Alaska’s U.S. Senate race between incumbent Republican Dan Sullivan and Democratic challenger Mary Peltola featured a contentious debate Thursday night in Anchorage, highlighting the state’s economic concerns and the candidates’ sharply contrasting records and personal controversies. The closely watched contest carries national significance as Democrats seek to gain control of the Senate, with Alaska considered a potential pickup despite its traditional Republican lean.

During the debate, both Sullivan and Peltola portrayed each other as disconnected from the everyday realities of Alaskans. Peltola criticized Sullivan for accumulating wealth during his 12 years in Washington and accused him of corruption tied to his political career. Sullivan countered by accusing Peltola of exploiting her time as a lobbyist after losing re-election in 2024, referring to it as part of a “rigged system” in the capital. The exchange set a combative tone, punctuated by frequent interruptions and mutual accusations of dishonesty on various issues, including military funding and the candidates’ affiliations with donors linked to Jeffrey Epstein.

Fuel prices were a central topic, given Alaska’s heavy reliance on energy and the impact of the ongoing war in Iran. Both candidates acknowledged the burden of high fuel costs on residents, with prices in rural areas reaching nearly $8 per gallon. Sullivan defended his support for oil development projects in Congress aimed at lowering energy prices and placed blame on Democrats for broader affordability challenges. Peltola emphasized her backing of drilling in Alaska but faulted Sullivan for voting to support the war in Iran, arguing it inflated energy prices. She advocated for a U.S. troop withdrawal prior to a peace agreement, while Sullivan maintained that continued military presence is necessary to prevent Iran’s nuclear advancement and to secure key oil transit routes.

Workplace conduct allegations against Peltola resurfaced, with Sullivan referencing reports that detailed instances of verbal abuse, offensive language, and high staff turnover during her time as a congresswoman. Peltola denied many of these accusations, calling them exaggerated or false, and attributed missed votes partly to personal tragedies and parental leave. She urged voters to focus on issues beyond her “worst day.”

Fisheries, a critical sector in Alaska’s economy, prompted both candidates to assert their commitment to protecting local fishers from large commercial trawlers. Sullivan touted his Bycatch Reduction Act aimed at reducing excess catch by big trawling operations, while criticizing Peltola for failing to pass related legislation. Peltola countered by noting her joint efforts with Sullivan to bar Russian trawlers from Alaska waters and claimed Sullivan’s bill was a “half-hearted” solution timed for campaign advantage.

Sullivan also highlighted occasions where he opposed certain Trump administration initiatives, such as a proposed Pentagon live-streaming of a federal execution, which Sullivan successfully lobbied to halt. Despite this, he faced persistent scrutiny for his votes supporting the administration’s policies, including those relating to the war in Iran.

Both candidates sparred over the impact of recent Republican legislation on Alaska’s healthcare system. Peltola argued the “One Big Beautiful Bill” curtailed Medicaid access for many, while Sullivan defended the bill’s provisions and cited a federal rural healthcare funding program benefiting the state. They agreed on the importance of Affordable Care Act subsidies, with Sullivan noting his break from party lines to support ACA tax cuts last year.

The debate also featured moments of personal tension, with Sullivan accusing Peltola of reading from notes and possibly receiving the questions in advance, a charge the moderators denied. Peltola responded by asserting she was simply well-prepared.

With Alaska’s electorate consisting of a large number of independents and traditionally favoring Republicans, the race remains competitive as voters weigh economic struggles alongside assessments of each candidate’s record and character. The candidates’ sharply contrasting portrayals of each other’s relationship to Washington politics, their views on resource development and national security, and allegations regarding personal conduct will likely shape voter decisions in the closing days before the November election.