a few years of data afterwards that should be able to give us an idea of the impact of the bill.

But unfortunately, it’s really hard to do that, because yes, the aggregate demand effects should have kicked in in the first two years, so between 2017 and 2019 we should see an effect – those seem like they’re modest in the economic literature, that there’s not huge impacts necessarily to aggregate demand. But the other big, key part of the bill is how it more generously treats investment by businesses.

Investment is when firms buy things like plants and equipment and basically the capacity to make more stuff in the future. Now, those effects are obviously not going to all happen in the first year, and so the more generous expensing provisions are supposed to kick in over a decade or even longer.

Unfortunately, we don’t have any good data to tell what happened with the tax cuts and job acts the last time around, because covid happened and the economy got really, really weird. And so all those effects are kind of mixed in with, you know, shutdowns and end dates and impacts from the disease on human behavior and everything else that happened 2020 on. And so we don’t really know what those provisions are going to do over time.

AW: What are some of the impacts that we can expect to see right away, or that maybe we are already seeing?

KB: On the natural resource side, we’re already seeing lease sales being prepared, and so we’ll get an idea of the amount of interest there is to develop those leases. And that process, of course, it starts immediately, but it takes a long time. Which is why, if you’re looking at the bill and you wonder, ‘why do the royalties change in 2034?’ Well, new developments are going to take a while anyway. So that’s less of a thing to worry about.

I could see potentially some of those indirect impacts from work requirements on Medicaid working through the system and potentially impacting Alaska. And this is all, of course, secondary to the tax cuts, which we’ll see immediately. So for instance, a lot of medical providers don’t operate in just one state, and a lot of insurance companies don’t operate and want just one state. So to the extent that other people lose Medicare medical coverage in the lower 48 that may lead to the amount of uncompensated care, and then that can indirectly get placed in the rates that are charged to consumers in Alaska to make up for the cost of care in the lower 48 that’s no longer being compensated. It’s hard to tell how quickly healthcare companies would be pricing those into their prices they charge Alaskans, but that could begin earlier.

I think the biggest impact is going to be the impact on aggregate demand. We need to remember, this is a big tax cut. The intention is, on some level, to stimulate the economy. The effects from that stimulus are supposed to show up in the first year. So the 1% increased economic growth from higher aggregate demand happens basically in the first year, and then sort of peters out over time as people adjust to lower tax rates. So that effect we would expect to see early on, and that would, of course, shrink over time.

A nonprofit coordinating academic research on the Arctic plans to shut down as its federal funding dries up. The Arctic Research Consortium of the United States says it plans to wind down operations at the end of this month.

The group announced the decision in an email to members late last month, saying the National Science Foundation’s decision to scrap plans for a grant that provides the bulk of its funding left it no choice but to close its doors.

The Arctic Research Consortium brings together scientists working with universities, government agencies and nonprofits to collaborate and share their findings. Researcher Michael Walsh, a nonresident senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who has worked with the organization, said the shutdown comes at a critical time as the federal government seeks input on a new five-year plan for government-funded Arctic research

“That new National Plan for Arctic Research is going to have to answer some of these big questions,” he said. “What are the policy drivers? What are the priority areas? What should, you know, the US government focus on supporting in the context of Arctic research?”

The group also connects thousands of Arctic researchers and provides grants that allow early-career academics to travel to other institutions or conferences Walsh said. Eliminating those opportunities will leave scientists isolated from one another and stunt young researchers’ professional development, he said.

A spokesperson for the National Science Foundation confirmed the grant funding much of the consortium’s activities would end in 2026 but declined to say why the agency scrapped plans to reissue it. The spokesperson said NSF would remain engaged with the Interagency Arctic Policy Research Committee, a federal working group that prepares the five-year Arctic research plan.

“NSF remains committed to supporting national interests in the Arctic through our continued leadership of IARPC and through collaborations with partners, including the research community, to support innovative scientific research about the Earth’s polar regions,” the NSF spokesperson said via email.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly said he would like to expand the U.S.’s presence in the Arctic by acquiring the self-governing island of Greenland from Denmark. But Walsh said the administration has not matched that apparent interest with investment.

“One would expect that what would follow from that would be a proliferation of Arctic studies centers to be able to develop the capacities and the resources and the knowledge the United States needs in order to be able to advance our national interests in those areas,” Walsh said. “We haven’t seen that yet.”

Listen to this story:

The Roadless Rule protects more than half of the Tongass National Forest from road development, and it’s on the chopping block again. Tribes and environmental groups are strategizing to keep it in place. 

A host of Alaska Native communities in Southeast Alaska, which rely on the Tongass National Forest for their food and culture, say they want to make the Roadless Rule permanent. 

Tlingit advocate Xaawk’w Tláa Yolanda Fulmer presented one tactic at the Southeast Tribal Environmental Forum in Juneau this week. She explained how a bill that was reintroduced to the U.S. House of Representatives this summer called the Roadless Area Conservation Act, or RACA, could codify the Roadless Rule once and for all.

“The current situation is a political struggle between the proposed repeal of the Roadless Rule and the introduction of RACA,” Fulmer said. “The outcome of RACA will determine the future protection of vital national forest lands, including the Tongass.”

She said that if the bill passes into law, it could end the political ping pong between promoting extractive industries and preserving traditional foods and practices in National Forests. 

“Road construction often leads to logging, mining, forest fires and development — development which fragments ecosystems,” she said. “The Roadless Rule helps maintain intact forests, streams and shorelines where traditional foods thrive.”

The Roadless Rule has flip-flopped multiple times since it was established to protect undeveloped lands in 2001. It was rolled back during President Donald Trump’s first term before being reinstated in 2023 by former President Joe Biden. 

The proposed rollback aligns with Trump’s executive order earlier this year to end a ban on constructing roads in undeveloped areas of the forest. The USDA’s announcement comes on the heels of Representative Nick Begich’s visit to Juneau, where he said that he supports the expansion of logging in the Tongass National Forest. 

“This is something I hear from folks from Ketchikan all the way up to Yakutat on a regular basis,” he said. “How do we bring timber back?”

Tribal leaders at the forum in Juneau spoke to the value of keeping the forest ecosystem intact. Joel Jackson is President of the Organized Village of Kake, an Alaska Native tribe based on Kupreanof Island. He said it’s vital to keep the forest healthy, in part because the salmon that feed his tribe rely on it. Old growth trees shade the streams, making the water cold enough for salmon to swim up.

“If the stream isn’t cool enough, those fish aren’t going to be able to spawn,” Jackson said.

After the fish spawn and die, their decaying bodies feed the forest with nutrients they gathered at sea — and the cycle continues.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Wednesday that the public can comment on the proposed rollback from Friday through Sept. 19. 

“This administration is dedicated to removing burdensome, outdated, one-size-fits-all regulations,” said U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins in a press release. 

Nathan Newcomer advocates for the Tongass with the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. He worries that the USDA won’t listen to the public’s wishes to keep the rule in place. 

“We know what they’re going to do,” Newcomer said of the department. “They’re not going to listen to anybody, but we still need to get on the record and make it sure and clear that people in Southeast Alaska and across the nation want to see the Roadless Rule kept in place.”

When the first Trump administration rolled back the Roadless Rule in 2020, people had about 90 days to comment and nearly all of the public comments were in favor of keeping the rule.

Newcomer said that he’s organizing quickly since the federal government has expedited the public process to allow for less than a month of public comment. 

Kate Glover is an attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental law firm that has challenged past rescissions of the Roadless Rule on behalf of tribes, conservation nonprofits, tourism and fishing groups. She said a few weeks is not enough time for a meaningful public process.

“It doesn’t allow time for the agency to meet its obligation to consult with tribes on a government-to-government basis,” she said. “Typically, at least 120 days is needed for that.” 

Glover said she had not seen such short comment periods before this administration.