“President Trump was right to remove the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement and eliminate the Green New Deal. Now, Alaska must do the same.”

Alaska is synonymous with rugged independence and self-reliance. But this is at risk from the alignment with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), falsely advertised as modernizing and protecting the state’s natural beauty.

Adhering to this globalist construct has left many local communities grappling with the fallout. From an exploding homeless population to rising energy costs and diminished economic opportunities, the promises of the SDGs have often clashed with the realities of life in America’s Last Frontier. 

To understand how these things have wreaked havoc on Alaska, brief summaries are provided to illustrate the direct connection between SDGs and state policies. 

Big Picture Control

The UN’s 17 SDGs are nothing more than the latest iteration of a long-standing agenda to impose centralized control under the guise of “sustainability.”…

Editor note: The wealth of free-market capitalism creates a robust civil society, where nonprofits and foundations can support the causes of their choosing, many of which might not be viable otherwise. The problem is where philanthropy goes political against the free society and human betterment. Jane Shaw Stroup at her blog Jane Takes on History takes a look at good money going in negative directions, even violating original intent.

You’ve probably heard that Henry Ford II resigned from the board of the Ford Foundation because it had veered far away from its donor’s intent.  In his 1976 resignation letter, Ford (grandson of Henry Ford Sr.) wrote:

In effect, the foundation is a creature of capitalism—a statement that, I’m sure, would be shocking to many professional staff people in the field of philanthropy.

“Trump’s executive order bomb, followed by Congressional action to limit funds from the IRA and IIJA, promise to gut, or profoundly reshape, the U.S. green energy movement. January 2025 may begin a long decline for green energy and a return to sensible energy policy.”

President Trump has long been a supporter of traditional, consumer-driven energy. During his campaign, he spoke negatively about electric vehicles, wind, and other renewable energy sources. But in his first day in office, the new president began a historic shift in US energy policy, away from “green” energy and back to hydrocarbon energy.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed five wide-ranging executive orders that radically change United States energy and climate policy. These actions restore efforts to promote coal, natural gas, oil, hydropower, nuclear, and biofuels, while curtailing support for wind and electric vehicles.…

“Many full-time climate activists like Mark Trexler need to get real jobs in the private sector producing goods and services that people want rather than engaging in wealth redistribution and net resource loss. A sea change is upon us….”

Mark Trexler of the (alarmist) Climate Risk Red Team (see appendix below) has compiled a list of Trump-related action items for a consumer-first, America-first approach to climate and energy policy. Trexler, worried about Trump, published this useful list that can now be compared to the Trump executive orders flowing from Washington, DC:

While I’d heard a lot about the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” blueprint for a second Trump Administration, I’ve never seen a simple listing of specific things being proposed. Note this is just a partial list, is limited to climate change, and is just one of a number of such lists being developed.