After a series of challenges scheduling interviews with United States Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the past couple of months, I heard from her communications director recently: Murkowski was back in Anchorage from Washington, D.C. and was ready to chat.
I stopped by her office downtown a few days before Christmas, where, under the watchful eye of a taxidermied salmon wearing a Santa cap, Alaska’s senior senator was in the middle of a series of interviews — conversations with reporters and others where, she said, she was trying not to make any news.
I told Murkowski that our goals for the interview might be a little bit in tension. Below is an edited transcript of our conversation, which ranged from federal funding of public broadcasting to Alaska’s 2026 U.S. Senate election to transboundary mining.
Nathaniel Herz: Have you seen these t-shirts yet, with this quote from you?
Lisa Murkowski: I'm looking at it. What is it? Oh, yeah. It says, ‘What's woke about the birthday line?’
Right? What's woke about the Talk of Alaska Merry Christmas greeting (show) today?
Nathaniel Herz: My understanding is, the genesis of these t-shirts was that you were at the public media station in Bethel, in Western Alaska, KYUK. And that this was maybe a cheeky question that you posed about their Birthday Line program, in the context of critics saying that public media is woke and liberal.
Lisa Murkowski: I'm like, ‘Yeah, really?’
Nathaniel Herz: Because the Birthday Line is, like, people calling in and wishing people happy birthday?
Lisa Murkowski: Mm hmm. ‘I want to wish my auntie in Aniak a happy birthday.’ ‘I want to wish my brother Tom downriver a happy birthday.’
Nathaniel Herz: And your point was, ‘This is not anti-Trump. This is not anti-whatever?’
Lisa Murkowski: This is not radical, woke, leftist bias. It's just not. And people in the lower 48 only wish that they had fun things like the Birthday Line. We could transform America with the birthday line.
Nathaniel Herz: I had a question about public media, which was effectively close to zeroed out in the federal budget last year. It seems like a lot of people had their minds made up about this issue while it was being debated. But I was questioning whether the argument that folks were making about the need and value of public broadcasting was the right one. Because there was this big emphasis on emergencies, but today everyone gets tsunami alerts on their phones. Was there a more compelling argument than the one you guys were making that could have resonated more with folks?
Lisa Murkowski: You know, I don't disagree with you. As I think back to how I was trying to get people, like, exercised about it — it was really convenient, oddly enough, to have had that massive earthquake over in Russia, and the impact on the tsunami.
But as I think about the real value — the real value is the ability to connect people within their communities.
I think particularly, the role that KYUK would have played in this whole [Western Alaska] typhoon incident. Yeah, we know that everybody from [the village of] Kipnuk is evacuated. But you have so many people, like: ‘Well, my brother was born here in Kipnuk, but he's living down in Kasigluk.’ And the way that people just checked in with one another was by listening to public radio.
It's not necessarily the Birthday Line. It's like, oh, you knew the generator has been out in this town for two weeks now. So, you know that you're going to call your brother and say, ‘How you doing?’
I think that's the type of thing where, in Alaska particularly, where you don't have roads that connect people, this public media is your connector. It's your communications connector. Maybe it's been replaced a little bit by Facebook. I'm not a Facebooker, so I don't know. But I think it's the connections, and that's why people in rural America understand, a little bit more, the value of public media. Because they, too, need those connections
Nathaniel Herz: There's this year of funding through the [U.S.] Bureau of Indian Affairs that Alaska’s junior senator, Dan Sullivan, I think, helped make happen, which is supporting some Alaska stations.
Lisa Murkowski: It was [South Dakota Sen.] Mike Rounds who made it happen.
Nathaniel Herz: What's your sense of the outlook for whether you can get Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding, or some sort of recurring federal funding, back for stations once that first year expires?
Lisa Murkowski: We are working to, kind of, reexamine, and we've been working directly with the corporation. They've got a big decision to make as to whether they even remain in existence. And my pitch to them — I actually talked with their board a couple of weeks ago — was like, ‘We know how we're going to limp through this next year. But I need you to exist for a little bit longer, until we can figure out if we can get more predictable funding streams. If it's a more reduced version of what we're seeing at the federal level — which I believe it will be — but it is still somewhat reliable, then you can kind of piece in the other things after that.’
So, I am not convinced that it's going to be through what the [U.S.] Bureau of Indian Affairs is doing. the [U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs] actually called up the corporation and said, ‘We have no clue how to implement any of this.’ For lack of a better word, ‘Can we contract with you?’
I mean, this is how bizarre the whole thing is, and how stupid it is, and what a waste of money it was. But this is how they got Sen. Rounds to stand down from his opposition. ‘Your tribal stations, we’ll support them.’ But I think, initially, the commitment was going to be they were going to support the tribal stations without a one year limitation. So, I think he kind of got ripped off, myself.
Nathaniel Herz: Did the junior senator from Alaska and the representative for all Alaskans miss an opportunity to be more outspoken and to have made an impact on the outcome here?
Lisa Murkowski: There were a lot of other issues that were going on. But this place was electric with the buzz about funding for public media. And I don't think it was reserved just for the conversations that I was part of. It was a big deal. People would come in and they wanted to talk about health care, they wanted to talk about energy. And it was like, ‘Oh, and, don't forget, this is important.’ So I don't know. I don't understand how you can say you support public broadcasting and then you don't support public broadcasting when it's in front of you.
Nathaniel Herz: There has been a ton of speculation about Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola and what she's going to do, as far as running for Alaska governor or U.S. Senate. I've been hearing increasingly about the potential for her to run for Senate against Sullivan. What kind of position would that put you in, given that you work with Sullivan on a day-to-day basis but have also supported Peltola in the past?
Lisa Murkowski: Well, it's not so much about me. That's a hard race. Sen. Sullivan is coming up on finishing two terms, and not without significant successes. So, anybody who's thinking about taking him on, I think, is setting themselves up for a very, very hard and a very expensive race.
You know, I made it very clear, when Nick Begich [III] was running against [Peltola in 2024] — I said, ‘No offense to you, Nick, but [Peltola] has been my longtime friend, and I'm going to support her.’
If she were to run against my colleague, yeah, it puts me in a difficult spot. But I also think it puts a lot of Alaskans in a difficult spot. [Peltola], not unlike me, is able to attract support from both sides, right? And granted, it's early right now. But my sense is that [Sullivan] is doing a pretty good job of shoring up this support from not only traditional Republican voters and donors, but from many who kind of view themselves more independently.
Nathaniel Herz: He's trying to broaden his base a little bit.
Lisa Murkowski: I think that will put people in a spot where it's like, ‘Yes, I may have supported [Peltola] when you were running for the House. But we’ve got a different scenario here.’ So I think it would be hard. I think it'd be really hard.
Nathaniel Herz: Do you feel like you could say at this point whether you'd support [Peltola] if she made that decision?
Lisa Murkowski: No, I can't say that I would support, no. My hope is that we have an election where we recognize the value of the individuals that are running, the contributions that they've made, and we don't get into this nasty, going-at-one-another's-throats campaigns. I really don't want to see that. I don't think Alaskans want to see that.
Nathaniel Herz: Would you like to see [Peltola] run?
Lisa Murkowski: For Senate, for governor, for House?
Nathaniel Herz: For Senate.
Lisa Murkowski: I think it would be a very, very, very hard race. I think it'd be hard on people in this state. And again, I don't like the idea of, just, a really nasty, nasty race at the Senate level. I have said many times very publicly that [Peltola] is my friend. I want [Peltola] to do what's going to make [Peltola] happy. And only [Peltola] can determine that.
Nathaniel Herz: My sense, from having done some reporting on her choices here, and from reading others’ reporting on it, is that there is very clearly a dynamic when it comes to the national Democrats that have pushed her to run for U.S. Senate. And that perspective is not about [Peltola], it's not about Alaska, it's about the big picture sort of politics.
Lisa Murkowski: Just put a name to it. [U.S. Senate Democratic leader] Chuck Schumer would like to be in the majority. And he's got to figure out where he picks up more votes. And so the pressure to get a Democrat who has that level of notoriety, public support — he's going to weigh in and promise, probably, the sun, the moon, and the stars to her.
But it's one thing to go through a campaign. I have said many times, you know, ‘Well, I may not always agree with some of the decisions that come out of the Trump administration, or from my Republican leadership.’ I have no desire or design or intention of being in a caucus that is led by Chuck Schumer.
I think it would be hard. I think it would be really, really hard for Mary Peltola, or any Democrat from Alaska, to be in a caucus like we currently have with Schumer as the leader over there. I don't think it would work for any Alaskan.
Nathaniel Herz: Change of subject. We’ve been doing some reporting on transboundary mines — those on the Canadian side of the border, in watersheds that flow into Alaska. You've been pretty consistent in your support for resource development inside Alaska, and haven’t necessarily expressed those same kinds of concerns about mining projects here, even as others have expressed concerns about them.
What's different about these projects in Canada, compared to the ones in Alaska, that are making you feel more compelled to speak on behalf of folks who are concerned about them?
Lisa Murkowski: It's an easy question, and the answer is, Tulsequah Chief. [Tulsequah Chief is an abandoned mine in Canada that has been leaching pollution into a watershed that drains into Alaska.]
For how many years? Well, it's been at least 25, because I was in the state Legislature when I first heard of what we were dealing with, coming from the Canadian side. And not only a level of contamination that was basically left unchecked, but just a whole series of finger pointing. Promises that they were going to address it, and no delivery.
In that instance we saw just a complete failure, and a failure that went on for decades to the point where, in British Columbia, they know that they have got to address it. They know that for projects going forward, they're kind of stained by the operation there, and so they're making the same promises, ‘Our environmental regulations are tough. We're going to be good stewards.’ But it's really hard when they have failed to keep their word.
I look to the requirements that we have on our side of the border. They're much more stringent than the Canadians’. And so, I think that's where you have the difference.
We made some headway during the Walker administration, when Byron Mallott was lieutenant governor. I think we had a real good level of communication going on for the first time in a while. [But] we've kind of pulled back from that. And it's been tough to get the U.S. State Department involved. And I don't feel like we're going to have that much luck with this particular State Department, so we're exploring other ways to get the attention of Canada on, just, the obligations.
Nathaniel Herz: Like what?
Lisa Murkowski: I mean, noodling. Maybe we incorporate some things on, you know, from a tariff perspective. We've been doing kind of the same thing for a while, and we haven't really gotten the attention to it.
Nathaniel Herz: The idea being that tariffs are a tool that could be used to get their attention.
Lisa Murkowski: Yeah. And we haven't explored it any further than that. But again, we're just kind of spitballing.
Nathaniel Herz: It's an idea. It's not legislation that's drafted.
Lisa Murkowski: Yeah.
Nathaniel Herz: I get the sense that you experienced a lot of pressure and had to do a lot of work in this past year. And I’m just curious, looking back on it, if you would say this was the most difficult year you've experienced in [Washington] D.C., or if you wouldn't go that far.
Lisa Murkowski: I don't know if it's been the most difficult year. But I can tell you that I am so happy to be having the door of 2025 close on my butt, and I'm done with it.
It has been — it’s been a challenging year, and a lot of it has to do with, just, the unknowns that were in front of us. You have a new administration coming in, and that's always different. But there was just a lot that was coming before us that caused anxiety with a lot of people — whether it's anxiety about, you know, ‘My health insurance is going to triple in cost, and so I'm stressed out about that.’ Or, you know, ‘We're in the middle of a government shutdown and I'm having to work, but I'm not getting paid, and it's costing me 100 bucks to fill up my truck to get into work, and I still have to pay childcare.’ And the uncertainty that comes about when you had all of the [Department of Government Efficency Reductions in Force] early on, and people not knowing what their situation was going to be.
We received all of that, as incoming. People wanting answers on their grants, to know whether or not they needed to lay off an extra staff person, or whether something is coming in. And it was hard. It was just, emotionally, a hard year for a lot of Alaskans. And maybe it's because I'm a very empathetic person: I don't want people to be anxious that way. I don't want them to be suffering. I don't want them to feel like this is a really bad place for them, their family. And so I kind of absorbed a lot of that, to kind of carry it. And so,it's been a hard year, because there's just been so much uncertainty.
Nathaniel Herz: Does it push you one way or the other, as far as your desire to do this for another six years when we get to 2028 and your re-election?
Lisa Murkowski: It's hard, because the harder the job is, the more you realize why it's so important that you're there doing the hard job, if that makes any sense. It just does.
I take really seriously the responsibility that I have to the Constitution, to the oath of office that I have made. And that sounds maybe a little bit old fashioned. But I don't get to sit in this office just because we pay the rent every month. It is a privilege that has been given, because people have asked me to try to help them. And part of that means that you have to stand up for what you think is right.
And when an administration of your own party is doing something that either you don't feel is right, or you don't feel comports with their authorities under the Constitution, there's a responsibility to stand up. And that can be hard.
