Hey Dan! We can barely afford the trash bill.. can you toss this for me? Thanks! - ❤️Future US Senator for Alaska Heather McElwain! Dan Sullivan has raised over $9 million for his Senate campaign and currently has $7 million cash on hand. Meanwhile, I’m running a true grassroots campaign with almost no money — because I believe Alaska families deserve better than politicians who rely on massive war chests. I’m not here to get rich in Washington. I’m here to serve. This race shouldn’t be about who has the biggest bank account. It should be about who will actually fight for Alaska families. What do you think matters more — millions in campaign funds, or real service? Heather McElwain Candidate for U.S. Senate #McElwainForAK #AlaskaFirst Paid for by McElwain for Alaska

Someone just donated to my ca$happ and their message said "I COMPLETELY disagree with you, but keep up what you're doing because I enjoy it." $AlaskaFirst 🇺🇸💰🤑

Fuck around with our resources, our revenue, and our future like this… and we’re ALL gonna find out. The hard way. Lost services. Strained communities. A deal we can’t easily unwind once the ink is dry. Senate AKLEG this is your shot. Don’t fold and become yes-men too. Demand a fair share, real sunsets, actual accountability, and Alaska-first protections. Or own the consequences when they hit. Alaskans Call your senators. Read the damn bill. Special session ends June 19. This one matters. #HB381 #AlaskaLNG #SpecialSession #NoMoreYesMen #AlaskaFirst #FAFO

Saturday Fuck Around and Find Out Unhinged Rant 🔥 You CAN’T run the state with yes-men. Sad to say it, but the Republicans in Juneau should be doing a hell of a lot more for actual Alaskans the people who live here, work here, and depend on our resources being handled like they matter for the long haul. Instead? They’re just voting yes with uninformed information and taking guidance from the lobby. Rubber-stamping whatever gets shoved in front of them. This Alaska LNG pipeline tax deal HB 381 in this special session is gonna go down as one of the worst deals in Alaska history. 85% property tax cut. Waving goodbye to roughly $800 million a year in revenue our boroughs and state could actually use for real shit like schools, roads, and services. Locking us into decades of false sweetheart terms for a project that still isn’t guaranteed to deliver what they’re promising. You can’t fix people who aren’t willing to learn. We’ve watched the gas line movie before big promises, bigger breaks for developers, and regular Alaskans left holding the bag. Adding a few impact funds and ratepayer caps doesn’t magically make it good. It’s lipstick on a pig, and the pig still might not show up. Fuck around with our resources, our revenue, and our future like this… and we’re ALL gonna find out. The hard way. Lost services. Strained communities. A deal we can’t easily unwind once the ink is dry. Senate AKLEG this is your shot. Don’t fold and become yes-men too. Demand a fair share, real sunsets, actual accountability, and Alaska-first protections. Or own the consequences when they hit. Alaskans Call your senators. Read the damn bill. Special session ends June 19. This one matters. HB381 AlaskaLNG SpecialSession NoMoreYesMen AlaskaFirst FAFO

📍Stay tuned for the next part. On Day One, I'll introduce a balanced budget that doesn't require drawing from savings. Sarah Skeel and I are committed to effective leadership, practical solutions, and bringing Alaska together to solve problems. #AKGov #AlaskaFirst

This is what cowards do! They block different campaigns commenting on the effort to try and inject or imply taking pictures with Lisa is somehow undiplomatic and must mean you’re a Democrat operative. Should be 907dishonest. Isn’t this your chosen candidate taking a picture with Lisa too, recently I might add! #MAGA #alaskafirst #bernadette4gov

Senator Lisa Murkowski has GOT TO GO! One of the WORST voting records in Congress. A moderate Democrat in deep red Alaska. The only reason she’s still there is the scam of Ranked Choice Voting. This must be overturned NOW. Alaska deserves real representation! #FireMurkowski #EndRankedChoiceVoting #AlaskaFirst #RCVScam #DeepRedAlaska #PrimaryMurkowski

🏔️ NAK Nation — Breaking News! 🏔️ Something happened today that NAK Nation needs to understand in context. chinadaily.com.cn/a/202605/2… This is not part of the series. But it connects directly to everything the series has been building toward. What China Just Did Today the Chinese government published new regulations implementing its revised Mineral Resources Law. Premier Li Qiang signed the decree personally. The regulations take effect June 15 2026. Ten days before oral argument in the Pebble Mine case. The regulations consist of 8 chapters and 79 articles. They cover improvements to the mining rights system. Rules on mineral resource exploration and exploitation. Ecological restoration requirements in mining areas. And what the Chinese government describes explicitly as safeguarding mineral resource security and improving the mineral resource reserve and emergency response system. Read that last phrase carefully. Mineral resource security. Reserve system. Emergency response. China is not describing mining regulations in economic terms. It is describing them in national security terms. Strategic stockpiles. Emergency reserves. Safeguarding supply. That is the language of a country that understands exactly what it controls and is taking deliberate legal steps to protect and formalize that control. Why The Timing Matters Three weeks ago US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told the Financial Times that American allies must pay a national security premium for critical minerals sourced outside China. His words were direct. "There is a premium we pay and I call it the national security premium." Two weeks ago Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told the Export-Import Bank conference that critical minerals are the backbone of the economy and committed the administration to reestablishing American dominance in critical minerals. One week ago EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin appeared on a major podcast and described precisely why agencies can no longer stretch statutory language beyond what Congress authorized. He cited Loper Bright. He cited the major questions doctrine. He described the entire legal framework that governs the Pebble Mine case without mentioning it by name. And today China formalized its control over its domestic mineral resource base in binding law signed by its Premier. Every one of those developments points in the same analytical direction. The global competition for critical mineral supply security is not a future concern. It is happening right now. And it is intensifying. What This Means In Plain Language China currently dominates the global supply chain for many of the critical minerals the United States and its allies need for energy transition national defense and advanced manufacturing. That dominance did not happen by accident. It happened because China made deliberate long-term strategic decisions to develop control over mineral resources while the United States was doing things like issuing preemptive vetoes over the world's largest undeveloped copper deposit. Today China took another deliberate step. It formalized that control in binding national law. Mineral resource security is now explicitly a legal obligation of the Chinese state codified in 79 articles signed by the Premier. The United States response to that reality is playing out simultaneously across three streams that this series has been documenting for weeks. A federal court is being asked to determine whether a legally indefensible preemptive veto should have blocked development of 57 billion pounds of American copper in the first place. An EPA administrator is finalizing a new regulatory framework that will eliminate the jurisdictional foundation of that veto. And Congress is advancing legislation that would permanently prevent any future administration from using the same regulatory tool to block critical mineral development again. The Juxtaposition Is Striking China formalizes mineral resource security in binding law on June 15 2026. The United States federal court hears oral argument on whether a preemptive veto that blocked the world's largest undeveloped copper deposit was lawful on June 25 2026. Those two dates are ten days apart. That juxtaposition is not a legal argument. It is not a factor Judge Gleason will consider in her ruling. Courts decide cases on the law not on geopolitical context. But it is a powerful illustration of the broader stakes. While China is tightening its grip on its mineral supply base with binding national law the United States is still litigating whether it should have blocked its own flagship critical mineral project before anyone even submitted a permit application. The asymmetry is its own argument. The Bottom Line Pro-development governments that understand the strategic value of critical minerals do not leave 57 billion pounds of domestic copper in the ground blocked by a legally indefensible preemptive veto. The legal case is proceeding. The administrative stream is advancing. The legislative framework is being built. And today China reminded the world why all of it matters. Stay locked in NAK Nation. 🇺🇸🏔️ #NAKNation #PebbleMine #TheVetoUnravels #CriticalMinerals #China #MineralResourceSecurity #NorthernDynasty #AlaskaComeback #CopperDemand #NationalSecurity #June25 #JudgeGleason #ThreeStreams #PermittingReform #AmericaFirst #AlaskaFirst #MineAmerica #Zeldin #Burgum #Greer #SPEEDAct #WOTUS #LoperBright

🏔️ NAK Nation — Wednesday Analysis Post 🏔️ They Keep Saying The Same Thing Over the past nine days four senior officials have made public statements about Alaska resource development and American critical minerals policy. Read these back to back slowly. Secretary Burgum on May 13. "Ongoing regulatory reform to cut red tape will continue." EPA Administrator Zeldin on May 19. "We are just getting started." Senator Murkowski on Monday. "This is also just the start." Senator Sullivan on Monday. "The Alaska Comeback continues." These are not coordinated talking points from a single press release. They are four separate officials in four separate settings over nine days all saying the exact same thing in different words. What you have seen so far is not the end. There is more coming. The direction of travel is set. The destination has not yet been reached. For NAK Nation that consistency is not coincidence. It is a pattern. And the most important Alaska resource development case in the Clean Water Act's fifty year history has oral argument in 36 days. Congressman Begich said it best. "That kind of opportunity only exists because people were willing to reject the idea of decline, think long-term, and invest in Alaska's future." That is the Pebble Mine investment thesis in one sentence. Oral argument before Judge Gleason is 36 days away. Chapter 4 of The Veto Unravels posts Thursday. Stay locked in NAK Nation. 🇺🇸🏔️ #NAKNation #PebbleMine #TheVetoUnravels #AlaskaComeback #Burgum #Sullivan #Murkowski #Begich #CriticalMinerals #NorthernDynasty #ThreeStreams #June25 #JudgeGleason #PermittingReform #MineAmerica #AlaskaFirst #AmericaFirst #Zeldin #Sarah Palin

🏔️ NAK Nation — Monday Analysis Post 🏔️ Welcome back to The Veto Unravels. Chapter 3: Who Is Judge Sharon Gleason On Thursday I explained what an APA case is, why the two Supreme Court decisions that came after the Biden veto fundamentally changed the legal lens Judge Gleason must apply, and why June 25 is unlike any prior legal challenge to this veto. Today I want to introduce you to the judge herself. Before June 25 NAK Nation needs to understand who is sitting in that courtroom. Not because her biography decides the case. But because understanding how she thinks and how she has approached similar questions in the past helps you interpret what you are watching in real time on June 25. Her Background: A Career Built In Alaska Sharon Gleason was born in Rochester New York in 1957. She earned her law degree with Order of the Coif honors from UC Davis School of Law in 1983 and clerked for Alaska Supreme Court Chief Justice Edmond Burke immediately after graduation. She originally expected to stay for one year. Instead that clerkship anchored her entire career permanently in Alaska. She spent nearly two decades in private practice in Anchorage before being appointed to the Alaska Superior Court in 2001 and becoming presiding judge of the Third Judicial District in 2009. President Obama nominated her to the federal bench in 2011. The Senate confirmed her 87 to 8. She became the first woman ever to serve as a federal district judge in Alaska and assumed the role of Chief Judge in 2022. That biography matters for one specific reason. Judge Gleason did not arrive at this case as an outsider learning Alaska law for the first time. She has spent her entire legal career in Alaska handling disputes involving federal lands, Alaska Native rights, natural resources, energy development, and environmental regulation. When the Pebble Mine case landed on her docket it went to the judge who knows this legal landscape better than almost anyone else on the federal bench. Her Judicial Style: What The Record Reveals Judge Gleason is known in Alaska legal circles as a lawyer's judge. Attentive to briefing, difficult to sway with rhetoric unsupported by record evidence, and rigorously focused on what the documents actually show. Her opinions are lengthy, heavily footnoted, and grounded in administrative record analysis. She dissects agency findings line by line. Even critics of her rulings acknowledge the seriousness and craftsmanship of the opinions themselves. Four characteristics consistently appear in her rulings and all four are directly relevant to the Pebble Mine case. She places a strong emphasis on administrative procedure, scrutinizing whether agencies complied with the statutes governing their authority. She demands clear analytical support rather than broad conclusions. Generalized assertions do not satisfy her. She respects institutional boundaries and does not write sweeping opinions that go beyond what a case requires. And she is not automatically anti-development or pro-environment. She has ruled against Republican administrations in major oil development cases and denied injunctions sought by environmental plaintiffs in others. I want to address something directly because I have seen it come up in this community. Some readers will look at the fact that Judge Gleason was appointed by President Obama and conclude she is a political actor who will rule against the plaintiffs no matter what the record shows. That conclusion is not supported by her actual judicial record and I think it is important to say so plainly. Judge Gleason has ruled against the Biden administration. She has ruled against the Obama administration. She has ruled against environmental plaintiffs. She has ruled against the federal government on behalf of Alaska state interests. Her record does not fit a politically predictable pattern because she is not a politically predictable judge. She is a judge who follows the administrative record and applies the law as written. The plaintiffs in this case are not asking her to be political. They are asking her to do exactly what her entire career shows she does. Read the agency record carefully, apply the legal standards the Clean Water Act and the Supreme Court require, and hold the agency to what the law actually says. That is not a political ask. It is a legal one. And it is precisely the kind of ask Judge Gleason has spent her career answering. That last characteristic is the most important one for NAK Nation to understand. Judge Gleason is not going to decide this case based on whether she personally supports Alaska mining or Bristol Bay fishing. She is going to decide it based on whether the Biden EPA followed the law. And that is exactly the terrain on which the plaintiffs have built their case. Her Track Record On Resource Development Cases The Willow Project cases are the most directly relevant to the Pebble Mine litigation. When the Trump administration approved the Willow oil project Judge Gleason found specific legal deficiencies in the environmental analysis and vacated portions of the approval. Critics called it anti-development. But the opinion was fundamentally procedural. She did not say Willow was bad policy. She said the agency had not followed the required legal process in specific documented ways. Then when the Biden administration completed a revised analysis she reviewed it again and upheld the revised approval. The agency had addressed the deficiencies she identified. That was enough. That sequence tells you everything you need to know. She does not have a predetermined outcome. She has a predetermined process. Did the agency follow the law. Did it justify its conclusions in the record. If yes she upholds the action. If no she does not. Applied to the Pebble Mine case that framework is analytically significant. The Biden EPA issued a preemptive veto before a complete permit application was ever filed, under a legal framework the Supreme Court subsequently eliminated, defended by DOJ lawyers who acknowledged their statutory interpretation may not be the best reading of the law. Those are the specific documented legal deficiencies Judge Gleason will be evaluating. What She Has Already Done In This Case Judge Gleason has sent two specific signals through her handling of this case worth paying attention to before June 25. First she voluntarily offered to review prior Section 404c determinations as part of the judicial notice process. She was not asked to do this. She raised it herself. That means she is thinking carefully about how this veto compares to every prior use of this authority in the Clean Water Act's fifty year history. This is the first and only preemptive Section 404c veto ever issued. A judge who voluntarily examines that comparison is paying close attention to the unprecedented scope of what the Biden EPA did here. Second when DOJ filed a motion to continue oral argument the court moved quickly to set a new date. Northern Dynasty described the court as moving quickly in its April 23 2026 press release. A judge who moves quickly on a complex case she has been living with for over two years is a judge who is engaged, prepared, and ready to decide. Why Her Approach Matters For June 25 Her entire judicial record points toward a single analytical disposition. She scrutinizes agency records carefully. She holds agencies to the specific procedural and statutory standards the law requires. She does not give agencies a pass when the record reveals specific documented legal deficiencies. The Biden EPA's Final Determination and Response to Comments are exactly the kind of agency record she is known for examining with the greatest rigor. Line by line. Finding by finding. Legal conclusion by legal conclusion. Measured against the specific words Congress wrote in the Clean Water Act through the lens of two Supreme Court decisions that fundamentally changed the governing standard after the veto was issued. A careful methodical lawyer's judge who follows the record and holds agencies to statutory standards is exactly what this case calls for. And by every indication that is precisely what Judge Gleason is. Coming Thursday I step back from the courtroom and give you the complete picture of where all three streams stand right now as we head into the final stretch before June 25. Stay locked in NAK Nation. 🇺🇸🏔️ #NAKNation #PebbleMine #TheVetoUnravels #JudgeGleason #June25 #CriticalMinerals #NorthernDynasty #AlaskaComeback #CopperDemand #CleanWaterAct #APA #LoperBright #Sackett #PermittingReform #Alaska #AlaskaFirst #AmericaFirst #MineAmerica

🏔️ NAK Nation — Friday Analysis Post 🏔️ The Silence Just Got Louder.......Shush Ten days ago I wrote about the power of what people choose not to say. I made a specific observation. Donald Trump Jr. hosted EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin on his podcast Triggered in May 2025. They talked for an entire episode. Not one word about Pebble Mine. Not a single mention of the world's largest undeveloped copper deposit sitting on Alaska state land. From the man whose opposition helped complicate things during the first Trump administration. I called it a signal. One piece of a larger pattern pointing in the same direction. Yesterday, Zeldin was back on the Trump Jr.'s podcast called 'Triggered'. What They Talked About Sixty minutes. Zeldin and Trump Jr. covered a lot of ground. Loper Bright and why it fundamentally changed how agencies interpret statutes. West Virginia v EPA and the major questions doctrine. Why the old Chevron-era approach of agencies stretching statutes because Congress had not explicitly prohibited something is no longer the governing framework. The Biden EPA's regulatory philosophy. Deregulatory reform. Energy dominance. Permitting backlogs. Executive authority. Economic growth alongside environmental stewardship. And repeatedly throughout the interview Zeldin returned to the same phrase. "The best reading of the law." Not once. Repeatedly. He described it as the governing standard for how the Trump EPA approaches agency decision making after Loper Bright. He explicitly stated that the old Chevron framework no longer controls. He argued agencies must now ground their actions in the actual statutory text Congress enacted rather than expansive interpretations built on silence or ambiguity. Sixty minutes. Two people. One of them the EPA Administrator overseeing the exact agency now reconsidering the Pebble veto framework. The other the president's son with a well documented prior history with this specific project. Not one word about Pebble Mine. Why This Matters Some of you will remember what I wrote on May 4. One silence can be coincidence. Two silences in the same setting with the same people across separate appearances starts looking like a pattern. What makes today analytically significant is not simply that Pebble was omitted. It is what replaced it. Zeldin spent the interview describing in plain language the exact legal doctrines now governing federal agency action. Agencies must follow the best reading of the statute. Chevron deference is gone. Major agency actions require clear congressional authorization. Agencies cannot simply assume power because a statute does not explicitly forbid it. Those are not abstract academic principles. Those are the exact legal standards Judge Gleason must apply on June 25. And they map directly onto the legal vulnerabilities at the heart of the Pebble veto. A veto issued before Loper Bright. Before Chevron deference was eliminated. Before agencies were required to defend not merely a reasonable interpretation of a statute but the best one. Zeldin never mentioned Pebble Mine by name. Trump Jr. never brought it up. But the governing legal framework discussed for an hour is the same framework sitting before Judge Gleason on June 25. The Pattern On May 4 I outlined multiple developments all pointing in the same direction. The Day One Executive Order prioritizing Alaska resource development. Zeldin personally approving reconsideration language regarding the veto. The Section 4 procedural framework protecting reconsideration authority. Ongoing WOTUS revisions after Sackett. The administration-wide emphasis on permitting reform and domestic mineral production. The DOJ defending the veto in court while simultaneously operating inside a post-Loper Bright framework far less favorable to expansive agency authority than the framework that existed in January 2023. Today adds another data point. Two appearances. Roughly two hours of combined conversation between the EPA Administrator and the president's son. Zero mentions of Pebble Mine. I cannot prove intent from silence alone. But patterns matter. And what I observe is an EPA Administrator repeatedly and publicly articulating a legal philosophy fundamentally hostile to broad Chevron-era agency expansion while never once publicly defending the legal theory underlying the Biden EPA's Pebble veto. He does not need to say the name. The legal framework says enough on its own. Stay locked in NAK Nation. 🇺🇸🏔️ Have a great weekend! #NAKNation #PebbleMine #Zeldin #TheVetoUnravels #NorthernDynasty #CriticalMinerals #AlaskaComeback #CopperDemand #LoperBright #June25 #JudgeGleason #CleanWaterAct #PermittingReform #ThreeStreams #AmericaFirst #AlaskaFirst #MineAmerica #DrainTheSwamp

🏔️ NAK Nation — Thursday Analysis Post 🏔️ As previously communicated X is discontinuing its Communities feature at the end of May. That includes the NAK Pebble Mine Community. If you have not already done so, please follow me directly on X now so you do not lose the connection to this analysis going forward. While you’re at it, I’d also like to encourage NAK Nation to follow some of the other outstanding content creators in this community — Tye, Kris, Joseph, and others who have done exceptional work keeping everyone informed and engaged. This story is best understood from multiple perspectives, so these are voices worth following directly before the community disappears. Welcome back to The Veto Unravels. Chapter 2: UNDERSTANDING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE LAW Today I want to answer a question that almost everyone following this story has never had answered clearly. What actually happens in a federal courtroom on June 25. There is no jury. There are no witnesses. There is no new evidence. Nobody is testifying about salmon or copper or Alaska land rights. What is happening on June 25 is something called oral argument before a federal judge on cross motions for summary judgment in an Administrative Procedure Act case. That sounds like a mouthful. Every part of it matters and I am going to explain each piece in plain language. What Is An APA Case And Why Is This One Different From Other Court Cases The Administrative Procedure Act is the federal law that governs how government agencies make decisions and how courts review those decisions. It was passed by Congress in 1946, and it is one of the most important laws in the American legal system that most people have never heard of. Here is the simplest way to understand what an APA case is. In an ordinary court case, a judge decides what happened. Who did what. Whether the facts support a legal claim. Witnesses testify. Evidence is introduced. The judge or jury weighs everything and reaches a conclusion about the facts. An APA case is completely different. In an APA case the judge does not decide what happened. The “what” has already been established. In this case, the EPA issued a preemptive veto in January 2023. The judge's job is to decide whether the agency followed the rules when it made its decision. It is really that simple. It is all about “the how”. Specifically, how did the EPA come to a decision to invoke a preemptive veto on the Pebble Mine project. Think of it like a hockey game. A referee makes a controversial call on the ice. In an ordinary court case, you are arguing about whether the call was right or wrong. Did the puck actually cross the line. Was the player actually offside. You are debating the play itself. In an APA case you are not arguing about the play (what happened) at all. You are arguing about something more fundamental. Did the referee (EPA) have the authority to make that call in the first place. And when the referee (EPA) made it did the referee (EPA) follow the official rulebook of the game or were the rules stretched. That is exactly what this case is. The Biden EPA made a call in January 2023. It issued a preemptive veto of the Pebble Mine. The plaintiffs are not primarily arguing the call was wrong on the science. The plaintiffs are arguing that the referee (EPA) exceeded its authority and did not follow the rulebook when making it. And the rulebook in this case has two parts. The Clean Water Act written by Congress. And the Administrative Procedure Act governing how agencies must behave. This is the first and only time the Biden EPA's 2023 preemptive veto has ever been challenged in court. Northern Dynasty PLP the State of Alaska and the Iliamna Native Corporations filed their lawsuits in 2024. Judge Gleason is the first judge in history to review whether what the Biden EPA did in January 2023 was lawful. That matters enormously as I will explain shortly. What Is The Biden Veto And What Documents Are Being Reviewed Let me make sure every reader understands exactly what this case is about before we go any further. In January 2023 the Biden EPA issued what is called a Final Determination under Section 404c of the Clean Water Act. To be crystal clear, this was the preemptive veto of the Pebble Mine project. Preemptive means EPA issued it before PLP ever filed a complete permit application. Before the normal permitting process was finished. Before PLP had formally designated any specific disposal sites. It was the first and only preemptive veto in the fifty-year history of this law. Along with the Final Determination the 2023 Biden EPA also published a 966-page document called the Response to Comments. That document contains EPA's official responses to every legal scientific and factual argument raised against the veto during the public comment period. I want to stop here and make sure NAK Nation understands just how important these two documents are. They are not background reading. They are the foundation of this entire legal case. The Final Determination is the Biden EPA's official legal justification for issuing the veto. Every argument the EPA made. Every legal standard it applied. Every factual conclusion it reached. It is all in that document. Arguably, these two documents are the most important documents in this entire case. They are the dividing line between truth and deception. If you do not understand these documents, you do not understand the case. It is that simple. Every argument, every violation, every contradiction, and every act of misconduct exposed in this fight traces directly back to what is written in these pages. Think of these documents as the foundation of a skyscraper: if the foundation is corrupt, cracked, or deliberately concealed, everything built on top of it becomes unstable. That is exactly why these documents matter. They are the foundation upon which this entire case stands or falls. When Judge Gleason asks whether the Biden EPA followed the law she is measuring what EPA said and did in the Final Determination against the legal standards the Clean Water Act and the Supreme Court require. The Response to Comments document is equally important and, in some ways, even more revealing. It is the document where EPA responded to every challenge raised during the public comment period including the specific legal arguments that PLP and others made against the veto before it was even issued. When challengers pointed out legal problems, EPA had a chance to address them. What EPA wrote in response to those challenges and what it chose not to address are both analytically significant. Some of the most important admissions in this entire case appear in that 966-page document. Admissions we will examine closely in Chapters 5 and 6. Together the Final Determination and the Response to Comments are the administrative record at the heart of this lawsuit. They are the evidence Judge Gleason is working from. They represent everything the Biden EPA said and did when it issued the veto. And critically they are fixed evidence that are frozen in time. They cannot be altered or changed. They cannot be supplemented. There is no do over. What is in those documents is what EPA has to defend. And what is in those documents is what Judge Gleason will be measuring against the law. The Clean Water Act Is Her Guide But Through A Completely Different Lens Judge Gleason is not making this decision based on her personal views about mining or salmon or Alaska development. She is making it based on what the law actually says. The primary legal text she will be working from is the Clean Water Act. Specifically, Section 404c which is the provision that gave EPA the authority to issue the veto in the first place. Section 404c uses specific words. It authorizes EPA to veto a permit when the discharge of materials will have: "unacceptable adverse effects on fishery areas including spawning and breeding areas" Those words are not suggestions. They are the legal boundary of EPA's authority. Every single word in that phrase matters. What fishery areas means. What spawning and breeding areas mean. What unacceptable adverse effects means. What will have means. Judge Gleason must read those words carefully, apply every available tool of legal interpretation and determine what they actually authorize. She is not asking whether EPA's environmental concerns were sincere. She is asking whether the specific words Congress wrote in the Clean Water Act authorized the EPA to do what it did. This distinction is critical. The Clean Water Act is the official rulebook. Judge Gleason is the senior referee reviewing whether the agency followed it. BUT………here is what makes this case unlike anything that has come before it. Judge Gleason is reading the Clean Water Act through a new lens that did not exist when the Biden EPA issued the veto. Two Supreme Court decisions handed down after January 2023 fundamentally changed how courts must interpret and apply that statute. And because this is the first time the veto has ever been challenged in court it is also the first time it is being examined under these new legal standards. The Biden EPA never had to defend its veto under these rulings. It issued the veto before they existed. Now for the first time a court is reviewing that veto using legal tools the agency never anticipated and never designed its veto to survive. The Two Supreme Court Rulings That Changed Everything And Why Their Timing Is Critical This is the part of the story that most retail investors following NAK have not fully absorbed. And it is arguably the most important analytical point in the entire series. The Biden EPA issued its preemptive veto in January 2023. Just four months later in May 2023 the Supreme Court decided Sackett v EPA unanimously. Nine to zero. Every single justice agreed. This ruling significantly narrowed which wetlands and waterways qualify as protected waters under the Clean Water Act. It eliminated the broad ecological connectivity theory EPA had been using to claim jurisdiction over vast areas of wetlands and replaced it with a strict requirement. The government must now prove a continuous surface connection between a wetland and a relatively permanent water body for each specific water feature individually. Feature by feature. Not generally. Not approximately. Each one specifically. The Biden EPA issued its veto under the rules in the old rulebook. The old rules no longer exist. One year later in June 2024 the Supreme Court decided Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo. This ruling eliminated something called Chevron deference which had existed for forty years. Under Chevron deference courts were required to defer to an agency's interpretation of ambiguous statutes as long as that interpretation was reasonable. In plain language that meant agencies like EPA could stretch the meaning of words in the Clean Water Act and courts would generally accept it. Loper Bright eliminated that deference entirely. Courts must now independently determine the best reading of every statutory term. Not a reasonable reading. The best reading. The Supreme Court stated this explicitly in its own majority opinion. "It therefore makes no sense to speak of a permissible interpretation that is not the one the court after applying all relevant interpretive tools concludes is best. In the business of statutory interpretation if it is not the best it is not permissible." Read that again slowly. If it is not the best reading of the statute it is not permissible. Full stop. The Biden EPA issued its veto in January 2023 before either of these Supreme Court decisions existed. It built the entire legal foundation of the veto on rules that the Supreme Court subsequently eliminated. 1.The significant nexus test for jurisdiction that Sackett abolished. 2.The broad deference to agency interpretation that Loper Bright removed. This veto has never been challenged in court before. This is the first time. Which means this is also the first time any court has ever examined this veto through the lens of Sackett and Loper Bright. The Biden EPA designed its veto to survive under a legal framework that no longer exists. It never had to answer for what it did under the framework that actually governs today. Judge Gleason is not reviewing the veto under the rules of January 2023. She is reviewing it under the rules of here and now in June of 2026. Rules that are fundamentally more demanding. Rules that require her to independently determine the best reading of every key statutory term in the Clean Water Act. Rules that require feature-by-feature jurisdictional proof rather than generalized assertions. Going back to the hockey analogy. Imagine the referee made a call under one set of rules. The league then changed the rulebook significantly. And now for the first time the call is being reviewed by an official who must apply the new rulebook not the old one. That is precisely the situation before Judge Gleason on June 25, 2026. And EPA's own DOJ lawyers in their February 2026 court brief made an admission that is now extraordinarily significant under Loper Bright. On page 76 of their 143-page brief defending the veto they wrote: "EPA's definition of fishery areas is reasonable if not the best reading of the statute." Not the best reading. Their words. In their own brief. Under Loper Bright that sentence alone may be the most consequential admission in the entire case. We will explore exactly why in Chapter 6. What Oral Argument Actually Is This case is decided entirely on the written record. The record is closed. No new information enters the room on June 25. What happens is the lawyers come before Judge Gleason and argue about what the existing record means legally under the Clean Water Act as read through the lens of Sackett and Loper Bright. Oral argument is not a presentation. It is a conversation between the judge and the lawyers. Each side gets a limited amount of time to speak but the judge interrupts whenever she has a question. Those interruptions are not a bad sign. They are the entire point of the exercise. Judge Gleason has been living with this case for over a year. By June 25 she will have read every brief every exhibit and every legal citation multiple times. She already knows the arguments. What she does not know yet is how the lawyers respond when she pushes back hard on the weakest parts of their positions. That is what oral argument reveals. When Judge Gleason asks her questions she is evaluating the Biden EPA's veto against five specific legal standards that the Administrative Procedure Act establishes. She is asking whether the agency action was arbitrary and capricious. Whether it was contrary to law. Whether it was unsupported by the record. Whether it was procedurally improper. Or whether it exceeded the agency's statutory authority entirely. These are not abstract concepts. They are the precise legal tests she applies to the Final Determination and the Response to Comments. And the plaintiffs have built specific documented arguments against the Biden EPA's veto under each one of them. In complex environmental cases like this one the judge also uses oral argument to clarify technical or factual disputes already contained in the administrative record. Judge Gleason is not deciding the salmon science. But she may ask pointed questions about how the scientific record was used to justify specific legal conclusions. Those questions will tell you which parts of the record she finds most problematic. Why The Questions Are The Most Important Signal Of The Day The questions Judge Gleason asks are more informative than anything the lawyers say. A judge who has already made up her mind on a specific question moves past it quickly. A judge who is genuinely wrestling with a question presses both sides hard. She tests the arguments from multiple angles. She looks for weaknesses. The first fifteen minutes of the government's presentation will be especially revealing. The issues Judge Gleason addresses first are the ones she is most focused on. If she opens immediately on the fishery areas argument that is where her analysis is most concentrated. If she opens on the jurisdictional question that is the issue she finds most pressing. If she opens directly on remedy she has already concluded there are errors and is thinking about what happens next. Pay very close attention to how she asks her questions. Not just what she asks. A skeptical tone directed at the government is a signal. A skeptical tone directed at the plaintiffs is also a signal. Both matter enormously. And here is the most important thing to understand about what is actually happening in that courtroom on June 25. Oral argument is not just about testing legal arguments. It is where Judge Gleason determines how to structure and justify her written ruling. Every question she asks is helping her build the architecture of the opinion she will eventually publish. When she presses DOJ hard on a specific point she is often working through how she will explain that point in writing. June 25 is where the shape of the ruling becomes visible for the first time. A Note About The DOJ Lawyers The DOJ lawyers arguing in court on June 25 are career government attorneys defending the Biden EPA's 2023 veto because that is their professional obligation regardless of which administration is currently in office. Their presence in the courtroom does not mean the Trump administration supports the veto. Career DOJ lawyers defend inherited agency actions. That is their job. Full stop. If there is any doubt about where the Trump administration actually stands consider what happened on April 29, 2026. Administrator Zeldin testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and Chairman Shelley Moore Capito asked him directly: "I think it is important to emphasize at this point that the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act written by Congress all of what you are doing here falls within the boundaries of what we have directed you to do. Is that correct." Zeldin answered: "Yes ma'am." That exchange is the governing legal framework of this entire case stated explicitly under oath before the United States Senate. Congress writes the law. Agencies operate within their boundaries. Courts enforce those boundaries. That is the Administrative Procedure Act. That is the Loper Bright framework confirmed under oath by the EPA Administrator himself on April 29, 2026. In the same testimony Zeldin specifically referenced the new Waters of the United States rule confirming it is actively moving forward. The actions and the sworn testimony point in one direction. The DOJ lawyers in the courtroom are simply fulfilling their professional obligations. Those are two entirely separate things. What You Are Actually Watching On June 25 You are watching a federal judge apply the Clean Water Act and the Administrative Procedure Act to determine whether the Biden EPA followed the law when it issued the most unprecedented regulatory veto in the fifty-year history of that statute. She is doing it for the very first time. No court has ever examined this veto before. The Biden EPA issued it in January 2023 expecting it would be defended under a legal framework that no longer exists. Judge Gleason is reviewing it under a legal framework the agency never anticipated. Measuring every word in those fixed unchangeable documents against a legal standard far more demanding than anything in place when they were written. That is the historic nature of what happens on June 25. The first legal challenge to a first of its kind veto. Reviewed for the first time under first of their kind Supreme Court standards. In a courtroom where the questions the judge asks will tell us everything about what is coming. Coming Monday I will introduce you to Judge Sharon Gleason herself. Stay locked in NAK Nation. 🇺🇸🏔️ #NAKNation #PebbleMine #TheVetoUnravels #OralArgument #JudgeGleason #June25 #CriticalMinerals #NorthernDynasty #AlaskaComeback #CopperDemand #CleanWaterAct #APA #LoperBright #Sackett #PermittingReform #ThreeStreams #SPEEDAct #Vacatur #RemandWithoutVacatur #SarahPalin #Alaska #AlaskaFirst #AmericaFirst #MineAmerica

🏔️ NAK Nation — Wednesday Analysis Post 🏔️ Something happened yesterday and today that NAK Nation needs to see. This is not part of the series. This is the story unfolding in real time. The Administrative Stream Just Moved Yesterday May 12 2026 the Bureau of Land Management rescinded the Biden administration's Public Lands Rule. Also known as the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule. That rule had elevated conservation as a primary use of federal public lands placing it on equal footing with mining energy grazing and timber. In plain language it was one of the regulatory layers the Biden administration used to create a hostile environment for large scale resource development on federal lands. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman was direct. The rescission unlocks resource-rich lands for key uses such as energy production mining grazing timber and outdoor recreation. One regulatory layer removed. One more step in the same direction. Then Burgum Testified Today May 13 2026 Interior Secretary Doug Burgum testified before the House Natural Resources Committee. I want to quote him directly. On the administration's regulatory agenda: "We have eliminated burdensome ideological counterproductive regulations that undermined efficient land management while maintaining appropriate protections of our wildlife and environment. Ongoing regulatory reform to cut red tape will continue to secure supply chains unlock American energy reduce prices deliver better outcomes for the American people." On critical minerals: "Under this administration Interior along with the rest of the administration is committed to increasing our energy production reestablishing our position as dominant in critical minerals protecting our economic and national security." Two Words Every NAK Investor Needs To Read Again Go back and listen to Burgum's first quote. Not the whole thing. Just two words. Ongoing regulatory reform. He did not say we have completed our work. He did not say the obstacles have been removed. He said ongoing. That word is deliberate. It is the Secretary of the Interior testifying under oath before Congress that what you have seen so far is not the end. It is the continuation of a process that is still in motion. The Public Lands Rule rescission happened yesterday. The WOTUS rule is being finalized. The SPEED Act and PERMIT Act are moving through the Senate. The Pebble Mine veto reconsideration is underway. Oral argument before Judge Gleason is 43 days away. Every one of those things is part of the ongoing regulatory reform Secretary Burgum described today. And he told Congress explicitly that it will continue. The Pattern Is Clear The Day One Executive Order unleashing Alaska's resource potential. The Zeldin personal approval of veto reconsideration language. The WOTUS rulemaking. The Dalton Corridor land transfer. The permitting reform legislation. The April 29 Senate testimony where Zeldin confirmed everything EPA is doing falls within the legal boundaries Congress wrote into the Clean Water Act. And now the BLM Public Lands Rule rescission and Burgum's testimony about critical minerals dominance and ongoing regulatory reform. Each action is a data point. Together they form a pattern that is directionally consistent and accelerating. And the man responsible for America's federal lands just told Congress under oath that it is not finished yet. The world's largest undeveloped copper deposit. 57 billion pounds of copper. 71 million ounces of gold. Sitting on Alaska state land. Waiting. Pro-business governments do not leave a trillion dollars worth of critical minerals in the ground. Full stop. Chapter 2 of The Veto Unravels posts Thursday. Stay locked in NAK Nation. 🇺🇸🏔️ #NAKNation #PebbleMine #Burgum #BLM #PublicLandsRule #CriticalMinerals #NorthernDynasty #AlaskaComeback #CopperDemand #TheVetoUnravels #ThreeStreams #AdminStream #PermittingReform #AmericaFirst #AlaskaFirst #MineAmerica #Zeldin #SPEEDAct #WOTUS #June25 #JudgeGleason #DrillBabyDrill #SarahPalin #OngoingRegulatoryReform

🏔️ NAK Nation — Monday Analysis Post 🏔️ A quick reminder before I get into today's post. As previously communicated X is discontinuing its Communities feature at the end of May. That includes the NAK Pebble Mine Community. If you have not already done so, please follow me directly on X now so you do not lose the connection to this analysis going forward. While you’re at it, I’d also like to encourage NAK Nation to follow some of the other outstanding content creators in this community — Tye, Kris, Joseph, and others who have done exceptional work keeping everyone informed and engaged. This story is best understood from multiple perspectives, so these are voices worth following directly before the community disappears. Now let me tell you what the next seven weeks are going to look like. THE VETO UNRAVELS That is the name of the series I am launching today. I chose those three words carefully. Not because I am promising you a specific outcome. I am not a lawyer and I never oversell certainty that does not exist in a legal case. But because when you read the actual documents in this case the ones EPA filed the ones DOJ filed the ones PLP filed and the Supreme Court rulings that changed the legal landscape after the veto was issued what you find is remarkable. This series has one purpose. To take the most important legal case in this project's history and explain it in plain language so that every person in this community understands exactly what is at stake and exactly what the documents actually show. The best investment decisions come from the best information. My job in this series is not to tell you what to think. It is to make sure you have access to the same documented evidence that the lawyers in this case are arguing about in front of a federal judge. Armed with that information you can draw your own conclusions. No hype. No agenda. Just the information you deserve to have. The legal foundation underlying this veto has faced increasing pressure since the day it was issued. Not because of political pressure. Not because of advocacy. But because of legal questions embedded in EPA's own administrative record that the courts are now required to confront under a very different judicial framework than existed in January 2023. For two years this community has watched and waited. You have held through dilution through political reversals through what felt like endless delay. You stayed because you believed in the asset. You believed in the deposit. And you believed that eventually the legal system would have to confront the legal and factual questions embedded in the record. That reckoning is now 45 days away. I have spent months reading the primary source documents in this case. EPA's Final Determination. The Response to Comments. The DOJ brief. The plaintiff briefs. The Supreme Court decisions that reshaped administrative law after the veto was issued. And what I found is a case that is materially stronger than most retail investors realize. Stronger than the promoters will tell you because they have obvious incentives. And stronger than many skeptics appreciate because the governing legal framework changed significantly after the veto was issued. What I am going to do over the next thirteen posts is show you exactly what I found. In plain language. Grounded in the actual documents. No hype. No guarantees. Just the documented evidence the governing legal framework and the honest analysis they support. By the time June 25 arrives you will understand this case better than most people who have followed this story for years. You will understand what Judge Gleason is being asked to decide. You will understand why several aspects of the veto's legal foundation are now genuinely vulnerable in a post-Sackett and post-Loper Bright environment. And you will be able to watch oral argument and understand in real time what the questions mean and where they may point. That is what The Veto Unravels is. Thirteen posts of document-based analysis for a community that has earned the right to understand exactly what is happening. What Is Coming — All Thirteen Posts Here is exactly what is coming and why each post matters. Post 1 today. The three streams framework and why the court case is the near term catalyst but permitting reform is the permanent solution. Post 2 Thursday May 15. What oral argument actually is. Most people following this story have never watched federal court litigation before. Before June 25 you need to understand what is actually happening in that room. Post 3 Monday May 19. Who is Judge Sharon Gleason and how does she think. Her background. Her track record on complex cases. What her handling of this specific case may tell us about how she approaches agency legal errors. Post 4 Thursday May 22. Where all three streams stand right now heading into the final stretch before June 25. The complete picture for new readers and a strategic refresher for veterans. Post 5 Monday May 26. Argument One. A statement in EPA's own administrative record that became materially more important after the Supreme Court's Sackett decision four months later. Post 6 Thursday May 29. Argument Two. EPA's own lawyers described their statutory interpretation in a specific way in their court brief. Under current Supreme Court doctrine that wording may carry far more significance than many investors realize. Post 7 Monday June 1. Argument Three. A problem with how EPA drew a line on a map. 309 square miles. No separate economic analysis. 66 times larger than any prior action in the fifty year history of this law. This may represent one of the cleanest pathways to a ruling in the entire case. Post 8 Thursday June 4. Arguments Four and Five. Something the government lawyers chose not to request in their brief. And something EPA did that had never been done before in the entire history of the Clean Water Act. Post 9 Monday June 8. Inside the courtroom. What oral argument actually looks like in real time. What Judge Gleason is doing when she asks questions. How to interpret what you are watching as it happens. Post 10 Thursday June 11. The specific questions Judge Gleason may ask on June 25 and what each question could signal about where the court's concerns are focused. Post 11 Monday June 15. A recent public statement that describes in precise legal terms the exact framework now placing pressure on the Pebble veto. Pebble Mine was never mentioned directly. But the description fits perfectly. Post 12 Thursday June 19. How the five arguments work together and why having multiple independent pathways to relief matters more than relying on any single argument alone. Post 13 Monday June 23. Two days out. Everything you need to know for June 25. A complete guide to the hearing what to watch for and what every possible outcome means for the investment thesis. Thirteen posts. Five major legal arguments. One judge. One courtroom. And a legal framework that looks materially different today than it did when the veto was issued in January 2023. 45 Days To Oral Argument On June 25 2026 attorneys for Northern Dynasty and its partners will stand before United States District Judge Sharon Gleason in a federal courtroom in Anchorage Alaska and argue that the Biden EPA's preemptive veto of the Pebble Mine was unlawful. 45 days from now. On a Thursday. Before I get into the courtroom I want to make sure NAK Nation understands where the court case fits in the bigger picture. Because this is not the only thing happening right now. Chapter 1: The Three Streams I have been writing for months about what I call the three streams framework. Three independent pathways all moving simultaneously toward the same destination. The removal of the Biden EPA's preemptive veto and the eventual development of the world's largest undeveloped copper deposit. Stream One is the court case before Judge Gleason. Oral argument June 25. Written ruling to follow. Multiple significant legal arguments that I will walk through in detail over the coming weeks. Stream Two is the administrative stream. The new WOTUS rule being finalized by the Trump EPA. If finalized in line with current proposals it could significantly complicate the jurisdictional foundation underlying portions of the veto. This stream advances regardless of what Judge Gleason ultimately decides. Stream Three is the legislative stream. Permitting reform. The SPEED Act. The PERMIT Act. The Critical Mineral Dominance Act. All passed the House. Senate action expected this summer. And here is the most important thing I want NAK Nation to understand about these three streams. The legislative stream is the most important of the three. Not the court case. I know that seems counterintuitive when oral argument is 45 days away and the courtroom is getting all the attention. But here is why the legislative stream matters most in the long run. A court ruling can be appealed. A regulatory rule can be rewritten by a future hostile administration. But when Congress writes something into law it takes an act of Congress to undo it. The PERMIT Act would permanently ban preemptive vetoes of the kind EPA issued against Pebble Mine. The SPEED Act would protect issued permits from arbitrary revocation. Codified law is the only thing that provides the investor certainty needed to commit the five to ten billion dollars required to actually build this mine. The court case is the near term catalyst. Permitting reform is the permanent solution. But that does not mean winning in court does not matter. It matters enormously. And I want to be clear about why. A favorable ruling from Judge Gleason could vacate portions of the veto outright narrow portions of it or send parts of it back to EPA under a materially different legal framework than existed when the veto was issued. Any of those outcomes could have major implications for the permitting path going forward. It could allow PLP to resume movement through the permitting process without the same legal uncertainty hanging over every step. It could send a significant signal to capital markets that the regulatory landscape surrounding this project is changing. It could strengthen momentum behind the legislative stream by reinforcing concerns about the breadth of EPA's asserted authority. And it could constrain how future administrations attempt to use similar veto theories against other critical mineral projects across the country. In other words a court win does not replace permitting reform. But it accelerates everything. It clears the path. It builds the momentum. And it delivers a near term catalyst that the legislative stream alone cannot provide on the same timeline. The court case is the near term catalyst. Permitting reform is the permanent solution. And right now both are moving forward simultaneously. What Is Coming Thursday Thursday I start with what oral argument actually is. Before you can understand what happens on June 25 you need to understand what is actually happening in that room and why it is so different from anything you have seen on television. Do not miss a single post. Follow me directly on X. Follow Tye. Follow Kris. Follow Joseph. And share this with everyone in your network who follows this story. The NAK Pebble Mine Community disappears at the end of May. The story does not. Stay locked in NAK Nation. 🇺🇸🏔️ #NAKNation #PebbleMine #TheVetoUnravels #OralArgument #JudgeGleason #June25 #CriticalMinerals #NorthernDynasty #AlaskaComeback #CopperDemand #CleanWaterAct #PermittingReform #ThreeStreams #SPEEDAct #PERMITAct #WOTUS #SarahPalin #Alaska #AlaskaFirst #DrillBabyDrill #AmericaFirst #MineAmerica

🏔️ On Monday May 11, I launch a thirteen post series building to June 25 oral argument. It is called THE VETO UNRAVELS. Thirteen posts. Five arguments. One judge. One courtroom. And documented evidence from EPA's own files that the legal foundation of this veto has been coming apart since the day it was issued. Follow me directly before the NAK Pebble Mine Community disappears at the end of May. This is the most important analytical work I have done on this story and I do not want you to miss it. Monday. Be there. 📷#NAKNation #PebbleMine #TheVetoUnravels #JudgeGleason #June25 #NorthernDynasty #NAK #CriticalMinerals #AlaskaComeback #CopperDemand #CleanWaterAct #SarahPalin #Alaska #AlaskaFirst #PermittingReform #SPEEDAct #LoperBright #Sackett #DrillBabyDrill #AmericaFirst #CriticalMinerals #MineAmerica

🏔️ Happy Friday NAK Nation! On Monday May 11, I launch a thirteen post series building to June 25 oral argument. It is called THE VETO UNRAVELS. Thirteen posts. Five arguments. One judge. One courtroom. And documented evidence from EPA's own files that the legal foundation of this veto has been coming apart since the day it was issued. Follow me directly before the NAK Pebble Mine Community disappears at the end of May. This is the most important analytical work I have done on this story and I do not want you to miss it. Monday. Be there. 🇺🇸🏔️ #NAKNation #PebbleMine #TheVetoUnravels #JudgeGleason #June25 #NorthernDynasty #NAK #CriticalMinerals #AlaskaComeback #CopperDemand #CleanWaterAct #SarahPalin #Alaska #AlaskaFirst #PermittingReform #SPEEDAct #LoperBright #Sackett #DrillBabyDrill #AmericaFirst #CriticalMinerals #MineAmerica

Big thanks to Carpenters 1281 for putting in the work behind the scenes—building the frames that will carry our message across the state. 👷‍♂️🪚 Keep an eye out… our signs are going up soon, and we’re just getting started. #AlaskaFirst

Scott Presler puts #AlaskaFirst

🚨 BREAKING: RINO ALERT IN ALASKA! Alaska GOP Governor Mike Dunleavy is primed to PRIMARY CHALLENGE Senator Lisa Murkowski in 2028 — per Fox News! Trump DOMINATED Alaska by 13 POINTS. Her seat belongs to a real America First fighter — not the Senator who’s spent years stabbing MAGA and President Trump in the back! Time to clean house. Alaska deserves better. LET’S GO! 🔥🇺🇸 #PrimaryMurkowski #MAGA #DumpTheRINO #AlaskaFirst

The Democrats are still rolling out the red carpet for @MaryPeltola “No-Show” Mary Peltola their hand-picked lead runner for the U.S. Senate seat. This is the same Congresswoman who sold out our resource-based economy every chance she got. While Alaska families depend on oil, gas, and responsible development in ANWR and the NPR-A, she backed the Arctic Refuge Protection Act to lock up 1.56 million acres of coastal plain as wilderness and racked up perfect League of Conservation Voters scores for killing every pro-drilling measure that came across her desk. And who’s one of her biggest cheerleaders? Eric Swalwell the California congressman who got honey-potted by a suspected Chinese spy (Christine Fang) who helped raise money for him and slept with his associates while he sat on the House Intelligence Committee. Yet the national Democratic machine keeps telling us they’re “for America.” Tell that to the Alaska workers whose jobs and way of life they keep targeting. Alaska isn’t buying it. AlaskaFirst PeltolaSoldOut SwalwellSpyScandal