Legislature(2025 - 2026)ANCH LIO DENALI Rm
11/12/2025 01:00 PM Senate JOINT ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Update(s): Typhoon Halong Disaster Update | |
| Update(s): Jasc Statute Restructuring Project | |
| Update(s): Constitutional Concerns About Department of Defense Policies and Actions in 2025 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
November 12, 2025
1:01 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Andrew Gray, Co-Chair
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative David Nelson
Senator Bill Wielechowski (teleconference)
Senator Kelly Merrick (teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Scott Kawasaki, Co-Chair
Representative Maxine Dibert
Representative Ky Holland
Senator Forrest Dunbar
Senator Mike Shower
PUBLIC MEMBERS PRESENT
George Vakalis
Robert Doehl
Brigadier General (Retired) Julio Banez
PUBLIC MEMBERS ABSENT
Colonel (Retired) Tim Jones
Nelson Angapak
Commodore James Chase
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Elvi-Gray Jackson
Representative Galvin
Representative Coulombe
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
UPDATE(S): TYPHOON HALONG DISASTER UPDATE
- HEARD
UPDATE(S): JASC STATUTE RESTRUCTURING PROJECT
- HEARD
UPDATE(S): CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS ABOUT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
POLICIES AND ACTIONS IN 2025
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
BRYAN FISHER, Director
Division of Homeland Security/Emergency Management
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an update on the Typhoon Halong
Disaster.
KYLE JOHANSEN, Staff
Representative Andrew Gray
Alaska State Legislature
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an update on the Joint Armed
Services Committee Statute Restructuring Project.
CHRIS NELSON, Founder
Christopher Nelson and Associates
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the Joint Armed Services
Committee Statute Restructuring Project.
KAREN FAIR J.D., LL.M., Attorney and Vice President
Improving One Life at a Time
Alcoa, Tennessee
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on constitutional
concerns about the Department of Defense policies and actions in
2025.
DANIEL MAURER, Associate Professor of Law
Northern Ohio University
Ada, Ohio
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on constitutional
concerns about the Department of Defense policies and actions in
2025.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:01:01 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY called the Joint Armed Services Committee meeting
to order at 1:01 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Representatives Nelson, Stutes and Co-Chair Gray; Public members
present were George Vakalis, Robert Doehl and Brigadier General
(retired) Julio Banez; Senators Merrick and Wielechowski joined
thereafter via teleconference.
^UPDATE(S): TYPHOON HALONG DISASTER UPDATE
UPDATE(S): TYPHOON HALONG DISASTER UPDATE
1:01:54 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY announced the Typhoon Halong Disaster Update.
1:02:31 PM
BRYAN FISHER, Director, Division of Homeland Security/Emergency
Management, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs,
Anchorage, Alaska, provided an update on the Typhoon Halong
Disaster.
1:03:01 PM
At ease.
1:05:35 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY reconvened the meeting and announced Senator
Merrick and Wielechowski joined the meeting via teleconference.
1:06:06 PM
MR. FISHER stated that the Typhoon Halong disaster is the worst
he has seen in 31 years of state service. Over 650 homes in
Western Alaskaprimarily in the YukonKuskokwim Deltaare
destroyed or severely damaged, and about 700 people have been
displaced, many now housed temporarily in Southcentral Alaska.
He said many families will not be able to return home this
winter, so the state is working with federal partners on long-
term housing and infrastructure repairs. He said during Typhoon
Halong, the Alaska Army and Air National Guard, the Coast Guard,
and other armed services conducted heroic rescues, including
rooftop hoists. Since then, state and federal agencies have
mounted an all-hands response: Department of Transportation
(DOT) & Public Facilities is repairing critical infrastructure;
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Forestry, and the Alaska
Organized Militia are assisting with home cleanup and emergency
winterization; and Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) is addressing hazardous waste, fuel spills, and damage to
water and wastewater systems. He said the governor has declared
a state disaster emergency from the North Slope Borough through
the Kuskokwim Delta, and a federal disaster has been declared
for the Northwest Arctic Borough and the Lower Yukon and Lower
Kuskokwim areas.
1:10:36 PM
MR. FISHER stated that Alaska is assessing impacts in additional
areas, including the YukonKoyukuk region, to determine whether
they should be added to the federal disaster declaration. The
primary mission is caring for displaced survivors, many of whom
are staying with family, while about 650 are in non-congregate
sheltering. Survivors were initially evacuated by the Alaska Air
National Guard and housed in congregate shelters in Anchorage,
but all have since been moved into hotel rooms. More arrivals
are being placed directly into hotels. He said working with
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), regional housing
authorities, and property owners, the state is securing long-
term temporary housing for the winter through federal disaster
programs. He said schools across Alaska, including Anchorage,
School District (ASD), have welcomed displaced students, and
communities statewide, from Fairbanks to the Kenai Peninsula to
the Mat-Su, have generously hosted families and pets. He said
emergency repairs continue across the region, and once winter
conditions halt work, the state will plan a major effort to
complete repairs to damaged facilities and homes next summer.
1:13:05 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY asked Mr. Fisher to talk specifically about how
many National Guard members have been involved in the disaster
response.
1:13:33 PM
MR. FISHER replied that over 200 members of the organized
militia, including the State Defense Force and the Naval
Militia, have supported the disaster response. The members have
worked in Anchorage and Bethel coordinating logistics and
transportation throughout the Yukon region and have assisted
directly in affected villages and tribal communities with
repairs and cleanup. He said this total also included personnel
deployed to Kotzebue and the Northwest Arctic Borough after the
earlier storm, helping with temporary home repairs so residents
could remain in their communities.
1:14:28 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY asked how quickly the residents were rescued.
1:14:35 PM
MR. FISHER replied that rescue operations began immediately
under the Coast Guard and Air Force rescue coordination centers.
Following the governor's disaster declaration, soldiers, airmen,
and sailors were quickly placed on state active-duty orders. He
said as additional needs emerged across the region, more
personnel were activated and deployed to support affected
communities and survivors.
1:15:18 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY asked how many soldiers are still on orders and
how long they are expected to remain on orders.
1:15:27 PM
MR FISHER stated that he will provide specific numbers to the
committee at another time. He said response efforts are expected
to continue through at least Thanksgiving, involving the
organized militia and multiple state agencies. As winter limits
the ability to complete temporary repairs, operations will be
scaled back, with needs reassessed in the spring when barges
resume operations. Additional service members may be activated
again in the spring and summer to support recovery efforts.
1:16:18 PM
ROBERT DOEHL commended having a state coordinating officer with
prior experience in Galena, noting that this background is
valuable for understanding the challenges ahead. He emphasized
that aviation like the C-17 transport aircraft and Army National
Guard assets including the CH-47s was critical to the successful
disaster response. He asked whether the Division of Homeland
Security will continue to have authority to use National Guard
aviation to support ongoing efforts in Western Alaska.
1:17:04 PM
MR. FISHER replied that Military aviation support will be
gradually reduced. Private-sector aviation in Alaska has strong
capabilities, and DOT&PF has already contracted a private CH-47
for sling-load operations. He said military aircraft were
heavily used during the emergency phase to move survivors,
personnel, and supplies, but operations are now transitioning
back to private aviation.
1:18:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON noted that National Guard flight hours
have increased significantly in recent months, which is costly.
He asked whether there are any concerns about funding
limitations next year or during the upcoming summer,
particularly for wildlife management or rescue operations.
1:18:53 PM
MR FISHER replied that there are no immediate funding concerns
for either commercial or military aviation support. He said
because the President declared a federal disaster, most early
costs, including military and aviation support, will be
reimbursed by the federal government. He said he does not
foresee funding issues for ongoing repairs through winter or for
the larger repair effort in spring and summer. He remains in
close contact with the congressional delegation and the
governor's office and is grateful that a substantial portion of
costs will be federally reimbursed.
1:19:59 PM
GEORGE VAKALIS noted that a similar disaster is likely to occur
again in the area and asked what measures have been recommended
or implemented to help with future events.
1:20:21 PM
MR. FISHER replied that the Department of Homeland Security/
Emergency Management is meeting with the Kipnuk Tribal Council
and other impacted communities to discuss disaster recovery
programs that include mitigation measures. He said these
measures include elevating homes and strengthening
infrastructure, such as installing helical piles under
boardwalks and boardroads, to withstand future storms. He said
repairs will incorporate these strategies wherever possible.
1:21:56 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY asked for a breakdown of the 200 personnel
involved and asked whether most responders were local Guard
members from the affected area or if personnel were primarily
flown in from Anchorage.
1:22:30 PM
MR. FISHER replied that the response involved a mix of local
personnel from Western Alaska and those brought in from
Anchorage and other areas, including the Alaska State Defense
Force, Army and Air National Guard, and Naval Militia. He said
the effort was highly coordinated, and for those overseeing
recovery, the specific component of each responder was largely
irrelevant. He emphasized the dedication and heart of all
volunteers, who put aside their regular jobs to support Alaskans
in need. He said he can provide a detailed breakdown of
personnel by component.
1:23:56 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY asked whether the 200 personnel were sufficient
for the response or if additional volunteers could have been
placed on orders.
1:24:20 PM
MR. FISHER replied that the 200 personnel met the needs of the
disaster response. Volunteers were only placed if there was
meaningful work for them. The combined efforts of military with
state, federal, and local partners provided sufficient capacity
to assess the damage and begin repairs.
1:25:08 PM
JULIO (RANDY) BANEZ asked how the U.S. Coast Guard was involved
with the Typhoon Halong response.
1:25:21 PM
MR. FISHER replied that the U.S. Coast Guard played a key role
immediately after Typhoon Halong, conducting rescues and daily
disaster response. Working with the Department of Environmental
Conservation, they assessed waterways, hazardous materials, oil
spills, and fuel storage, ensuring utility operations remained
safe. The U.S. Coast Guard also performed flyovers and
infrastructure assessments. He said the Arctic District, Sector
Western Alaska, and U.S. Arctic provided early and ongoing
support, coordinating through the State Emergency Operations
Center to assist affected communities and maintain marine safety
and pollution response efforts.
^UPDATE(S): JASC STATUTE RESTRUCTURING PROJECT
UPDATE(S): JASC STATUTE RESTRUCTURING PROJECT
1:27:38 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY announced the update of the Statute Restructuring
Project. He said his intention is to continue discussions on
rewriting the statute governing the Joint Armed Services
Committee (JASC). He said most states already have a Military
and Veterans Affairs (MVA) Committee, and Alaska now has both
the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs and
the newly created Alaska Military Affairs Commission, led by the
lieutenant governor. Since Alaska is the only state with a
permanent joint armed services committee, he wants to clarify
this committee's future role to avoid duplicating the work of
those other bodies. He noted that staff reviewed the original
1999 statute that focuses on Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
and said the 1999 statue no longer reflects the committee's
activities, so that language has been removed. The committee now
needs to determine a new purpose.
1:29:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked if JASC was revised, would there be
BRAC hearings.
1:30:10 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY replied that while JASC could hold BRAC hearings
if needed, he questioned what the committee's role should be if
BRAC hearings are not part of its future responsibilities.
1:30:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON replied that although BRAC hearings
haven't occurred for decades, they could return. He stated that
he would prefer to keep at least a small section in statute
addressing BRAC hearings, even if it was less extensive than the
current version.
1:30:55 PM
KYLE JOHANSEN, Staff, Representative Andrew Gray, Alaska State
Legislature, Anchorage, Alaska, provided an update on the JASC
Statute Restructuring Project. He replied that when BRAC
effectively ended, Congress made a requirement to have a
proactive act to re-establish BRAC. Although it's dormant, he
said [Mr. Vakalis] emphasized the importance of keeping at least
one BRAC-related provision to remind Alaska that the issue could
return and to ensure it isn't forgotten.
1:31:28 PM
MR. DOEHL suggested that instead of focusing narrowly on BRAC,
it may be better to focus on a broader force, structure or
mission changes that would better capture these issues. He said
these would allow consideration of internal departmental
deliberations before they reach Congress.
1:32:09 PM
MR. VAKALIS agreed and emphasized that something should remain
in the statute because BRAC could return, noting it has occurred
four times in the past.
1:32:42 PM
CHRIS NELSON, Founder, Christopher Nelson and Associates,
Anchorage, Alaska, testified on the Joint Armed Services
Committee Statute Restructuring Project. He stated that he was
the first staff director of JASC. He explained that the
committee evolved from a BRAC-focused task force into a
permanent joint legislative committee addressing broader
military issues, especially missile defense. JASC became
proactive, advocating for new missions in Alaska and preparing
for potential future force-structure or base realignments. He
said non-legislative members contributed significant expertise,
and the committee previously hired consultants to guide
strategy. He suggested revisiting that work, noting that
missions and global threats have shifted, creating new
opportunities for Alaska. JASC also used to organize legislative
base tours, including visits to Fort Greely and ADAK, to keep
lawmakers informed about military operations.
1:36:36 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY thanked Mr. Nelson for his work with JASC.
1:36:42 PM
MR. VAKALIS commented that JASC also worked with the FAA to
support the Air Force's efforts to open additional training air
corridors, which have since been established.
1:37:02 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY stated that a recently created 15-member Alaska
Military Affairs Commission, led by the lieutenant governor,
focuses on expanding military presence, maximizing federal
investment, and supporting service members and veterans. He
noted that potential issues like missile defense proposals, such
as President Trump's proposed $75 billion Golden Dome at Fort
Greely, might be more appropriate for JASC to address than for
the House Military and Veterans Affairs Committee. He suggested
drafting broader language to cover projects like Golden Dome and
any future BRAC actions.
1:38:08 PM
MR. NELSON stated that Co-Chair Gray just created more work for
his staff.
1:38:18 PM
MR. JOHANSEN noted that he hopes to submit a draft to
legislative legal by early January so it can be introduced on
the first day of session. He said it would be important to
receive notice of any issues in the next 3040 days.
1:38:36 PM
MR. VAKALIS stated that he met with key personnel from Elmendorf
and Fort Richardson and identified areas where JASC could assist
in the future; a list was created. He opined that keeping the
committee's mandate generic would make it possible to include
most of the recommendations from the list since they were
relevant to military readiness.
CO-CHAIR GRAY asked for the list.
MR. VAKALIS replied that the list was given to [Mr. Johansen].
1:39:17 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY expressed concern about Alaska being the only
state with a permanent Joint Armed Services Committee and a new
Military Affairs Commission. He stated that his focus is
ensuring JASC has a specific mission that does not duplicate the
work of other bodies.
1:39:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked whether JASC would eliminate the
House Special Committee on Military Affairs.
1:40:01 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY noted that JASC has never made legislative
decisions so it should not replace the House Special Committee
on Military Affairs, which is necessary for reviewing military
related legislation. He opined that the committee would remain
and has spoken with Representative Stapp to explain the
commission's purpose and avoid overlap.
1:40:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON noted that the Senate does not have a
Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, but senators can still
introduce related legislation, which typically goes through
State Affairs. Given that Alaska is a smaller government, he
asked whether it was suggested that JASC take over the role and
potentially replace the House Military and Veterans Affairs
Committee.
1:41:10 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY stated that it was pointed out that State Affairs
could handle the work. The key distinction is that JASC is a
permanent standing committee, while the Military and Veterans
Affairs Committee is a special committee that must be re-
established each legislature. He said if it isn't renewed at the
start of a new legislature, it simply ceases to exist.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked if that was the intention to have
JASC [replace MVA].
CO-CHAIR GRAY interjected that he never thought of JASC
replacing Military and Veterans Affairs.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked whether Co-Chair Gray's intent is
for JASC to take on broader responsibilities that would overlap
with, or potentially replace, the current duties of the Military
and Veterans Affairs Committee.
CO-CHAIR GRAY clarified that while the Senate uses State Affairs
to handle Military and Veterans Affairs' bills, JASC cannot meet
often enough or include public members to fill that role. He
expressed concern that it isn't about JASC replacing other
legislative committees, but about potential overlap between JASC
and the newly created Alaska Military Affairs Commission, which
has multiple public members and is led by the lieutenant
governor. He wanted to avoid duplicating functions between the
two entities, and not replace existing House or Senate committee
structures.
1:43:00 PM
MR. JOHANSEN stated that JASC cannot introduce or hear
legislation. He said Representative Stapp testified that the new
commission and JASC can coexist because one is in the executive
branch and the other in the legislative branch, but he also
advised caution to avoid overlapping responsibilities.
1:43:37 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY asked whether JASC replaced the task force when it
was formed.
MR. NELSON said the task force was called the Joint Task Force
on Military Bases.
CO-CHAIR GRAY noted that the task force had been around for
quite a while and asked about its permanency.
1:44:01 PM
MR. NELSON replied that the task force was created in response
to BRAC. He said by BRAC-95, Alaska lagged behind other states
in organizing community defense teams, and many communities
lacked the resources to do so. Legislators asked him to help
work on BRAC, and because the legislature was out of session,
the Legislative Council was able to authorize contracts without
the full budget process and provided a $50,000 contract to
secure Washington representation. He stated that this funding
mechanism allowed immediate action to assess all bases in the
state. While other states later built strong BRAC organizations,
Alaska initially had none, so the task force stepped in to fill
that gap.
1:46:16 PM
MR. DOEHL stated that Alaska's military footprint is the fifth
largest contributor to the state's Gross Domestic Product (GDP),
creating both major opportunities and risks. Senior military
leaders consistently raise three key state-level concerns:
housing for service members and their families, the quality and
availability of education for their children, and employment and
licensing opportunities for spouses. He said because these
issues fall more under state authority in Alaska than in other
states, it's essential to maintain clear communication between
legislators and senior military leaders to support the growth
and success of Alaska's military bases.
1:47:48 PM
MR. VAKALIS [indiscernible].
1:48:49 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY stated that when multiple entities can address the
same issues, there's a risk that each assumes the other will
handle them. He said from his perspective JASC hasn't stepped
forward recently to take ownership of major responsibilities.
JASC needs to determine which entity will clearly claim and
manage these issues, and perhaps that should be JASC. This
discussion is about defining what JASC should take
responsibility for.
1:49:53 PM
MR. VAKALIS [indiscernible].
1:50:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON commented that JASC's effectiveness
depends heavily on its co-chairs, and some invest more effort
than others. Over time, it has largely become an extra committee
assignment with an annual commander briefing, rather than an
actively engaged body. He said that may be part of why the
Alaska Military Affairs Commission (AMAC) was created so there
can be dedicated membership that isn't subject to constant
leadership changes. Even if JASC is given more responsibilities,
its activity level will still vary with each new set of chairs,
unlike AMAC, whose members have a consistent, long-term focus.
1:51:17 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY showed interest in hearing opinions on putting in
statute whether JASC should meet more than once per session. He
said this would essentially be creating an expectation that the
committee must be more active.
1:51:41 PM
MR. VAKALIS recommended that if the members of JASC want to take
on more responsibility and active participation then the
legislature should set statutory requirements for meeting
frequency and expectations. [Indiscernible].
CO-CHAIR GRAY stated that there are many current issues that
justify why JASC should meet.
1:52:12 PM
MR. JOHANSEN noted the potential importance of considering how
JASC interacts with Washington, D.C. because the congressional
delegation is extremely busy and often hard to reach. He said
there was a time JASC traveled to D.C. directly rather than
expecting members to come to Juneau. He suggested reconsidering
that approach.
1:53:14 PM
MR. NELSON stated that the BRAC statute was created to remove
congressional influence over base closure decisions, leaving
delegations legally barred from participating. As a result,
states and organizations like JASC stepped in to fill that gap
by engaging directly with federal officials and consulting
firms. He said after BRAC, JASC also helped guide base
redevelopment efforts. Given today's rapidly changing global and
military demands, JASC remains well-positioned to respond. He
emphasized that Alaska is a small state, so leadership should
coordinate responsibilities among entities rather than view them
as competitors. JASC also plays an important role in educating
the public, many of whom have no military background, about the
value and activities of local bases.
1:56:12 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY stated that the members plan to draft broader
language for JASC, possibly including mandated meetings, and
revisit the issue in January. He said Co-Chair Senator Kawasaki
would chair the meeting and he expects no issues discussing new
legislation at that time.
^UPDATE(S): CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS ABOUT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
POLICIES AND ACTIONS IN 2025
UPDATE(S): CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS ABOUT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
POLICIES AND ACTIONS IN 2025
1:57:06 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY announced the presentation of Constitutional
concerns about Department of Defense policies and actions in
2025.
1:59:41 PM
KAREN FAIR J.D., LL.M., Attorney and Vice President, Improving
One Life at a Time, Alcoa, Tennessee, provided testimony on the
constitutional concerns about Department of Defense policies and
actions in 2025. She explained that the Army Judge Advocate
General's Corps (JAG) has existed since 1775 and expressed
serious concern about the current administration's actions,
including the rapid removal of military lawyers within 24 hours
of Pete Hegseth's nomination as Secretary of Defense and the
broader purge of officers with deep institutional knowledge. She
suggested these actions appear tied to perceived associations
with General Milley, whom the president dislikes. She said that
she looks forward to examining this issue in depth, believing it
will remain a significant national topic after the [federal
government] shutdown ends.
2:04:08 PM
DANIEL MAURER, Associate Professor of Law, Northern Ohio
University, Ada, Ohio, provided testimony on the constitutional
concerns about Department of Defense policies and actions in
2025. He read the following testimony:
[Original punctuation provided.]
I'm prepared to talk with you today about my two
biggest concerns as I look at what's been happening
both within the DOD itself and how the military has
been employed by the Trump Administration in the last
year. I see the collision of states' rights with an
overbearing federal government based on nothing more
than optics and reinforcing a narrative of
presidential strength. I see the collision of
domestic criminal law enforcement with national
security concerns.
Both of these concerns are caused by two very
different drivers: one who believes that the rule of
law is a seatbelt, brake, and an engine warning light
and one who thinks that no seatbelt is necessary, has
a lead foot, and remains largely blind to the warning
lights. The first driver elevates transparency,
honesty, fact- and evidence-based decisions, and good
faith respect for everyone in the community; the
second driver elevates appearance over substance,
loyalty over merit, and strength even at the cost of
respect and trust.
My focused concern is on, first, the:
2:05:25 PM
MR. MAURER continued with his testimony:
NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENTS OVER GOVERNORS' OBJECTIONS
The Administration's logic for these deployments are
as follows:
(1) Illegal immigration is a NATIONAL SECURITY
THREAT
(2) Many cities are acting like safe harbors for any
and all illegal immigrants, regardless of the
threat (or lack of one) they pose to Americans'
safety or property
(3) Once in these cities, the illegal immigrants are
so numerous that a broad concerted effort is
necessary a campaign if you will.
(4) As ICE has tried to execute their campaign,
protestors are engaged in widespread violence
and physically endangering ICE agents or federal
property at locations where these immigration
raids occur or at the federal facilities where
ICE is operating
(5) These protestors are more often than not "paid
agitators", violent, and members of "An-TEE-Fa,
what it calls a domestic terrorist organization
Therefore, call in the NATIONAL GUARD.
Not a single one of those premises is legally arcuate,
because not a single one is based on credible factual
evidence. As a result, the military is being ordered
into situations where they lack sufficient training
and sensitivity to the Constitutional rights and
protections of those civilian protestors. It puts
soldiers in terribly awkward positions where they must
act like police, and to police fellow Americans, on
American city streets. And because of WHERE these
deployments are happening, they get lots of publicity
which only fuels the civilian dissent and protest.
This in turn increases the risk that violence erupts
or civilian protest behavior is misconstrued as a
hostile act. It is only a matter of time before NG
troops use excessive and possibly lethal force
against Americans exercising their constitutional
rights to assemble and to speak against what they view
as both bad policy and bad government.
In short, the Administration is "Making America
Militarized Again"
2:07:16 PM
MR. MAURER continued with his testimony:
The plan to create and deploy so-called "Rapid
Reaction" or Quick Reaction NG units only means that
this happens more frequently, and across more than
just L.A., Portland, and Chicago.
My other focused concern is the:
NEW "WAR ON DRUGS:" - BOAT STRIKES AND WHAT THEY SAY
ABOUT THIS ADMINITRATION'S RESPECT FOR AND
UNDERSTANDING OF LEGAL LIMITS
There is no doubt that drug cartels are dangerous.
That they are violent, and that what they do increases
the risk of dangers to Americans because of the drugs
they bring in. NOBODY argues otherwise. NOBODY
suggests these are not wrongful and need a response to
deter and punish. But illicit drug importation is a
CRIME it has been for a VERY long time and there
are well-established criminal procedures for
addressing it. In fact, the Coast Guard is literally
doing law enforcement drug interdiction missions of
suspected narcoterrorism vessels at the same time
other such suspected vessels are being destroyed,
along with everyone onboard, by hellfire missiles
launched from a drone with no investigation, no
seizure of incriminating evidence, no arrests, no
prosecution or trial. Just punishment. That has 2
names: extrajudicial killing, aka "MURDER."
There is near universal consensus among experts in
both domestic war powers of the president and the
international laws of war that we are bound to follow
(treaties like the Geneva and Hague Conventions), that
these strikes have No legal basis in our federal law
• nothing in Article II allows the president to
make these decisions to turn a law
enforcement campaign into a military
campaign;
• Congress has not authorized it.
2:08:47 PM
MR. MAURER continued with his testimony:
• Simply designating them "foreign terrorist
organizations" confers no legal authority to
kill them.
• And merely saying the pose an imminent threat
to Americans doesn't make it so? especially
when these boats are not near U.S. shores,
not heading toward U.S. shores, and
eventually when the drugs do arrive they
are not being forced into the veins of
Americans. To say that these drug cartels
are deliberately aiming to harm Americans
which is the basis for Trump's self-defense
claim is beyond common sense. A drug
dealer trying to kill a drug user his
customer base is simply not happening nor
would it ever likely be the case
• Moreover,
o Even if we are somehow in a state of armed
conflict with these cartels, the very laws
of war that Trump says permit our use of
lethal force actually say the opposite:
square4 There are only two types of legal
targets in a non-state Armed
Conflict, according to treaties laws
we've ratified: (1) organized non-
state armed groups and (2) civilians
who are directly participating in
hostilities
square4 Very simply, there is a definition in
international law that captures what
an organized non-state armed group is
for the purposes of using lethal
force against them in a war-like
posture. Drug cartels even
organized, violent, armed drug
cartels are NOT these groups.
square4 Second, the only other way these
supposed narco-terrorists can be
lethally targeted is if they are
directly participating in
hostilities. The DOD's own definition
of this kind of behavior EXCLUDES
these drug runners.
square4 That means, again, there are only 2
names for what happens when the US
military blows them out of the water:
(1) extrajudicial killing, or (2)
murder
2:10:14 PM
MR. MAURER continued with his testimony:
The domestic deployments and the boat strikes together
reveal a shocking disregard for facts, an alarming
disrespect for the rule of law, and contempt for those
outside the executive branch of the federal government
who would use their lawful authorities to keep it in
check: the press, Congress, the courts, and the
states.
2:10:37 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY referenced a memo from the Pentagon's National
Guard Bureau that requires each state to have quick-reaction
forces trained and ready to go by January 1, 2026, to respond to
potential civil unrest using shields, batons, tasers, and pepper
spray. He stated that Alaska is required to have a force of 350
guardsmen. He asked whether Alaska has ever received such a
request before and what concerns the witnesses may have about
requiring all states to create these rapid-response forces for
civil-unrest scenarios.
2:11:36 PM
MS. FAIR replied that the Trump administration has suggested
these state quick-reaction forces could serve as training
grounds for potential overseas deployments. She said her
research indicates that this level of requirement is
unprecedented. She gave past examples of commanders being
sidelined for raising concerns with the quick-reaction forces.
She emphasized that the National Guard units are state forces
intended to support active-duty troops during declared
conflicts. Instead, these forces are being used to support
homeland security missions, particularly Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) operations targeting "criminal illegal aliens,"
which she described as a novel and unprecedented use of the
National Guard.
2:14:33 PM
MR. MAURER replied that he agreed with Ms. Fair's comments and
pointed to earlier testimony about the National Guard's disaster
response to Typhoon Halong as an example of the National Guards
proper role. The National Guard is designed to support disaster
relief and supplement active-duty forces, not act as a police
force. He argued that requiring a large quick-reaction force
would pull personnel away from essential missions. He warned
that using the National Guard for domestic policing, as seen in
recent federal actions to protect ICE operations during
protests, misuses the force, since there was no breakdown of
civil authority that would justify military involvement.
2:16:57 PM
MS. FAIR stated that the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits U.S.
soldiers from conducting law enforcement operations within the
United States.
2:17:16 PM
MR. MAURER explained that the only way to bypass the Posse
Comitatus Act is to invoke the Insurrection Act, which hasn't
been used since the 1992 Rodney King riots. He stressed that no
such insurrection exists in cities like Portland, Chicago, Los
Angeles, Baltimore, Washington, Minnesota, or Fairbanks, and
that deploying National Guard troops for law enforcement without
those legal triggers is unprecedented and unlawful. He argued
that the administration is using military force to intimidate
protesters and suppress constitutionally protected speech,
despite courts repeatedly finding no evidence of the widespread
disorder claimed by the government. He warned that misusing the
military in this political way undermines public trust, degrades
civilmilitary relations, and threatens the nonpartisan
reputation of both the National Guard and active-duty forces.
2:20:48 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY informed the committee that he contacted Adjutant
General Torrence Saxe to express his concerns about the October
8 memo and how the force of 350 members would be used in Alaska.
He stated he has not received any answers.
2:21:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON stated that aside from passing a strongly
worded resolution, JASC currently has no authority to act or
influence legislation, either through the Joint Armed Services
Committee or as a state legislature. He asked if the testifiers
agreed that JASC has no authority to act or influence
legislation, and what then was the purpose of inviting them to
testify.
2:22:18 PM
MS. FAIR reiterated her concern from her earlier testimony about
Pete Hegseth. She suggested Alaska update the state's BRAC era
statute to include Pentagon officials in Joint Armed Services
Committee discussions. She stated that restoring communication
channels like those that existed when the BRAC statute was
created, Alaska can better address concerns about how its
National Guard forces are managed.
2:26:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON commented that his question was not
answered and that any new administration can implement a
reduction in force. He said he is not familiar with the purge
that was described within the officer Corps, though past
administrations have made staffing changes over time and to
varying degrees.
CO-CHAIR GRAY redirected Representative Nelson's question to Mr.
Maurer.
2:26:50 PM
MR. MAURER stated he disagreed with the statement that JASC has
no authority to act or influence legislation and proceeded to
list ways legislators have influence over what happens with
military decisions. He added that the recent firing of the Army
and Air Force Judge Advocate General (JAG) leaders was
unprecedented. He said these positions are statutory, four-year,
nonpartisan roles meant to outlast administrations to preserve
apolitical military legal oversight. JAG Corps leaders oversee
thousands of legal professionals and are required by law to
provide independent legal advice without interference. He said
the removal of JAG leaders undermines that independence and
reflects a broader effort to sideline JAGs, citing comments from
Secretary Hegseth and his history of conflict with military
lawyers.
2:30:28 PM
MR. MAURER explained that JAGs are essential to ensuring
military plans and operations follow the law, and that replacing
senior, highly experienced JAG leaders with lower-ranking
National Guard officers is unprecedented and harmful. He opined
that the administration removed top JAG officials because they
were viewed as "roadblocks," despite their long and respected
service. He warned that this creates a chilling effect for
junior military lawyers, who may hesitate to raise legal
concerns for fear of retaliation. Politicizing these positions
threatens the military's nonpartisan tradition and weakens
respect for the rule of law, with serious implications for
civil-military integrity.
2:34:10 PM
MS. FAIR discussed the following points:
• The administration is delaying service appointments while
implementing a plan that undermines the independence of
military legal advisors (JAGs).
• This plan violates long-standing protections in Title X
that prevent political interference in JAG advice.
• While presidents can replace political appointees, JAG
officers must remain apolitical and should not be purged or
downgraded.
• Weakening JAG oversight risks Geneva Convention violations,
increases the likelihood of war crimes, and damages U.S.
credibility.
• Abrupt removal of senior JAG leaders creates a chilling
effect, discouraging honest legal counsel.
• A politically connected civilian attorney retraining JAGs
threatens to create compliant, politically driven advisors
instead of independent legal experts.
• Reduced legal scrutiny could lead to unlawful targeting
decisions and further international scandal.
2:44:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON said, "as noted, there wasn't anything the
JASC..."
2:45:04 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY interjected that JASC's purpose is to communicate
with the Department of Defense (DOD) on behalf of Alaskans, and
that questioning federal actions is part of its role. He said
JASC should be asking questions to the DOD about the October 8
memo requiring a 350-person quick-response force (QRF) for
potential civil unrest in Alaska and ask why such a force is
needed. He asked if state legislators cannot raise these
concerns and ask questions, then what is the point of having a
JASC.
2:46:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON emphasized that while JASC can communicate
with the Department of Defense through resolutions and
discussion, JASC has no oversight authority and cannot control
federal decisions. The President can still activate the National
Guard, and having a quick-reaction force reflects changing
conditions and longstanding roles such as disaster relief and
riot control. Ultimately, he said JASC can raise concerns but
has no legislative or enforcement power over federal actions.
2:48:04 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY restated Representative Nelson's comment that, "he
could see reasons why Alaska needs a quick-response force," and
asked whether the state is currently at a disadvantage without
one.
2:48:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE Nelson stated that he wasn't sure what Co-Chair
Gray was trying to imply.
CO-CHAIR GRAY said he understood Representative Nelson to say
that Alaska has good reasons to put a QRF together and whether
he thinks Alaska will need it in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON replied that recent events in Western
necessarily for riot control, having a National Guard quick-
response force ready for such situations would be justified.
CO-CHAIR GRAY learned that 200 soldiers were quickly deployed
for the Typhoon Halong response, showing that Alaska can
mobilize effectively. He added that it's important to question
why a 350-person force must be ready by January 1.
2:49:04 PM
MR. MAURER clarified that Eisenhower activated the Arkansas
National Guard only to stand it down so federal troops could
enforce desegregation under the Insurrection Act. He argued that
the proposed QRF is not for disaster relief but for policing
functions similar to those used in LA and other citiesactions
courts have found violate the Posse Comitatus Act unless the
Insurrection Act is invoked. He stressed that deploying the
National Guard for law enforcement without proper legal
authority undermines the rule of law. He emphasized that state
legislators do have a role in oversight, communication, and
checks and balances, including influencing Congress, raising
concerns, and helping prevent unlawful military activity.
2:53:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked for a comparison between Hegseth's
rhetoric and the concept of systematic lawlessness. He
specifically asked how such rhetoric might encourage ignoring
rules of engagement and established military standards.
2:54:29 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY said he would like to share a quote that exactly
aligns with Representative Nelson's request. He said he would
read from an article published in Just Security in which Mr.
Maurer quoted Secretary Hegseth, who criticized the military's
"stupid rules of engagement" during a speech given on September
30 at Quantico, Virginia:
"We fight to win. We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence
on the enemy. We also don't fight under the stupid rules of
engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate,
demoralize, hunt, and kill the enemies of our country. No more
politically correct and overbearing rules of engagementjust
common sense, maximum lethality, and authority for warfighters.
You kill people and break things for a living. You are not
politically correct and don't necessarily belong always in
polite society."
CO-CHAIR GRAY asked Mr. Maurer to comment.
2:55:33 PM
MR. MAURER explained that Secretary Hegseth's comments were both
morally troubling and technically incorrect. Rules of engagement
are not "stupid" restrictions but essential legal and policy
frameworks that guide disciplined, lawful military action. He
said undermining them encourages unlawful or excessive force and
erodes the standards that protect service members and civilians.
He added that ignoring these rules can implicate serious legal
consequences under 18 U.S.C. 2441, the federal statute governing
war crimes. He referenced recent incidents in the Caribbean and
Eastern Pacific as examples of how dismissing established
standards can lead to misconduct. He stated that this rhetoric
is unprecedented and dangerous coming from a senior civilian
leader in the Department of Defense.
3:00:47 PM
MR. MAURER said he struggles to fully capture how dangerous this
rhetoric is, noting that it has real consequences. Combined with
what Ms. Fair described, the systematic removal of JAGs, the
result is a chilling effect where it's unclear whether drone
operators, ship captains, or others ever received legal guidance
before taking action. He said without lawyers in the room, a
nation that claims to follow the rule of law risks abandoning
it. When legal experts are removed from the process, bad
outcomes inevitably follow.
3:01:42 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY stated he wanted to do a quick fact-check on Ms.
Fair's earlier statement. He said, so far, the military has
launched 19 strikes on boats in international waters, resulting
in 76 deaths without trial.
3:02:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON opined that rules of engagement are
flexible and mission-specific, not restrictive. Turning to
current drug-war drone strikes, he pointed to the precedent set
by the Obama administration, which conducted more than 500 drone
strikes and even killed several U.S. citizens. He asked whether
those past actions conflict with, or instead support, the
current approach.
3:03:49 PM
MR. MAURER replied that although he often disagreed with the
scope and number of past drone strikes, those operations were
still legally authorized. Under the 2001 AUMF, the U.S. could
target unlawful enemy belligerentsincluding Americans
supporting groups like the Taliban, ISIS, or al-Qaedaunder both
domestic and international law. By contrast, the current strikes
in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific have no congressional
authorization, no valid Article II basis, and no self-defense
justification. Drug traffickers are civilians, not members of an
armed group or direct participants in hostilities, so they can
only be lawfully arrested and prosecuted, not targeted with
military force. He said rules of engagement cannot override the
law of war, and these strikes violate both domestic and
international law, making any such orders unlawful.
3:07:56 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY noted that some coverage has already framed the
hearing as a Democratic led attack on the Trump administration.
To clarify that point, he asked Colonel Fair to state her party
affiliation and who she voted for.
3:08:39 PM
MS. FAIR stated that her affiliation is republican, and she
voted for President Trump.
3:08:52 PM
CO-CHAIR GRAY reiterated that he and Senator Kawasaki have sent
a letter to General Saxe expressing concerns with the formation
of a quick-response force.
3:09:20 PM
MS. FAIR stated that she opposed Pete Hegseth's nomination. She
expressed concern that Hegseth's actions and inexperience could
lead to serious international incidents.
3:11:57 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Co-Chair Gray adjourned the JASC meeting at 3:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Col (Ret) Karen V. Fair Biography.docx |
JASC 11/12/2025 1:00:00 PM |
Invited Witness Fair Biography |
| Lieutenant Colonel (Ret) Daniel Maurer Biography.pdf |
JASC 11/12/2025 1:00:00 PM |
Invited Witness Maurer Biography |
| Ky Holland Language JASC ReWrite.docx |
JASC 11/12/2025 1:00:00 PM |
Proposed Scope and Purpose language provided by Rep Holland |
| HB NO. X Version A Clair Radford Attorney 11.6.25.pdf |
JASC 11/12/2025 1:00:00 PM |
Scope and Purpose BRAC language deletion draft |
| Jasc Comparison to Military Commission.pdf |
JASC 11/12/2025 1:00:00 PM |
JASC comparison to Military Commission Duties |
| Econ impact military.pdf |
JASC 11/12/2025 1:00:00 PM |
Who in Alaska Contracts for Military Spending |