Alaska remains among the two states without a cabinet-level Department of Agriculture after the Alaska Legislature voted narrowly on Wednesday, March 19, 2025, to reject Governor Mike Dunleavy’s executive order aimed at establishing the much-needed department. The decision, which concluded in a tense vote of 32-28, highlighted sharp divisions along party lines, as members of the multipartisan majority backed the disapproval while Republicans rallied to support the governor’s proposal.
During the legislative session, Dunleavy had argued that establishing a Department of Agriculture would give farmers, ranchers, and food producers a direct voice in government, enhancing Alaska's food security—an escalating concern following supply chain disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic and recent port challenges.
Senate President Gary Stevens, a Republican from Kodiak, remarked after the vote: "It was a fairly close vote, but in the end, I think we made the right decision." The executive order, according to opposition lawmakers, circumvented democratic legislative processes and limited public input. Senator Bill Wielechowski, a Democrat from Anchorage, expressed these concerns, stating, "While the public had an opportunity to testify on the (executive order), there was no opportunity for the public to testify about what they might want to see in a new department that’s being created." This sentiment echoed among his colleagues, who preferred legislative proposals to executive actions that could not be amended.
The proposal had been suggested amid discussions of Alaska's significant food importation—approximately 95% of the state’s food is sourced from outside—and the potential economic benefits mentioned by supporters, such as Senator Shelley Hughes from Palmer. Hughes pointed out that "some of the money we’re sending out of state could be circulating here," emphasizing the growth potential for Alaska’s local agricultural sector.
However, the debate also extensively focused on budgetary implications. Initial estimates suggested that creating the department could add around $2.7 million to the state budget annually. This claim was met with skepticism, as Senator Jesse Bjorkman, a Republican from Nikiski, questioned the feasibility of such estimates, replying, "There’s no free lunch." Some legislators also voiced concern over Alaska's reliance on agricultural imports, with total food imports nearing $3 billion a year.
Despite the mixed sentiments about the financial ramifications, Senator Mike Shower, Minority Leader from Wasilla, defended the proposal stating that costs associated with the new department would be minimal compared to the entire state budget of $15 billion. He suggested that political animosity played a significant role in the rejection, asserting, "They're just unwilling to give the governor a win on almost anything. That's my view of it." This perspective was echoed by other supporters of the executive order, who speculated that partisan dynamics may have influenced the outcome.
Conversely, Democratic lawmakers like Representative Sara Hannan argued against the order, explaining, "Executive Order 136 as currently constructed ... does not grow agriculture. It grows government.” Their criticism centered on the assertion that the governor's method would not enhance agricultural initiatives and merely establish more bureaucracy. Furthermore, Senate President Stevens emphasized the importance of allowing public and legislative input: “I think it just makes a lot of sense … allowing us to have hearings,” he said, suggesting that future bills could address concerns raised during discussions.
Looking forward, the legislative session still holds potential for agricultural reform, as bills to create a state agriculture department have already been introduced in both the House and Senate. These proposals are anticipated to be heard in the coming weeks, with key senators urging quick action to ensure that agricultural initiatives do not stall.
Reflecting on the legislative session, Hughes stressed the urgency for agricultural progress, stating, "Am I going to put all my stakes in a bill going through quickly? No, but I think one should. It should not drag into next year. They need to hear the bill. They need to move it through.”
In a statement after the vote, Dunleavy acknowledged the support for his proposal while reiterating that food security would continue to be a priority for his administration. As the state grapples with its food production landscape, the future of agriculture in Alaska remains unclear, but it is a conversation that is far from over. With hearings on new bills on the horizon, there may yet be a pathway to realize the governor's vision for a more robust agricultural framework in the state.
