Two Alaskan lawmakers—including one Republican and one independent—just published a hand-wringing op-ed in The New York Times warning that the GOP’s latest budget reconciliation bill will throw their state into chaos. The headline? “Alaska cannot survive this bill.”
The list of horrors is long: Nearly 40,000 Alaskans will lose their health coverage, tens of thousands will go hungry as SNAP benefits are slashed, rural clinics and grocery stores will disappear, schools will be defunded, and entire communities will be left to fend for themselves.
All of it is true. And all of it is the direct result of the agenda that Alaska voted for.
President Donald Trump campaigned on gutting the federal government—slashing Medicaid, killing food assistance, ending clean energy tax credits, and defunding agencies that keep rural America afloat. More than 54% of Alaskans voted for him in 2024 anyway.
This isn’t new. Red states have long depended on the very federal programs that their politicians vow to destroy. When Trump cuts the Federal Emergency Management Agency, it’s the governors of red states who panic. When Medicaid is attacked, it’s rural hospitals in deep-red counties that go under. With SNAP on the chopping block, red states suffer the most. West Virginia, for example, has 16% of its population on food stamps.
And through it all, blue states keep footing the bill—only to be smeared as “socialist” for insisting that the government should actually help people.
In fact, the small-government crowd is the most dependent on assistance from the government. The same politicians who rail against handouts suddenly demand carveouts when the axe swings their way—like Sen. Lisa Murkowski scrambling to shield Alaska from the very law her constituents voted for. It’s a pattern, and it’s getting old.
In their op-ed, the authors warn that “Alaska cannot afford to lose health care funding,” citing the state’s high rates of suicide, tuberculosis, and sexually transmitted infections, along with a dire shortage of behavioral health services. The kicker? They claim that the GOP cuts “will only make these problems worse,” as if Alaska is uniquely burdened with public health crises and therefore deserves a permanent federal subsidy while voting to deny one to everyone else.
Apparently, when it’s a red state in trouble, the government needs to step in. Immediately. With cash from blue states, who get nothing but scorn in return.
Alaska receives more federal money per capita than almost any other state. More than 40% of its state budget is federally funded, one-third of Alaskans is on Medicaid, and more than 70,000 rely on SNAP—about 10% of the population. That funding comes overwhelmingly from blue states like California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Washington—states that vote for a functioning government.
So, yes, Alaska is right to be scared. The bill will devastate them. But they aren’t innocent. They helped build the wrecking ball—and now they’re shocked to find it swinging in their direction. Actions have consequences.
“What is the end game here? How does it help anyone to terminate health care coverage for our most vulnerable through red tape or take away food for families who have limited to no options for gainful employment?” the op-ed says.
Great questions. You know who’s not trying to do any of that? Democrats.
If this bill passes and the lights start going out in Alaska, there will be no confusion about who flipped the switch.