Democratic former Representative Mary Peltola narrowly leads Republican Senator Dan Sullivan in Alaska’s 2026 U.S. Senate race, a potential shakeup in the fairly red state, according to a new poll.

Newsweek reached out to Peltola’s press team via email on Wednesday for comment.

Why It Matters

Democrats are facing a tough Senate map in the 2026 midterms. Even if President Donald Trump’s approval rating fuels a Democratic wave, the party still needs to win control of states that backed him by double digits in the 2024 election to win a majority.

But Peltola, the only Democrat to win statewide in recent years, may be able to make the race against Sullivan competitive. Alaska could become the state that decides control of the Senate in November.

What To Know

Peltola represented Alaska’s at-large congressional district in the House, first winning a special election in 2022, defeating former Governor Sarah Palin to fill the late GOP Representative Don Young’s seat. She was elected to a full term later in 2022 and lost her reelection bid in 2024.

Peltola, who only recently announced her campaign for the Senate, raised $1.5 million in the first 24 hours of her bid.

An Alaska Survey Research poll conducted January 8-11, ahead of Peltola’s official announcement, showed her leading Sullivan by more than 1.5 percentage points. The poll found that 48 percent of participants back Peltola to 46.4 percent for Sullivan. About 5.6 percent of participants are undecided.

The survey of 2,132 Alaska adults, 1,988 of whom are registered to vote, also found that Peltola has a more positive rating than Sullivan, 46 percent to 39 percent. In terms of his job approval rating, 36 percent of participants approve of his work while 44.5 percent disapprove.

Nearly half of the poll’s participants, 46 percent, said they have no party affiliation, while 30 percent identify as Republican and 15.4 percent as Democrat. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

What People Are Saying

Nate Adams, Sullivan’s campaign spokesperson, told Newsweek: “Senator Sullivan has spent years delivering real results for Alaska: historic investments in our state’s health care, major funding for our Coast Guard, helping protect those who can’t protect themselves and policies that are finally unleashing Alaska’s energy potential. Dan Sullivan delivers for Alaska, and that will be the focus of his campaign. Conversely, his opponent served a term and a half in Congress where she didn’t pass a single bill. Alaskans deserve a senator with a proven record of getting things done, and the contrast couldn’t be clearer in this race.”

Mary Peltola, in her campaign announcement: “My agenda for Alaska will always be fish, family, and freedom. But our future also depends on fixing the rigged system in DC that’s shutting down Alaska, while politicians feather their own nest. DC people will be pissed that I’m focusing on their self-dealing, and sharing what I’ve seen firsthand. They’re going to complain that I’m proposing term limits. But it’s time.”

Senator Dan Sullivan, on X on January 6: “I am so excited about 2026 and all of the opportunities ahead for our great state. The Alaska comeback is happening!”

Alaska Democratic Party Chair Eric Croft, in a statement: “Mary Peltola is our most steadfast champion and a strong voice for Alaskans in every region of our state…Mary has never been afraid to stand up to powerful special interests or her own party to put Alaskans first—and we can’t wait to elect her to represent us in the U.S. Senate this November.”

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, on Alaska Public Media: “We’ve had a pretty solid team here in the Senate for the past 12 years, so we want to figure out how we’re going to keep in the majority. And Dan delivers that.”

What Happens Next

Candidates will spend the coming months making their case to voters, as both parties try to win control of the Senate in the midterms. Sabato’s Crystal Ball rates the Alaska race “Leans Republican.”

Update 1/14/26, 3:43 p.m. ET: This article was updated with comment from Sullivan’s campaign.

In a polarized era, the center is dismissed as bland. At Newsweek, ours is different: The Courageous Center—it’s not “both sides,” it’s sharp, challenging and alive with ideas. We follow facts, not factions. If that sounds like the kind of journalism you want to see thrive, we need you.

When you become a Newsweek Member, you support a mission to keep the center strong and vibrant. Members enjoy: Ad-free browsing, exclusive content and editor conversations. Help keep the center courageous. Join today.

PHOENIX (AZFamily) — Arizona state Sen. Mark Finchem has filed a bill that would hold online platforms accountable if they help support prostitution or child sex trafficking.

Finchem, a Republican from Prescott, said Senate Bill 1077 would make it a felony for anyone or any business that knowingly operates an online service that facilitates, promotes or solicits those types of sex offenses.

Violations involving underage teens between ages 15 and 17 would carry a class 5 felony, while those involving children under 15 would be guilty of a class 2 felony.

“Technology should never be used as a shield for those who profit from exploitation,” said Finchem in a news release. “Criminal activity has adapted to the digital age, and our laws must do the same.

The proposal would also penalize platforms that show harmful materials to kids and don’t have “reasonable age verification” established. It also prohibits people from profiting from these types of crimes.

Finchem said the bill came about through working with the chamber’s Human Sex Trafficking Task Force, which was formed by Senate President Warren Petersen, also a Republican. The task force was established to find gaps in Arizona law as technology evolves.

“Protecting children and shutting down modern avenues of exploitation must remain a top priority, and this legislation reflects that commitment,” Finchem said in part.

“It is no secret that sexual predators and human traffickers use the internet to sell the most vulnerable among us for a profit,” said Yavapai County Sheriff David Rhodes in a prepared statement. “Senator Finchem’s SB 1077 will protect women and children from these criminals, as well as give law enforcement a needed tool in the prevention of crime.”

See a spelling or grammatical error in our story? Please click here to report it.

Do you have a photo or video of a breaking news story? Send it to us here with a brief description.

Copyright 2026 KTVK/KPHO. All rights reserved.

A top Trump administration lawyer pressed a federal judge Wednesday to block a newly enacted California law that bans most law enforcement officers in the state from wearing masks, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

Tiberius Davis, representing the U.S. Department of Justice, argued at a hearing in Los Angeles that the first-of-its-kind ban on police face coverings could unleash chaos across the country, and potentially land many ICE agents on the wrong side of the law it were allowed to take effect.

“Why couldn’t California say every immigration officer needs to wear pink, so it’s super obvious who they are?” Davis told U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder. “The idea that all 50 states can regulate the conduct and uniforms of officers … flips the Constitution on its head.”

The judge appeared skeptical.

“Why can’t they perform their duties without a mask? They did that until 2025, did they not?” Snyder said. “How in the world do those who don’t mask manage to operate?”

The administration first sued to block the new rules in November, after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the No Secret Police Act and its companion provision, the No Vigilantes Act, into law. Together, The laws bar law enforcement officers from wearing masks and compel them to display identification “while conducting law enforcement operations in the Golden State.” Both offenses would be misdemeanors.

Federal officials have vowed to defy the new rules, saying they are unconstitutional and put agents in danger. They have also decried an exception in the law for California state peace officers, arguing the carve out is discriminatory. The California Highway Patrol is among those exempted, while city and county agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department, must comply.

“These were clearly and purposefully targeted at the federal government,” Davis told the court Wednesday. “Federal officers face prosecution if they do not comply with California law, but California officers do not.”

The hearing comes at a moment of acute public anger at the agency following the fatal shooting of American protester Renee Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross in Minneapolis — rage that has latched on to masks as a symbol of perceived lawlessness and impunity.

“It’s obvious why these laws are in the public interest,” California Department of Justice lawyer Cameron Bell told the court Wednesday. “The state has had to bear the cost of the federal government’s actions. These are very real consequences.”

She pointed to declarations from U.S. citizens who believed they were being abducted by criminals when confronted by masked immigration agents, including incidents where local police were called to respond.

“I later learned that my mother and sister witnessed the incident and reported to the Los Angeles Police Department that I was kidnapped,” Angeleno Andrea Velez said in one such declaration. “Because of my mother’s call, LAPD showed up to the raid.”

The administration argues the anti-mask law would put ICE agents and other federal immigration enforcement officers at risk of doxing and chill the “zealous enforcement of the law.”

“The laws would recklessly endanger the lives of federal agents and their family members and compromise the operational effectiveness of federal law enforcement activities,” the government said in court filings.

Davis also told the court that ICE‘s current tactics were necessary in part because of laws across California and in much of the U.S. that limit police cooperation with ICE and bar immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, such as schools and courts.

California contends its provisions are “modest” and aligned with past practice, and that the government’s evidence showing immigration enforcement would be harmed is thin.

Bell challenged Department of Homeland Security statistics purporting to show an 8,000% increase in death threats against ICE agents and a 1,000% increase in assaults, saying the government has recently changed what qualifies as a “threat” and that agency claims have faced “significant credibility issues” in federal court.

“Blowing a whistle to alert the community, that’s hardly something that increases threats,” Bell said.

On the identification rule, Snyder appeared to agree.

“One might argue that there’s serious harm to the government if agents’ anonymity is preserved,” she said.

The fate of the mask law may hinge on the peace officer exemption.

“Would your discrimination argument go away if the state changed legislation to apply to all officers?” Snyder asked.

“I believe so,” Davis said.

The ban was slated to come into force on Jan. 1, but is on hold while the case makes its way through the courts. If allowed to take effect, California would become the first state in the nation to block ICE agents and other federal law enforcement officers from concealing their identities while on duty.

A ruling is expected as soon as this week.