Republicans Nancy Dahlstrom and Click Bishop are first to file for 2026 Alaska governor's race
Alaska Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, at left, and former state Sen. Click Bishop, at right, have each filed letters of intent signaling they will run for governor in 2026. (Alaska Beacon file photos)
Former Republican state Sen. Click Bishop of Fairbanks and Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom are running for governor.
On Monday, Bishop filed a letter of intent with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, an act that signals his readiness to begin raising money for the 2026 election. Hours later, Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom filed a similar letter of intent.
Incumbent Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy is term-limited and unable to run for reelection in 2026. Bishop was the first person to formally launch a campaign in next year's governor's race.
'I got bib No. 1 coming out of the starting chute,' Bishop said. 'I just hope that we can maintain that through to the election.'
Dahlstrom did not answer a call on her listed number or immediately respond to a voicemail message seeking comment.
Dahlstrom, 67, has been Alaska's lieutenant governor since replacing Kevin Meyer in 2022. A resident of Eagle River, she ran for Alaska's lone U.S. House seat in 2024 but withdrew from that race after finishing third in the primary election. That decision helped consolidate Republican support behind the eventual winner, Republican Nick Begich.
Bishop, who served 11 years in the Alaska Senate, often as a member of a bipartisan coalition, declined to run for reelection in 2024. At the time, he said he was not done with public service, a comment that was widely interpreted to mean that Bishop was taking a break before running for statewide office.
'People have mentioned it over — about the last eight years, 'Man, we think you'd make a great governor.' And of course, your friends are going to tell you that, and they're sincere. I don't mean that in a flippant way. And, I got to thinking … (I'm) going to be 68 in July, and I think that if I'm going to do it, now is the time to do it,' he said.
Alaska's next governor is likely to face immense challenges. The state's budget is expected to be in deficit, and lawmakers are predicting that they will seek to tap the state's main savings account next year, possibly leaving the incoming governor with few financial levers.
The state's public schools are performing poorly by national testing standards, its population has plateaued for more than a decade, its violent crime rate is among the worst in the nation, and it has a large problem with homelessness.
In the Senate, Bishop governed as a moderate, willing to work across party lines while representing his district.
Asked if he governs like U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, he said, 'I think that's it. I don't get mad and take all my toys home because I don't get my way. I mean, you have to continue to work with people. … If somebody's wanting an incendiary bomb-thrower, I'm not that person.'
While in the Senate, he proposed a per-person tax to benefit schools and an increase in the state's lowest-in-the-nation gas tax. Neither proposal became law. He was able to create a statewide education lottery system based around the Permanent Fund dividend.
Monday's filings are unusually early by historical standards. When Dunleavy applied for the 2018 governor's race, he filed a letter of intent in July 2017. Ahead of the 2022 election, the three leading candidates all filed letters of intent in August 2021.
The 2026 governor's race is expected to feature a crowded field of candidates. It will be the first time since 2002 that an incumbent governor is not on the ballot.
'I don't know — you might see a dozen (candidates),' Bishop said when asked how many people he expects to enter the race.
Under Alaska's election system, governor and lieutenant governor candidates run together, on a single ticket.
Bishop said he's thought about some names for his lieutenant governor, but he isn't ready to make a decision.
'I will not commit to anything as far as lieutenant governor at this point; we're a long ways off, but we'll see how it goes,' he said.
He added that a bellwether for his campaign will be his ability to raise money.
Alaska currently has no limit on the amount of money that an individual can donate to a political campaign. In the 2022 governor's race, the top two candidates each reported raising more than $2 million. The third raised more than $1.5 million.
'I know a lot of little people and big people, but we'll see,' he said. 'We'll give 'er our best shot. Now we're going to see who was serious about me running or not serious about me running.'
Bishop owns a small gold mine in Interior Alaska and when reached on Monday said he plans to spend the next week working there before fully launching his campaign.
'We're going to mine this summer, but we've got strategic events — listening sessions — over the course of the summer, but they will ramp up after freezeup,' he said.
'I'm just looking forward to seeing and meeting with the people of Alaska to hear them.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Moran asks federal officials to keep airspace restrictions at D.C. airport in place
U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran demanded commitments from federal officials during hearings Thursday to keep airspace safe at Reagan Washington National Airport, the site of a deadly collision in January. (Kansas Reflector screen capture of U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran's YouTube channel) TOPEKA — U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran pressed federal officials Wednesday on how they intend to ensure safety at the Reagan Washington National Airport in Washington, D.C., in the wake of a January crash between a passenger plane from Wichita and an Army helicopter that left no survivors. Moran, a Kansas Republican, questioned U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Federal Aviation Administration administrator nominee Bryan Bedford at separate committee hearings Wednesday on whether they would commit to keeping in place restrictions on non-essential helicopter flights around the D.C. airport. 'It's my understanding, from information from the Army, that since Jan. 29, seven flights have taken off and landed at the Pentagon,' Moran said to Hegseth. 'Six of those flights occurred during periods of high volume at DCA. One of those aircraft caused two different commercial flights to abort landing on May 1, and since this latest incident, I understand that all flights have been halted.' Since the January crash, Moran has pushed for aviation reforms, introducing legislation that mandates in busy airspace the use of Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast, or ADS-B, which automatically transmits an aircraft's location to nearby pilots once per second. The legislation also removes the possibility for pilots to opt out of using ADS-B. Moran introduced that legislation after close calls at the same airport where the crash took place. The Pentagon, which is less than two miles away from Reagan National as the crow flies, halted military helicopter flights near the airport. The legislation has been in a committee awaiting action since it was introduced in early May. Moran wants the flight restrictions in place until the FAA can come up with a safe route, if there is one. Hegseth, in response, said no authorization for VIP or convenience flights exists in that area. 'You have our assurance that I'm working with (Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy) very closely to make sure that the only flights that would be — even in a modified path — would be those that are necessary and are authorized,' Hegseth said. Moran sits on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, where he questioned Hegseth, and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, where he requested a commitment from Bedford to maintain safety restrictions. 'My understanding is the FAA is supreme when it comes to the control of the airspace,' Bedford said. 'But we want to be good partners with the Department of Defense, and we have protocols on how to do that — multiple protocols, as I understand.' The FAA creates military operating areas, which include restricted and prohibited spaces, and line of fire space and alert zones, and determines the airspace classifications around airports. The busiest airports, like Reagan, are Class B airspace. Bedford said the FAA can accommodate the U.S. Department of Defense's needs, but he added, 'we can't have this mixed-use traffic in Class B airspace.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
A pro-family tax code is a pro-America tax code
The greatest joy in life is having children. Many in the developed world have drifted from this core value, and the evidence is seen not just in birthrates, but in a culture that no longer celebrates family. However, two decades of public service, the last eight in Congress, and six more as a college professor and youth mentor have made me an optimistic man. I believe young people are returning to what has been the bedrock value of American society for 250 years. Family and child-rearing is a source of meaning, responsibility and our economic future. As Republicans in Congress map out a tax code for the next American century, they should take tender care to ensure providing for children is as generously encouraged and welcomed as possible. With an expanded Child Tax Credit, the House-passed 'Big, Beautiful Bill' is an excellent first step. Now, the Senate must do its part. Many families say they are having one child fewer than they want due to financial pressure, with the average being 0.5 children fewer per couple. Childcare today costs more than in any other period in American history, rising over 200 percent in the last three decades and now outpacing college tuition in most states. Couples raising children usually require more space than those who are not, and so are more affected by the national housing crisis, too. Our culture makes it all worse — we all know couples who don't want to start families if they can't put them in the best daycare, the top schools, the safest neighborhoods, and all those costs are significantly higher than the baseline. 'Making perfect the enemy of the good' used to be a punchline for politics. Now, it's how we live our lives. From costs to social media-induced delirium, the pandemic only made it all worse. Congress can't solve all of this, but the least politicians can do is ease the financial burden of child-rearing, and help those that want kids, have them. In 2017, when I served in Congress during the first administration of President Trump, we doubled the Child Tax Credit to $2,000 as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We knew that if we were going to reshape the tax code to spur economic growth, we couldn't leave families behind. That expansion helped millions of working families breathe easier while maintaining incentives to work and contribute to the economy. President Trump recognized early that our economic growth is intimately tied to the strength of the American family. Without growing families, we lose the next generation of workers, innovators and taxpayers. Combine President Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration with Congress's inability to reform legal immigration, and our future workforce projections shrink unsustainably. Our need for homegrown population stability becomes even more urgent. Many developing countries today are either near a zero or negative population growth rate. Increasing the population of its citizenry sustains a growing economy. How can a nation survive if it does not encourage the growth of families? How can a nation carry on the cultural traditions which are so crucial to its heritage? Today, that legacy is continued by the chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.). Last year, against pressure from both sides of the aisle, he forged a real bipartisan compromise on the Child Tax Credit — one that rewarded work, supported children and reflected our shared commitment to the next generation. He has captured the spirit of that compelling vision for family policy with the Child Tax Credit expansion in the 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' growing the benefit to $2,500 per child and tethering it to inflation. We need more lawmakers like him — people who put policy before politics and families before partisanship. This is not a welfare giveaway. It's an investment. It pays off in both the short term and the long run. Research has shown that the Child Tax Credit increases labor force participation among lower-income families. That means more people working today, while the children who benefit from stable homes and better nutrition grow into healthier, smarter, more productive adults tomorrow. That's what I call a win-win for America. That's the kind of winning President Trump promised. The Senate will, of course, bring its own considerations to the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' That's how Congress works. But they must preserve or expand Smith's improvements to the Child Tax Credit, the furthest-reaching component of the 2017 tax reforms which touched tens of millions of parents. Republicans cannot leave behind the working class families that have flocked to them, and they must secure and expand this investment in the future of our country. The Child Tax Credit is common-sense policy that meets the moment. Let's build a tax code — and a country — that welcomes the next generation with open arms. Dennis Ross, a Republican, served in Congress from 2011-2019.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
How House And Senate Education Proposals Could Reshape Higher Education
Graduation mortar board cap on one hundred dollar bills concept for the cost of a college and ... More university education As Congress navigates the complex terrain of budget reconciliation, education policy has emerged as a major battleground between competing visions for America's higher education system. The House and Senate are advancing dramatically different approaches to federal education funding, with proposals that could fundamentally alter how millions of students access and pay for college. The House reconciliation bill targets higher education with what critics describe as unprecedented cuts, while the Senate is crafting its version that takes a different approach to similar goals. Both chambers face mounting pressure to address rising college costs and student debt, but their proposed solutions diverge sharply on fundamental questions about the federal government's role in education funding. The most significant differences between the House and Senate proposals center on Pell Grant eligibility, the cornerstone of federal student aid that serves nearly 7 million low-income students annually. The House version seeks to expand Pell Grant eligibility for short-term programs, a bipartisan initiative that would allow students to use federal aid for career training programs lasting as little as eight weeks. This expansion could benefit hundreds of thousands of students pursuing high-demand skills in healthcare, technology, and skilled trades. However, the House proposal also includes restrictions based on immigration status that would eliminate aid for specific student populations. The Senate takes a more restrictive approach to existing eligibility. Senate Republicans propose cutting off Pell Grant access for students who receive scholarships covering their full cost of attendance, including tuition, fees, living expenses, and course materials. This provision would primarily affect high-achieving students from low-income families who combine merit aid with need-based grants, potentially forcing them to choose between scholarship opportunities and federal aid eligibility. The impact of these competing approaches would be profound. The House expansion could democratize access to career training, potentially addressing workforce shortages in critical industries. However, the Senate's scholarship restriction could create perverse incentives, discouraging institutions from offering comprehensive aid packages to their neediest students. Both chambers propose significant changes to federal student lending but through different mechanisms. The House bill includes provisions for "risk-sharing" arrangements that would require colleges to assume financial responsibility for a portion of their students' loan defaults. This policy aims to incentivize institutions to improve outcomes and control costs by making them stakeholders in their graduates' financial success. The House approach represents a market-based solution that could drive down costs and improve program quality. Institutions would have strong incentives to ensure their programs lead to employment outcomes that enable loan repayment. However, critics argue this could push colleges to avoid serving higher-risk student populations or eliminate programs in fields with lower earning potential but high social value. Senate proposals focus more on tightening eligibility requirements and modifying repayment terms, though specific details remain under development as the chamber works toward its July 4 deadline for passage. The most controversial element of the House proposal involves new taxes on college and university endowments. The bill would expand existing endowment taxes and impose additional levies on institutions with substantial financial reserves. Supporters argue this addresses the disconnect between institutional wealth and student affordability, forcing well-endowed colleges to contribute more to the broader education system. The endowment tax provisions could generate significant revenue while pressuring wealthy institutions to increase student aid or reduce tuition. However, universities warn that such taxes could reduce their capacity for long-term investment in research, facilities, and student support services that benefit the broader academic mission. Small colleges, including Swarthmore, Pomona, and Grinnell, have banded together to oppose the tax because half or more of their operating income comes from the endowment revenue, and the tax would decimate their financial aid budgets. The Senate has not adopted endowment taxation to the same extent, instead focusing on spending reductions and eligibility restrictions to achieve fiscal goals. The House reconciliation bill extends beyond traditional education policy to affect healthcare access for students. Provisions related to Medicaid and other health programs could significantly impact the millions of college students who rely on these services. The bill's approach to social safety net programs would create additional barriers for students from low-income families who depend on multiple forms of federal assistance. This broader impact illustrates how education policy intersects with other aspects of social policy, making the stakes of reconciliation higher than traditional education legislation. The House takes Title I, II, III, and IV funds into state block grants based on the total student population (excluding the disabled and low-income populations) and allows students to use these funds for private schools. The Senate bill strengthens formulas to target the highest-poverty districts and schools better. The Senate bill generally rejects significant Title I portability beyond district public and charter options. The House bill eliminates federal mandates for state accountability systems (testing frequency, interventions). It proposes that states design their systems (standards, tests, improvement) with minimal federal approval. It maintains basic federal reporting (graduation, disaggregated data). The Senate bill takes the opposite approach, requiring a robust federal accountability system, annual testing in core grades, identification of low-performing schools, evidence-based interventions, public and transparent data, and disaggregated data. The federal requirements for teacher preparation and accountability would be transferred to the states under the House bill, with states setting their standards for certification, evaluation, and professional development. The Senate bill would maintain the federal role and would provide funds for evidence-based professional development in high-need districts. It also has provisions to require states to demonstrate that students have access to experienced and effective teachers. Charter school funding is increased in the House bill, as is access to vouchers to attend private schools. The Senate bill places restrictions on the use of vouchers or Educational Savings Accounts to fund private school tuition and places increasing accountability measures on these funds. The House bill similarly adds early childhood funds to state block grants. In contrast, the Senate bill provides significant new federal funding for universal, high-quality Pre-K programs with state quality standards. It may also expand childcare subsidies and improve quality. Evaluating these competing visions requires considering both immediate impacts and long-term consequences for educational access and quality. The House expansion of Pell Grants for short-term programs addresses a genuine need in the modern economy, where many high-paying careers require specialized training rather than traditional four-year degrees. This provision could significantly improve economic mobility for working-class Americans seeking career advancement through skills training. However, the House bill's overall approach prioritizes fiscal savings over educational access. The combination of aid restrictions, endowment taxes, and risk-sharing requirements could create a more constrained higher education environment where institutions focus primarily on financial metrics rather than educational missions. The Senate's more targeted approach to eligibility restrictions may preserve broader access while addressing specific concerns about the efficiency of aid. However, the scholarship restriction provision could undermine the very merit-aid programs that many institutions use to attract and retain talented students from diverse backgrounds. Both proposals face significant implementation challenges and political obstacles. The House bill's passage required narrow party-line votes, and similar dynamics are likely in the Senate. The fundamental tension between controlling costs and maintaining access will ultimately require compromise that neither chamber's current approach fully addresses. The most promising elements from both proposals involve targeted expansions of aid for career training and workforce development programs that directly address economic needs. However, the broader restructuring of federal education funding requires more careful consideration of unintended consequences. Effective education reform should expand opportunity while maintaining quality and access. The current reconciliation process, driven primarily by fiscal rather than educational considerations, may not provide the optimal framework for achieving these goals. A more comprehensive reauthorization of higher education policy, developed through bipartisan collaboration, would better serve both students and institutions. As both chambers work toward final passage, the ultimate measure of success should be whether these proposals genuinely improve educational outcomes and economic opportunity for American students rather than simply achieving short-term budgetary targets.
