Alaska House Divided Over $500M Withdrawal From State Savings

Majority seeks to tap Constitutional Budget Reserve, but minority Republicans oppose the move

Published on Feb. 22, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Alaska House is poised to vote this week on a $500 million supplemental budget bill requested by Governor Mike Dunleavy. The bill is intended to cover various state expenses, including disaster relief, fire suppression, road maintenance, and Medicaid services. However, the House Republican minority has opposed the bill, arguing that the vote has been rushed and that some expenditures should be moved to next year's budget. To draw from the state's Constitutional Budget Reserve, a three-quarters vote in both the House and Senate is required, making the majority dependent on the minority's support.

Why it matters

This budget dispute highlights the ongoing political tensions in the Alaska legislature, where the House majority and minority have clashed over the appropriate use of state savings to fund essential government functions. The outcome of this vote could have significant implications for the state's fiscal stability and the ability of the legislature to address pressing issues in a timely manner.

The details

The supplemental budget bill includes allocations to cover costs for disaster relief, fire suppression, road maintenance, and Medicaid services. It also includes a series of executive branch requests that the Dunleavy administration says are needed to provide adequate state services. The bill is expected to cover a $50 million shortfall in the current year's budget due to lower-than-expected oil prices.

  • The Alaska House is expected to vote on the supplemental budget bill this week.
  • In June 2025, Governor Dunleavy vetoed $10 million that lawmakers had sought to appropriate to the state's disaster relief fund.
  • In June 2025, Governor Dunleavy vetoed over $26 million that lawmakers had sought to appropriate to the fire suppression fund.

The players

Mike Dunleavy

The Governor of Alaska who requested the $500 million supplemental budget bill.

Calvin Schrage

An Anchorage independent who co-chairs the Finance Committee and supports the supplemental budget bill.

Bryce Edgmon

The independent Speaker of the Alaska House who is seeking to draw from state savings now to avoid a three-quarters vote later in the legislative session.

Justin Ruffridge

A Soldotna Republican and House Minority Whip who opposes the supplemental budget bill as written and is seeking amendments.

Chuck Kopp

An Anchorage Republican and House Majority Leader who has accused the minority of being "very performative" in their amendments to the bill.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“One way or another, we're going to have to pay these bills.”

— Calvin Schrage, Co-chair, Finance Committee (ADN)

“If we can't get a three-quarters vote now, we get a three-quarters vote in the fog of war at the very end of May. Experience would tell you that the ante is up considerably, and it's going to be more difficult.”

— Bryce Edgmon, Speaker, Alaska House (ADN)

“The votes are there to get something passed, there just needs to be a conversation that happens.”

— Justin Ruffridge, House Minority Whip (ADN)

“All the screaming and shouting about how it's the largest ever and we can't afford this — you have to pay that bill from the administration. Those are costs we've incurred. We owe that money.”

— Calvin Schrage, Co-chair, Finance Committee (ADN)

“Doing it through the means by which we're doing it now — that's probably the definition of performative.”

— Justin Ruffridge, House Minority Whip (ADN)

What’s next

The supplemental budget bill will next head to the Alaska Senate, where bipartisan majority members have indicated they are largely in agreement with the House majority on the need for the fast-tracked spending.

The takeaway

This budget dispute highlights the ongoing political divisions in the Alaska legislature, where the House majority and minority have clashed over the appropriate use of state savings to fund essential government functions. The outcome of this vote could have significant implications for the state's fiscal stability and the ability of the legislature to address pressing issues in a timely manner.