The Northern Dispatch

Fact-Check Series  ·  Alaska Senate Race 2026

Voter Fact-Check

June 2026  ·  Alaska Senate Race 2026  ·  Source: NRSC

Separating Signal from Noise: The NRSC's Legal Campaign Against Mary Peltola

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has filed an FEC complaint and a 25-page ballot-removal letter targeting Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola. This fact-check examines what is confirmed, what is alleged, and what the evidence actually supports.

The Northern Dispatch  ·  June 2026  ·  Fact-Check Series

Part of a continuing series  ·  Previously in this fact-check series

Checking the Alaska GOP's Claims About Mary Peltola's Congressional Record

In April 2026, this series examined five claims made by the Alaska Republican Party about Peltola's congressional record — including allegations that she is "far-left," passed "zero bills," and voted "lockstep" with Biden on Alaska energy. Four of the five claims were rated Inaccurate, Partially True, or Needs Context. The one accurate element — that Schumer urged her to run — was found to be standard electoral politics rather than evidence of misconduct.

Claim (April 2026)	Finding
"Far-left, anti-Alaska policies"	Inaccurate
"Zero bills signed into law"	Partially True
"Voted lockstep on ANWR / NPR-A"	Partially True
"Alaskans fired Mary in 2024"	Needs Context
"Will do the same for Schumer"	Needs Context

Read the full April fact-check →

Since March 2026, the NRSC has pursued a coordinated multi-front legal strategy targeting Mary Peltola ahead of Alaska's August 18 primary. The campaign consists of two major actions: an FEC complaint filed March 27, 2026, alleging misuse of campaign funds, and a June 1, 2026 letter to Alaska election officials demanding that a same-named candidate — Daniel J. Sullivan of Petersburg — be removed from the ballot on the grounds that his candidacy was orchestrated to benefit Peltola.

Each action is assessed below on the evidence actually in the public record.

---

Charge 01

"Peltola coordinated the Petersburg 'Dan Sullivan' candidacy to rig the election."

Source: NRSC Letter to Alaska Lt. Governor, June 1, 2026

⚠ Noise Against Peltola

✓ Confirmed

Press release metadata for Petersburg Sullivan's campaign announcement identified the author as Amber Lee, an Alaska Democratic political strategist. Lee has publicly supported Peltola in the past, describing her as "a real challenger" with "a real chance to win." FEC records show Lee's firm, Amber Lee Strategies, received payments from a PAC that supported Peltola. When asked directly about her involvement, Lee responded: "No comment."

✗ Not Confirmed

No evidence in the public record establishes that Mary Peltola personally directed, requested, encouraged, or coordinated Petersburg Sullivan's candidacy. When asked directly whether the Peltola campaign was "involved in asking, encouraging or soliciting" Petersburg Sullivan to run, campaign spokesperson Harry Child said: "no."

~ Context

The NRSC's letter never claims direct evidence of Peltola's involvement. Instead it sent preservation demands to her campaign — a legal mechanism used when seeking evidence that does not yet exist. That is how you act when you hope to find proof, not when you already have it. A consultant who supports a candidate acting independently does not constitute the candidate's personal direction. By the same logic, any Republican candidate whose press release was authored by a GOP consultant could be said to be "orchestrated" by Mitch McConnell.

Charge 02

"Petersburg Sullivan's candidacy is an illegal sham designed to confuse voters."

Source: NRSC Letter to Alaska Lt. Governor, June 1, 2026

~ Real Tactic, Overstated Legal Case

✓ Confirmed

Petersburg Sullivan copied visual elements of Sen. Sullivan's long-established campaign logo, including color scheme, font treatment, and the Alaska North Star. He lists a party affiliation of Republican despite Alaska voter records showing his registration as "undeclared." He donated $130 to Peltola's prior campaign and a total of $650 to various Democratic candidates nationally.

✗ Overstated

Under Alaska's open primary and ranked-choice voting system, Petersburg Sullivan is not running "as a Republican" in the traditional sense — all candidates appear on the same ballot regardless of party. The party affiliation technicality the NRSC emphasizes is therefore a weaker legal argument than the letter implies. On the trademark claim: color schemes and fonts are notoriously difficult to trademark, and courts are extremely reluctant to remove candidates from ballots over intellectual property disputes. The NRSC's strongest legal ground — voter confusion — has never been used by any U.S. court to remove a same-name candidate from a ballot.

~ Context

Something coordinated likely happened at the operative level — Amber Lee's involvement is too deliberate to be coincidental. The more defensible conclusion is that a Democratic consultant acted on her own initiative to create confusion, not that Peltola personally directed a conspiracy. There is a significant difference between a mid-level dirty trick and the "election rigging" framing the NRSC deploys throughout its 25-page letter.

"The NRSC sent preservation demands to Peltola's campaign fishing for a direct link they do not yet have. That is not how you act when you have evidence."

Charge 03

"Peltola used her House campaign committee as a personal slush fund."

Source: NRSC FEC Complaint, March 27, 2026

⚠ Real Questions, Overstated Conclusion

✓ Confirmed

After her November 2024 House defeat, Peltola spent more than $230,000 from her House campaign committee on travel, meals, and related expenses through the end of 2025, a period during which she gave no public indication she was actively running for office. The NRSC complaint documents 218 travel expenses and 166 catering and meal expenses over a 13-month period. Federal law prohibits conversion of campaign contributions to personal use.

~ Context

Peltola had filed a Statement of Candidacy for the 2026 House race, which provides a legal basis for continued campaign spending. It is not uncommon for candidates to maintain campaign committees and spend on travel, speaking, and outreach while assessing future races — activities that can be legitimate campaign expenses. The FEC's own "testing the waters" doctrine permits such spending. However, the scale of the spending and its apparent disconnect from any active campaign activity does raise genuine questions that the FEC would be within its mandate to examine.

✗ Overstated

The NRSC's characterization — "personal slush fund," "gravy train," "cash-strapped" — goes well beyond what the documented facts establish. Spending on travel to speaking engagements (including her University of Chicago fellowship) may constitute legitimate campaign-adjacent activity. The FEC has been unable to act on the complaint due to a prolonged lack of the minimum commissioners required for enforcement, meaning the allegations remain unresolved and unproven. Calling it a "slush fund" is political framing, not a legal finding.

Charge 04

"National Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, are trying to elect Peltola to flip the Senate."

Source: NRSC Letter, June 1, 2026

✓ Accurate But Unremarkable

✓ Confirmed

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer urged Peltola to enter the race, according to Axios reporting from January 2026. Democratic Party organizations are funding her Senate campaign. The Alaska race is widely considered one of a handful of seats that could determine Senate majority control in 2026.

~ Context

This is standard electoral politics, not evidence of wrongdoing. Senate campaign committees supporting candidates in competitive races is precisely their function — the NRSC itself is doing exactly the same for Sen. Dan Sullivan. The framing in the NRSC letter presents ordinary Democratic Party support as evidence of a corrupt conspiracy, which it does not establish.

Charge 05

"Machiavellian Mary" personally orchestrated the Petersburg candidacy — her fingerprints are all over it.

Source: Suzanne Downing, The Alaska Story, May 30, 2026 — "The Curious Case of Machiavellian Mary and Decoy Dan"

⚠ Opinion Stated as Fact

✓ What Downing Gets Right

Downing correctly identifies the core suspicious facts: Peltola visited Petersburg days before Petersburg Sullivan announced; Amber Lee's name appeared in press release metadata; Lee has deep ties to Democratic campaigns and has publicly supported Peltola. These are legitimate observations that raise reasonable questions.

✗ Where the Column Overstates

Downing's piece moves directly from "raises eyebrows" to "her fingerprints" to "Machiavellian Mary" without establishing the connective tissue. The column presents circumstantial proximity — Peltola was in Petersburg, Lee wrote a press release — as proof of personal direction. "Coincidence? Think again" is rhetorical assertion, not evidence. Downing herself never produces a direct link between Peltola and Petersburg Sullivan's decision to run.

~ Context

Downing is a conservative commentator and founder of The Alaska Story, a right-leaning outlet. Her column is labeled commentary, not news reporting. Notably, Downing's strongest factual claim — that Peltola visited Petersburg just before the announcement — was already in the public record and does not itself constitute coordination. Candidates visit communities across Alaska constantly. The column's real contribution is coining "Machiavellian Mary" and "Decoy Dan," framing that was subsequently picked up by national conservative outlets including Fox News and Townhall, amplifying the narrative well beyond what the underlying evidence supports.

---

The Broader Pattern

Assessed individually, each NRSC action contains a kernel of legitimate concern buried under a substantial layer of political framing. The FEC spending questions are real but unresolved and unproven. The Petersburg Sullivan candidacy is suspicious at the operative level but does not implicate Peltola directly. The "election rigging" and "sham candidacy" language throughout both filings is prosecutorial rhetoric without prosecutorial evidence.

Assessed together, the actions form a coherent pre-campaign strategy: establish a "corrupt Democrat" narrative around Peltola before she gains traction, force her campaign to spend time and resources defending allegations, and ensure that any Peltola victory can be framed as tainted regardless of outcome. The preservation demands sent directly to her campaign serve no immediate legal purpose in a ballot certification proceeding — their function is to attach her name to the word "fraud" in news coverage.

None of this means the underlying concerns are fabricated. It means the evidence has been systematically overstated to serve a political objective that precedes any concern for electoral integrity.

---

Charge	Finding	Key Gap
Peltola coordinated Petersburg Sullivan candidacy	Noise Against Peltola	No direct evidence of Peltola's personal involvement; consultant's action ≠ candidate's direction
Petersburg candidacy is an illegal sham	Partial	Suspicious at operative level; legal case for ballot removal is novel and weak
Peltola misused campaign funds as "slush fund"	Noise Against Peltola	Real questions exist; "slush fund" framing goes beyond documented facts; FEC has not ruled
Schumer/Democrats funding Peltola to flip Senate	Accurate	Standard electoral politics; applies equally to NRSC support for Sullivan

Sources NRSC Letter to Alaska Lt. Governor Nancy Dahlstrom and Director Carol Beecher, June 1, 2026  ·  NRSC FEC Complaint against Mary Peltola for Alaska, March 27, 2026  ·  Anchorage Daily News  ·  Alaska Story  ·  Alaska Beacon  ·  NOTUS  ·  New York Times  ·  Washington Times  ·  Fox News Digital  ·  The Alaska Landmine (@alaskalandmine)  ·  Alaska Division of Elections, My Voter Portal  ·  FEC.gov disbursement records  ·  Ballotpedia, Recall of Wisconsin State Senators (2011)

Alaska Blue Economy Watch  ·  June 2, 2026

Analysis

Whose Ocean Is It?

Dan Sullivan chaired a blue economy hearing today on Capitol Hill. Mary Peltola helped build that record. Now they're running against each other — and both want full credit.

Alaska Blue Economy Watch  ·  June 2, 2026

2026 Senate Race — Blue Economy Stakes

Dan Sullivan

Republican · Incumbent

Subcommittee chairman. Holds the Senate gavel, the Coast Guard bill, the NOAA appropriations. Frames the ocean economy as his domain.

vs

Mary Peltola

Democrat · Challenger

Former House rep. Pried loose hundreds of millions from OMB. Banned foreign trawled fish. Built her entire identity around fish and coastal communities.

This morning, Senator Dan Sullivan convened a subcommittee hearing titled The Blue Economy: Advancing American Fisheries, Maritime Industry, and Coastal Economies. Three Alaska witnesses. A Trump administration framing. His name in the chairman's chair. Mary Peltola's name nowhere in the room.

That absence is the story.

For two years — from August 2022 to January 2025 — Alaska's congressional delegation operated as a unified team on ocean issues. Sullivan in the Senate. Lisa Murkowski in the Senate. Mary Peltola in the House. Different parties, same fisheries. They announced disaster packages together, co-authored reform legislation, and jointly pressured the executive branch to release funds it had been sitting on for years. The result was well over a billion dollars flowing into Alaska's blue economy.

Now Peltola is challenging Sullivan for his Senate seat, and the collaborative record they built together has become a battlefield of competing narratives. Both are planting their flags on the same ocean.

I

What Sullivan's Hearing Is Really About

Today's hearing wasn't just policy — it was positioning. Sullivan used his chairmanship of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Coast Guard, Maritime, and Fisheries to convene witnesses from Alaska's seafood marketing world, ocean technology sector, and university research community — and to tie the blue economy explicitly to the Trump administration's maritime agenda.

That agenda is real and substantial: a sweeping Maritime Action Plan targeting China's dominance of global shipbuilding, new fees on Chinese-built vessels entering U.S. ports, and what Sullivan has called the largest Coast Guard investment in American history. He's not wrong to claim ownership of much of it. The $15.5 billion Coast Guard authorization, the $25 billion reconciliation investment, the NOAA funding wins — these flowed through Sullivan's Senate leverage.

But the framing erases something important. When the $277 million in fishery disaster relief was announced last year, Sullivan stood at a podium with Peltola and Murkowski. When the FISHES Act was drafted to fix the broken disaster relief pipeline, Peltola introduced the House companion bill. The ocean victories that Sullivan is now highlighting as solo achievements were, functionally, delegation achievements.

We just don't have the luxury of being deeply partisan. We have too much to get done.

— Mary Peltola, addressing the Alaska Legislature, February 2023

II

The Record, Unspun

Here is what the two of them actually did together on the blue economy — and who can most credibly claim credit for each piece:

Issue / Win	Sullivan's Claim	Peltola's Claim
$277M fishery disaster relief (2024)	Joint Announced jointly; Sullivan worked Senate appropriations	Peltola Edge Credited with pressuring OMB to release funds held since 2018
FISHES Act — streamlining disaster relief	Joint Introduced Senate version with Murkowski	Joint Introduced House companion; drove it through committee
$115M port infrastructure grants (2026)	Sullivan Edge Secured MARAD rule changes that made Alaska eligible	Joint Joint delegation announcement; Peltola advocated from House
Ban on foreign trawled fish	Sullivan Pushed through defense authorization language on Chinese seafood	Peltola Claims credit for the broader foreign trawl ban after "5 years of delays"
Coast Guard / maritime investment	Sullivan Authored; $25B reconciliation + $15.5B authorization	—
Bycatch reduction legislation	—	Peltola Introduced Bycatch Reduction Act and Bottom Trawl Clarity Act
$216M disaster package (2023)	Joint All three co-announced	Joint All three co-announced

III

The Structural Advantage Sullivan Won't Mention

There is one thing Sullivan has that Peltola never did: a Senate gavel. Committee chairs set the agenda. They call the hearings. They decide which bills get a vote and which die in markup. Today's blue economy hearing exists because Sullivan chairs the relevant subcommittee. That's not a small thing.

Peltola served in the House minority for almost her entire tenure. She couldn't chair anything. The bills she introduced — bycatch reform, bottom trawl restrictions, Bristol Bay protections — passed committee but faced headwinds in the Republican-controlled House. Several were reintroduced by her Republican successor, Nick Begich, after she lost her seat in 2024 and then passed. The ideas were hers. The credit went elsewhere.

Sullivan's campaign knows this asymmetry and uses it. His hearing today — three Alaska witnesses, Alaska-first framing, not a single mention of bipartisan history — is a clean attempt to own the blue economy narrative heading into November.

The only way you can succeed in Congress is by forging relationships. No one is ever going to help you if they can't stand you or if you've double crossed them.

— Mary Peltola, Alaska Fisheries Debate, 2024

IV

What Peltola Brings That Sullivan Can't Claim

Peltola's argument isn't structural — it's personal and substantive. She is Yup'ik, grew up in Kwethluk and Bethel fishing with her father, and ran the Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission before going to Congress. Her connection to Alaska's fisheries isn't a policy position — it's a biography.

Where Sullivan legislates the blue economy from a national security and economic competitiveness frame, Peltola approaches it from the subsistence side: what happens to rural communities when the fish don't come back, what it means when disaster relief sits in a federal bureaucracy for six years while families lose their boats. That's a different kind of claim on the issue — and one that resonates differently in coastal and rural Alaska than in the boardrooms of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute.

Her bycatch and bottom trawl legislation — which Sullivan has notably never co-sponsored — also draws a real policy line between them. She was the more aggressive advocate for conservation measures that the commercial trawl industry opposed. That cost her the United Fishermen of Alaska endorsement, which went to Sullivan. But it earned her credibility with Alaska Native fishing communities and conservation-minded coastal voters.

V

The Verdict for Alaska Voters

Here is the honest accounting: the blue economy wins that both campaigns are touting were, in large part, built together. The disaster relief billions, the FISHES Act, the port grants — these came from a delegation that functioned as a unit precisely because Alaska can't afford for its two senators and one representative to spend time fighting each other.

Sullivan's current framing — subcommittee chairman, Trump administration priority, America's maritime future — erases that collaboration. Peltola's counter-framing — fish-first, bipartisan champion, grassroots fundraiser — risks overstating what a House minority member can accomplish on her own.

The real question for Alaska voters is forward-looking: which of these two will be more effective in the Senate, in a Republican majority, pursuing the blue economy agenda that they jointly built? Sullivan has the institutional argument. Peltola has the cross-aisle argument.

Sullivan's Strongest Case

Senate committee power is real power. He built the Coast Guard investment, controls the hearing agenda, and has the Trump administration's ear on maritime policy. The blue economy runs through the Senate, not the House.

Peltola's Strongest Case

She moved money that had been stuck for years by pressuring the executive branch from the House. Her fisheries roots are authentic, not political. And in a dysfunctional Senate, cross-party relationships may matter more than committee seats.

Bottom Line

The ocean doesn't care who chairs the subcommittee.

What Alaska's blue economy has needed — and what both of these politicians delivered, together — was a unified delegation that put state interest above party. That model is now broken, replaced by a Senate campaign in which the same shared record is being used as ammunition against the person who helped build it.

Whoever wins in November should probably remember why it worked in the first place.

Alaska Blue Economy Watch  ·  Independent Analysis  ·  June 2, 2026

Alaska Policy Commentary  ·  May 31, 2026

Rep. Schwanke's Own Evidence Undermines HB 381

She says Alaska must compete with Louisiana and Texas. She's right. But those states knew what their deals were worth before they signed them. Alaska doesn't.

By Tom Lamb  ·  HB 381 · Special Session 2026

Rep. Rebecca Schwanke published a commentary today asking whether Alaska LNG needs property tax breaks. It's a fair question. Her answer, unfortunately, makes the case against HB 381 better than its opponents could.

Her argument is straightforward: Louisiana and Texas gave massive tax abatements to LNG projects, British Columbia is moving fast, and Alaska needs to compete. She's not wrong about any of that. The problem is what she leaves out.

"Louisiana and Texas knew exactly what they were giving up when they gave it up. Alaska doesn't."

The Comparison She's Making — and What It Actually Shows

Schwanke cites Louisiana's Industrial Tax Exemption Program (ITEP) — an 80–100% property tax abatement for up to 10 years — and notes that Sabine Pass received a break worth ~$4.9 billion, Cameron LNG ~$3.7 billion. These are real numbers. They're also the problem with her argument.

Those dollar figures exist because Louisiana knew the asset values. ITEP is a formula-based program applied after construction, once costs are established and property is assessed. Companies apply project-by-project with disclosed capital investment figures. The exemption scales automatically with actual cost. The legislature that created ITEP didn't need to know Sabine Pass's budget in advance — the formula handled it.

HB 381 works nothing like that.

The Structure of HB 381

Sets a fixed volumetric tax of $0.06 per thousand cubic feet — before construction, before costs are known, before assets are assessed.

Permanently replaces all ad valorem property taxes on the project.

Locks in this rate with a 1% annual escalator that likely trails inflation.

Does not require cost disclosure as a condition of the tax structure taking effect.

The Four Tests — Louisiana Passed All of Them. HB 381 Fails All of Them.

Criteria	Louisiana ITEP	HB 381
Cost known before structure set	Yes — applied post-construction	No — set before any cost disclosure
Formula-based on asset value	Yes — % of assessed value	No — fixed volumetric rate
Time-limited	Yes — 10 years maximum	No — permanent replacement
Public cost disclosure required	Yes — per application	No — Glenfarne refuses to release updated estimate

The Number Nobody Will Release

This is where it gets hard to ignore. Glenfarne commissioned engineering firm Worley to update the project's cost estimate in 2025. When asked about it, Glenfarne's president told Alaska Public Media the updated figure is "most likely not going to be made public."

The official figure still being cited — $46.2 billion — is based on a 2018 AGDC estimate. Independent analysts at Rapidan Energy Group put the export phase alone at up to $60 billion, suggesting a total well above $70 billion.

Ad valorem property taxes are calculated as a percentage of asset value. If the true cost is $70 billion rather than $46 billion, Alaska is surrendering billions in property tax revenue — permanently — in exchange for a volumetric rate that was set without knowing that number.

"The Legislature is being asked to consider enabling legislation while the developer declines to disclose the figure that determines whether any of this works."
— Anchorage Daily News, April 2026

Cheniere Disclosed Everything. Glenfarne Is Disclosing Nothing.

Proponents keep pointing to Sabine Pass as the model. Let's take that seriously and look at how Cheniere actually handled cost transparency.

Cheniere was a publicly traded company. Every financing round, every construction milestone, every cost overrun or on-budget completion was disclosed in SEC filings and press releases — because federal securities law required it. When the first four trains were financed between 2012 and 2017, the financing totaled over $20 billion drawn from 19 international commercial banks. Every dollar was public record. When all six trains were completed, Cheniere issued a formal press release confirming each train had been delivered ahead of schedule and within budget.

That public cost record is precisely what allowed Louisiana to calculate the $4.9 billion ITEP exemption with confidence. The state wasn't guessing. It was applying a formula to a certified, publicly verified asset value.

Cheniere vs. Glenfarne: The Disclosure Gap

Cheniere (Sabine Pass): Publicly traded. SEC disclosure required. $20+ billion in construction financing disclosed train by train. All six trains certified on-budget at completion. ITEP applied to verified final costs.

Glenfarne (Alaska LNG): Private company. No SEC disclosure obligation. Updated cost estimate commissioned from Worley in 2025 — actively withheld. Legislature asked to set a permanent tax rate based on a 2018 number while the developer holds the current one in confidence.

This is not a minor procedural difference. Cheniere's transparency was structural — baked into its corporate form. Glenfarne's opacity is also structural, and deliberate. The Legislature has no mechanism to compel disclosure. HB 381 doesn't create one. It simply trusts that $46.2 billion is close enough.

It may not be. And unlike Sabine Pass, Alaska won't find out until it's too late to renegotiate.

What About Texas? They Knew Costs When They Signed — And Built In an Exit If Promises Weren't Kept.

Proponents may point out that Texas isn't as transparent as Louisiana upfront. They'd be partly right. Under Texas Chapter 312, project cost details can be kept confidential during negotiations — closed-door talks between the developer and the county. That's worth acknowledging as a legitimate criticism of Texas practice.

But here's what's critical to understand: Texas Chapter 312 is a negotiated bilateral contract between the developer and the county. Both parties sign it. Both parties know what it says. And Texas law requires that once executed, all cost information becomes public record. The county signed knowing the costs. Texans could see what their county gave up the moment the ink dried.

HB 381 is not a contract. It's a statute — a unilateral act of the Legislature that restructures the tax code in Glenfarne's favor. There is no signing moment. There is no bilateral negotiation. There is no point at which costs must be disclosed to anyone. The Texas transparency trigger never exists at all under HB 381's structure.

But the disclosure gap is only half the Texas story. The more important difference is what Texas kept after signing: the right to walk away.

Texas Chapter 312 is explicit on this. The local government can modify the agreement, reassign it, or cancel it entirely at any time before it expires. If the developer fails to make agreed improvements, the county can recapture every dollar of lost tax revenue. If the project doesn't hit its agreed assessed value, taxes are recaptured with penalties and interest. If jobs aren't created, same result. Texas wrote performance conditions and clawback teeth directly into statute — and required every agreement to include them.

How All Three Compare to HB 381

Louisiana ITEP: Costs certified via affidavit at completion. Formula tied to assessed value. Public record throughout. Time-limited to 10 years.

Texas Ch. 312/313: Bilateral contract — county signs knowing costs. Costs public at execution. Tied to assessed value. Cancellable at any time. Recapture with penalties if performance targets missed. Time-limited to 10 years.

HB 381: Unilateral statute — no bilateral contract, no signing moment, no cost disclosure ever. Fixed volumetric rate with no connection to asset value. No cancellation right. No recapture. No clawback. No performance conditions. Permanent.

Texas signed contracts knowing costs and retained the right to cancel if promises weren't kept. Louisiana applied its formula to certified final costs. Alaska is being asked to pass a permanent law, blind to costs, with no exit, no recapture, and no performance conditions whatsoever. That isn't a variation on what Louisiana and Texas did. It's a different instrument entirely — one that protects only one party.

· · ·

The Competitive Argument Supports Disclosure, Not This Bill

Rep. Schwanke is right that Alaska faces competition. British Columbia's LNG Canada facility in Kitimat is operational and expanding. Asian buyers are signing deals now. The window is real.

But none of that justifies this particular structure. It justifies offering a competitive incentive — which Alaska absolutely should do. The question is whether this incentive, set at this rate, structured this way, is the right one. And that question cannot be answered without knowing the cost.

Louisiana didn't guess at what Sabine Pass was worth and hope the formula worked out. They built a system that automatically calibrated the benefit to the investment. Alaska should do the same — or at minimum, require Glenfarne to disclose the Worley estimate before the Legislature votes on anything.

· · ·

There Is No Adjustment Mechanism. None.

Proponents sometimes argue that companies need certainty of an incentive before breaking ground — and that's fair. ITEP itself acknowledges this: companies factor the program into their investment decisions before construction starts, even though they don't collect the exemption until costs are final.

But there's a critical distinction ITEP preserves that HB 381 abandons entirely: ITEP gives advance certainty of a formula. HB 381 gives advance certainty of a specific number. Those are not the same thing.

Under ITEP, Louisiana could pass its incentive framework without knowing what Sabine Pass would cost, because the formula — a percentage of final assessed value — self-corrects automatically. The state never had to guess. The math did the work.

Read HB 381 carefully and ask: is there anything that adjusts the $0.06/Mcf rate once final construction costs are certified? The answer is no. Here is what the bill actually contains:

What HB 381 Is Missing

No affidavit of final cost. Louisiana requires one before the exemption takes effect. HB 381 has no equivalent.

No formula tied to assessed value. The rate is a fixed number in statute — $0.06 — not a percentage of anything.

No agency authority to recalculate. No board, no Department of Revenue trigger, no mechanism that reopens the rate if actual costs diverge from the $46.2 billion assumption.

No cost-based reset clause. The only adjustment in the bill is a 1% annual escalator — automatic, inflation-blind, and completely disconnected from what the project actually costs to build.

The 2040 sunset is the only leverage point, and it's a blunt instrument: if the project hasn't reached commercial operations by then, the special tax status terminates entirely. That's a binary cliff — not a recalibration mechanism. And as the deadline approaches, it creates pressure on Alaska to extend rather than renegotiate, further weakening the state's hand.

ITEP's genius is that the formula does the work so the legislature doesn't have to. HB 381 has no formula. It has a guess — and Alaska will live with that guess permanently.

A Simple Ask

Nobody opposing HB 381 is opposing the Alaska LNG project. The energy security argument is real. North Slope reserves need a route to market. The geopolitical moment may be genuine.

But a deal structured around withheld information favors the party with more information. That party is not Alaska.

The Legislature should require full cost disclosure before any vote on HB 381. If the project pencils out at $70 billion, set the incentive accordingly. If it pencils out at $46 billion, set it accordingly. Either way, set it with your eyes open.

Rep. Schwanke's evidence makes the case for competing. It doesn't make the case for signing a blank check. Those are very different things.

Tom Lamb  ·  May 31, 2026  ·  Alaska Policy Commentary

The Courts Act Two Judges Move. 35 Former Judges File. The Fund Is Halted.

● Live — Courts Act on Fraud Allegations — May 29, 2026

The Constitutional Record · Update 05 of Series

The Constitutional Record

Legal Analysis · Public Accountability · Breaking Development

Breaking Development

The Courts Act Two Judges Move.
35 Former Judges File.
The Fund Is Halted. Everything We Documented Has Now Been Confirmed — In Open Court

In the ten days since the Anti-Weaponization Fund was announced, two federal courts have acted, 35 former federal judges from both parties have filed a fraud motion, and Judge Williams — the judge whose court was deceived — has opened a formal fraud inquiry. The legal noose we documented is now in the hands of the judiciary.

Judge Williams — Fraud Inquiry Opened

Judge Brinkema — Fund Halted

35 Former Judges — Collusion Brief Filed

June 12 — Trump Must Respond

The Three Developments — In Order

DEV 01

Judge Williams Opens Formal Fraud Inquiry — Trump Must Respond by June 12

SDFL · Case 1:26-cv-20609 · Friday May 29, 2026 · Four-Page Order

Judge Kathleen Williams made a striking turnabout Friday, reopening President Donald Trump's $10 billion case against the IRS and saying that she wanted to investigate "grievous allegations" that the hasty deal to resolve it was "premised on deception."

"Here, the former judges advance grievous allegations that Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this litigation solely to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that 'was collusive from the start,' and was only filed to provide the imprimatur of legality for an unlawful settlement." — Judge Kathleen M. Williams, Order, May 29, 2026

Asserting that she was "empowered to investigate serious misconduct" in a case before her, she ordered Trump's lawyers to tell her by June 12 whether the case should be formally reopened because "the court was the victim of a fraud."

She directed the president to file a response by June 12, laying out their responses to the former judges' allegations of "collusion" and "deception," and the question of whether the case should be formally reopened.

She pointed to reporting by the New York Times that described how the IRS had prepared a 25-page memorandum outlining defenses against the suit that the Justice Department did not take up in court. This is the most significant new detail in the entire record — the IRS had its own defense strategy ready, and the DOJ suppressed it to allow Trump to win a case against his own agency.

DEV 02

Judge Brinkema Issues TRO — Fund Operations Completely Halted

Eastern District of Virginia · Temporary Restraining Order · All Fund Operations Blocked

US District Judge Leonie Brinkema has ordered a temporary halt on all operations of the Trump administration's Anti-Weaponization Fund. The brief order says the administration cannot take any action "pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which includes the transfer" of any funds.

The TRO was entered after a January 6 prosecutor and others sued to block the fund. The suit directly mirrors the legal argument we documented — that the fund constitutes an unconstitutional appropriation of public funds for political purposes without Congressional authorization.

Some lawmakers were concerned the funds would be awarded to people involved in the riots at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., told reporters he did not sign off on the creation of the fund and insisted that no taxpayer money should go to "any January 6 insurrectionist." "I do not think one penny of any fund should ever go to any January 6 insurrectionist that was in the Capitol," Flood said.

A Republican member of Congress publicly stating that no money from the fund should flow to January 6 defendants is significant — it confirms that even within Trump's own party, the fund's intended beneficiaries are indefensible as recipients of public funds.

DEV 03

35 Former Federal Judges File — Bipartisan · Both Parties · Rule 60 Motion

May 27, 2026 · Appointed by Presidents of Both Parties · Rule 60 FRCP

Nearly three dozen former federal judges appointed by presidents from both parties have joined a growing legal effort to upend the Trump administration's newly created $1.776 billion fund. The retired jurists are asking a judge in Miami to reverse her decision dismissing the extraordinary lawsuit.

The 35 judges say the lawsuit "is itself a fraud on the court." The settlement in the case, the former judges say, "was not, and never will be, legally justified." They pointed to the fact that the laws invoked by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to establish the Anti-Weaponization Fund require "the existence of a legitimate litigation and not, as here, one that is collusive, feigned, or fraudulent."

"Movants are filing this motion because they have dedicated their professional lives to the administration of justice." — Brief of 35 Former Federal Judges, May 27, 2026

The bipartisan nature of this filing cannot be overstated. These are not political actors. They are former judges — appointed by presidents of both parties — who concluded that the integrity of the federal judiciary had been so seriously compromised that they were compelled to act. When 35 former judges file a brief calling a presidential lawsuit "collusive from the start," it is the most authoritative possible statement that the analysis we published was correct.

The Detail That Changes Everything

The IRS Had A 25-Page Defense. The DOJ Suppressed It.

New Revelation — Reported by The New York Times — Cited by Judge Williams in Her Order

The IRS prepared a 25-page memorandum outlining its defenses against Trump's lawsuit. The Department of Justice — which was nominally representing the IRS as defendant — did not take up those defenses in court. Judge Williams specifically cited this reporting in her fraud inquiry order.

This single fact transforms the entire legal picture. We documented that the case had no genuine adversarial parties — that Trump controlled both sides. The IRS's 25-page defense memo proves that the IRS itself knew it had a case, prepared its arguments, and was then prevented from making them by the very DOJ that was supposed to represent it.

The DOJ's decision not to use the IRS's own defense arguments is not passive negligence. It is active suppression of a genuine defense on behalf of a nominal client — the IRS — in order to allow the opposing party — Trump — to obtain a favorable outcome against his own agency. That is the textbook definition of collusive litigation.

The 25-page memo also means that somewhere in the DOJ or IRS files, there is a document that sets out in detail exactly why Trump's case was legally vulnerable. That document — which the DOJ refused to use — is now evidence in a fraud inquiry. Judge Williams knows it exists. The 35 former judges know it exists. And Trump's lawyers must now respond to its existence by June 12.

The Bipartisan Dimension — Republicans Break With The Fund

Both Democrats and Republicans have criticized the fund. Opponents have labeled it a massive "slush fund" for President Donald Trump's allies.

The bipartisan criticism — from within Congress and from former judges of both parties — eliminates any argument that opposition to the fund is politically motivated. When Republican members of Congress publicly refuse to support payments to January 6 defendants from public funds, and when former judges appointed by Republican presidents file a fraud brief, the scheme has lost the political cover it might otherwise have claimed.

Our Analysis — Confirmed by Courts

Every major finding validated in open proceedings within ten days

Our Analysis — May 19

"The dismissal was timed specifically to avoid the court's imminent constitutional scrutiny."

Judge Williams: Dismissal filed "solely to avoid judicial scrutiny" — confirmed in her order

Our Analysis — May 19

"There was no genuine adverse party at any stage. Trump controlled both sides."

35 Former Judges: Lawsuit "was collusive from the start" — confirmed in their brief

Our Analysis — May 19

"The settlement hidden from the court constitutes fraud on the court."

Judge Williams: Opens inquiry into whether "the court was the victim of a fraud" — confirmed

Our Analysis — May 19

"The judgment fund cannot be used for collusive, feigned, or fraudulent litigation."

35 Former Judges: Judgment fund "requires the existence of a legitimate litigation and not one that is collusive, feigned, or fraudulent" — verbatim confirmation

Our Analysis — May 19

"A TRO blocking fund disbursements is the most urgent immediate remedy."

Judge Brinkema: TRO entered blocking all fund operations — confirmed and implemented

Our Analysis — May 19

"Judge Williams can reopen the case on her own — fraud on the court has no limitations period."

Judge Williams: Exercises inherent power to reopen and investigate — confirmed in four-page order

The Former Judges — Why This Matters

35

Former Federal Judges — Both Parties — Filed Fraud Brief These are not advocates. They are not politicians. They are former members of the federal judiciary — appointed by presidents of both parties — who concluded that the integrity of the courts had been sufficiently compromised that they were obligated to act.

The significance of 35 former federal judges filing a bipartisan brief calling a presidential lawsuit "collusive from the start" and "itself a fraud on the court" cannot be overstated. Federal judges — active or retired — do not make such allegations lightly. The standard for filing such a motion is the highest in the legal profession. These former judges concluded the evidence met that standard.

They argued the case was fraudulent and led to an improper settlement, and that the acting attorney general's order creating the Anti-Weaponization Fund was based on a fraudulent "judgment fund" that is not legitimate — because the laws invoked require "the existence of a legitimate litigation and not, as here, one that is collusive, feigned, or fraudulent."

The language "collusive, feigned, or fraudulent" comes directly from the Judgment Fund statute itself — meaning the former judges are arguing that by the plain text of the law Blanche cited as his authority, the fund he created has no legal basis. The authority claimed in the addendum destroys itself the moment the litigation it claims to implement is found to be collusive.

What Happens Next

The Legal Calendar From Here

June 12
2026

Trump Must Respond to Judge Williams' Fraud Inquiry

Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization must file responses addressing the collusion allegations, the deception claims, whether the case should be formally reopened, and whether the court was the victim of a fraud. Any response they give creates a sworn legal record — any evasion will itself be noted by the court.

Pending
EDVA

Judge Brinkema's TRO — Preliminary Injunction Hearing

The temporary restraining order blocking all fund operations will require a preliminary injunction hearing at which the administration must demonstrate why the fund should be allowed to operate pending full review. Given the constitutional grounds already identified, this is an extremely difficult standard to meet.

Post
June 12

Judge Williams — Decision Whether to Formally Reopen

After receiving Trump's response, Judge Williams will decide whether to formally reopen the case. If reopened, she has full jurisdiction to examine the settlement, the addendum, the concealment, and the collusive structure of the underlying litigation.

The IRS
Memo

The 25-Page IRS Defense Memorandum — Must Be Produced

If the case is formally reopened, the IRS's 25-page defense memorandum — which the DOJ suppressed — will almost certainly be subject to discovery. That document sets out in detail exactly why Trump's case was legally vulnerable. Its production could be the most consequential single document in the entire proceeding.

Senate
Oversight

Senator Murkowski — Commerce Justice Science Subcommittee

With both courts now acting and 35 former judges on record, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that Blanche misled on the morning he signed the addendum has an even stronger institutional basis to act. The court record now confirms what Blanche concealed from the committee.

The
Addendum

The 7:50 A.M. IRS Audit Immunity Order — Legal Status

If the underlying settlement is found to be collusive and the judgment fund use is found to be illegitimate, the addendum permanently barring IRS examinations of Trump — signed by Blanche alone, after the court lost jurisdiction, without IRS signature — has no legal foundation whatsoever. It falls with everything built on the fraudulent litigation beneath it.

Analysis

The Noose Was Always There. The Courts Have Now Picked It Up.

When we published the original analysis of Judge Williams' dismissal order in May — a document she wrote without knowing she was documenting a fraud committed against her own court — we described it as potentially the most important judicial document in this constitutional crisis. We were right, but not in the way we anticipated. It was not just evidence of the fraud. It was the trigger for the fraud inquiry.

The judge who wrote the order noting that no settlement had been filed, that DOJ had violated its transparency obligations, and that the public interest had not been protected — that judge is now investigating whether her court was the victim of a fraud. The document she wrote in real time as the fraud was committed against her has become the foundation of her inquiry into that fraud.

Williams wrote that a "party's decision to file a frivolous lawsuit for the sole purpose of forcing a settlement may qualify" as the kind of impropriety that allows the court to investigate and determine "whether an attorney has abused the judicial process." That is the full weight of Article III judicial authority being brought to bear on a scheme that was designed specifically to avoid it.

The fund is halted. The fraud inquiry is open. Thirty-five former judges from both parties are on record calling it collusive. The June 12 deadline is approaching. The IRS's suppressed defense memo will eventually be produced. And the addendum signed at 7:50 a.m. — the document that purports to permanently immunize Trump's financial empire from federal examination — sits at the end of a chain of legal authority that is now being dismantled from the bottom up by two federal courts simultaneously.

The Series Record

This is the fifth installment in The Constitutional Record's analysis of Trump v. IRS and the Anti-Weaponization Fund. Our original analysis identified: fraud on the court; collusive litigation; judgment fund misuse; Appropriations Clause violation; the Bondi memo as self-indicting evidence; the addendum's jurisdictional void; the recusal violation; and the IRS mandatory audit policy conflict. Every major finding has now been confirmed in open court proceedings within ten days of publication.

The legal hangman's noose we documented was built by the people wearing it. Two federal courts are now holding the rope.

June 12. Trump must respond. The court is waiting.

The Constitutional Record — Full Series

Post 01: The Memo That Condemns Itself — The Bondi February 5th Directive

Post 02: The Legal Hangman's Noose — Twelve Strands That Cannot Break

Post 03: In The Room — Senator Murkowski and the 7:50 A.M. Addendum

Post 04: Anatomy of the Addendum — A Complete Forensic Examination

Post 05 (This Post): The Courts Act — Judge Williams Opens Fraud Inquiry · Fund Halted · 35 Former Judges File

The Constitutional Record  ·  Legal Analysis for the Public Interest  ·  May 30, 2026