Senate Confirms Aaron Peterson As Alaska’s Newest Federal Judge
There is now one less federal judge vacancy in Alaska after the U.S. Senate voted 58 to 39 to confirm Aaron Peterson as the state’s newest federal judge. Peterson is currently the state’s natural resources attorney.
Peterson said in a legal notice issued soon after the vote that he would be leaving the Alaska Department of Law right away. There are three federal judges in Alaska, but since Joshua Kindred resigned in July 2024 amid a misconduct scandal, there has been only one sitting judge.
Peterson, a registered Republican, will take over for Judge Tim Burgess, who retired on the last day of 2021. That open seat was one of the oldest in the whole U.S. federal court system, as reported by Alaska Beacon.
Alaska’s federal court has had to rely on judges from other states and semi-retired judges who are on senior status because it only has one full-time judge.
There was a lot of bipartisan support for Peterson’s confirmation, with six Democrats voting for it along with most of the Senate’s Republicans. All 39 “no” votes came from Democrats, and three senators did not vote.
Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois and the highest-ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee from the opposing party, voted “yes.”
Peterson said last year that he wouldn’t say whether President Donald Trump lost the 2020 election or whether the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol was legal because he might have to rule on the matter as a judge.
Carl Tobias, the Williams Chair in Law at the University of Richmond School of Law, has been closely monitoring Peterson’s confirmation process.
“It wasn’t a party line vote. And so I think that means that some of the Democrats are signaling that if a person looks like he’s going to be competent, as I think Peterson will be, then they’re going to move forward and vote for that person,” he said.
Alaska Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan organized a committee that examined Peterson’s judicial application and forwarded it to President Donald Trump for official nomination.
The committee bypassed the usual procedure, which relies on advice from the Alaska Bar Association.
“I’m confident that he will be a great federal judge for our state,” he said in a prepared written statement.
According to the information Peterson submitted to the U.S. Senate’s judiciary committee, he was born in Anchorage in 1981 and served in the U.S. Air Force from 2000 to 2003 before attending the University of Alaska Anchorage, graduating in 2007. He attended Gonzaga University School of Law and graduated in 2010. He was admitted to the Alaska bar that year.
He returned to Alaska after graduation, serving first as a clerk to Judge Michael Spaan of the Anchorage Superior Court, then as a prosecutor with the Municipality of Anchorage.
Peterson worked in the Anchorage District Attorney’s office starting in 2012, including on violent felonies, such as murder and sexual assault. He moved to the Department of Law’s office of special prosecutions in 2015 before beginning work with the Department of Law’s natural resources section in 2019.
Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski didn’t participate in Peterson’s application process but offered her support after Trump nominated Peterson and voted for his confirmation on Wednesday.
“I look forward to Mr. Peterson hitting the ground running to help an overworked court, while working to address and reform the culture of abuse and low morale that has permeated the District Court in recent years,” Murkowski said in a prepared written statement. “Mr. Peterson is a born-and-raised Alaskan with a strong record of legal practice in our state, including in natural resources and criminal and civil law, and his leadership will be invaluable to Alaska. We now turn our focus to filling the remaining vacancy as soon as possible.”
House Passes Bill to Ban Gender Transition Treatments for Minors
Legislation that would criminalize gender transition treatments for minors, such as surgery and hormone supply, and punish providers with up to ten years in federal prison was approved by a divided House on Wednesday.
5th Circuit Upholds Texas Law Criminalizing Paid Ballot Harvesting
Read More
On a vote of 216 to 211, the bill—which civil rights organizations claimed was among the most extreme anti-trans legislation ever considered by Congress—was approved nearly entirely along party lines.
It is unlikely to be taken up by the Senate, where it would require a bipartisan alliance to move forward. However, the ultraconservative Republican majority and President Trump’s priorities were reflected in its discussion and passage in the House.
Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia pushed it through the House after she demanded earlier this month that Speaker Mike Johnson bring her bill to the floor in exchange for her backing of the defense policy measure she was otherwise threatening to sabotage.
According to Greene, the legislation fulfilled one of Trump’s major campaign pledges, and Congress must take action to formalize his executive order banning gender-affirming medical procedures.
“Most Americans agree that kids just need to grow up before they do anything radical, like a mastectomy on a 15-year-old girl,” she said on Wednesday on the House floor, pointing at a poster board of a child who had undergone such a surgery.
Greene has recently gained odd new respect from some Democrats for disagreeing with the president on a number of issues. She abruptly announced last month that she was leaving Congress one year before the end of her term.
“If a child believes they’re a unicorn, do adults take their word for it as well?” Greene said, adding that in electing Trump in 2024, the American people voted to end gender transition treatments.
Republican Representative Barry Moore of Alabama claimed that Democrats were indoctrinating children by falsely framing gender-affirming procedures as necessary.
“It is not lifesaving care,” he said. “It is child abuse.”
In response, Democrats claimed that proponents of the bill were attempting to replace medicine with ideology by focusing on a small and vulnerable group of trans youth. They claimed that by threatening parents with jail time, the law violated their rights and gave politicians the authority to make extremely private decisions for families.
“Does anyone believe that the Freedom Caucus and President Trump love America’s children more than their parents do?” said Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland.
California Democratic Rep. Mark Takano said the surgeries on minors that Greene described were extremely rare.
What the bill would really do, he said, is ban “safe and effective medications for an entire group of people.”
Takano said that the bill would not make children safe and that it would “interfere with parental choice and open private medical data up to investigation.”
A second anti-trans bill, also supported by Greene, that would prohibit Medicaid coverage of gender-affirming care for trans youth is scheduled to be voted on by the House later this week.
The first openly transgender lawmaker to serve in Congress, Rep. Sarah McBride, a Democrat from Delaware, claimed before Wednesday’s vote that Republicans were “obsessed” with transgender people and were concentrating on a “misunderstood and vulnerable 1 percent of the population” rather than taking any action to safeguard Americans’ health care.
“They think more about trans people than trans people think about trans people,” McBride said, speaking to reporters on the steps of the Capitol. “They are consumed with this and they are extreme on it.”
Three Democrats and four Republicans voted across party lines. Democrats Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez, both from Texas, and Don Davis of North Carolina voted for the measure.
Republicans Gabe Evans of Colorado, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Mike Lawler of New York, and Mike Kennedy of Utah voted against it.
Spencer Pratt EXPOSED LA’s Biggest Problem LIVE ON AIR… and The View Completely LOST IT! What was supposed to be another harmless celebrity interview on The View suddenly turned into one of the most uncomfortable political moments television has seen in months. Spencer Pratt walked onto the stage as a former reality TV star, but by the time the segment ended, viewers across the country were asking why he sounded more connected to everyday life in Los Angeles than the people challenging him. The conversation quickly shifted away from celebrity gossip and exploded into arguments about homelessness, drugs, crime, media narratives, and the visible collapse many residents say they experience daily in California cities. Then came the AI ad controversy, the viral comments about human waste in LA, and the moment even the hosts appeared caught off guard by how strongly audiences were reacting online. Now people are wondering whether this interview accidentally exposed something much bigger than one mayoral race. Read the full story below in the comments. - Trends.newsonline.biz
Spencer Pratt walked onto The View looking like exactly the kind of guest the hosts assumed they could easily handle.
A former reality television personality from The Hills running for mayor of Los Angeles sounded, on paper, like the perfect lighthearted daytime television segment.
A few jokes, some playful skepticism, maybe a quick conversation about celebrity culture, and then everybody moves on.
That was clearly the expectation. Instead, the interview spiraled into something completely different. Because within minutes, the atmosphere shifted from entertainment to genuine political discomfort.
The hosts initially approached Pratt with the familiar mixture of amusement and disbelief often reserved for celebrities entering politics.
Questions about his financial struggles, reality television fame, and lack of political experience came quickly.
But Pratt never tried to present himself as a polished politician. That changed the dynamic immediately.
Instead of sounding scripted, he sounded frustrated. Not celebrity frustrated. Citizen frustrated. And that emotional difference mattered far more than many people expected.
Pratt explained that he never intended to become politically active. For years, he largely avoided public political battles entirely.
According to him, the turning point came after wildfires devastated parts of Los Angeles, including the loss of his own home.
That transformed the conversation emotionally. Because suddenly this was no longer a reality TV personality playing politics for attention.
This became someone speaking from personal anger after watching what he believed was catastrophic government failure.
And viewers connected with that instantly. Pratt repeatedly framed his campaign around what he described as “common sense” issues facing ordinary Los Angeles residents.
Crime, homelessness, drug addiction, public disorder, deteriorating infrastructure, and basic safety concerns became the focus of nearly everything he discussed.
Then the conversation intensified. Pratt began describing conditions throughout parts of Los Angeles in blunt detail.
Human waste on sidewalks. Fentanyl needles near parks. Drug addicts roaming around schools. Public disorder becoming normalized in neighborhoods where families once felt safe.
The room noticeably tightened. Because regardless of political ideology, millions of Americans have already seen similar footage circulating online for years.
Videos of open drug use, theft, homeless encampments, and collapsing public order have dominated social media discussions surrounding California cities.
Pratt simply described those realities directly on national television. And emotionally, that landed much harder than many expected.
The hosts attempted pushing back by questioning his qualifications and political experience. But Pratt immediately flipped the criticism back toward establishment leadership.
When questioned about lacking a law degree or city management experience, Pratt sarcastically joked about earning legal credentials online before pointing out that Karen Bass herself had never previously managed a city before becoming mayor.
The exchange resonated online because Pratt did not sound like a polished political strategist trying to win an argument.
He sounded authentic. Messy at times, certainly. But authentic. And in modern politics, authenticity often matters more emotionally than perfect credentials.
That became increasingly obvious as the interview continued. The biggest turning point may have come when Pratt discussed how ordinary residents are reacting to conditions in Los Angeles.
He described even lifelong Democrats becoming frustrated after personally experiencing the city’s visible decline. One story in particular exploded online afterward.
Pratt described his sister accidentally driving through human waste in Los Angeles and being unable to remove the smell from her car despite repeated cleanings.
The story sounded absurd enough to become instantly memorable. But that was exactly why it spread so rapidly.
Pratt communicated through vivid personal imagery rather than policy jargon. People could immediately picture the situation because many viewers had already experienced similar moments themselves or seen comparable footage online.
That emotional relatability made his comments far more powerful than traditional political talking points. Meanwhile, the hosts appeared increasingly uncomfortable as the audience reaction online grew stronger.
At several moments, the panel attempted balancing criticism of Pratt while simultaneously acknowledging public frustration with conditions in Los Angeles.
That contradiction became noticeable. One moment Pratt was dismissed as a reality TV celebrity lacking qualifications.
The next moment, hosts admitted many residents genuinely feel unsafe or frustrated with visible deterioration across parts of California cities.
Viewers immediately noticed the inconsistency. And that inconsistency fueled much of the viral reaction afterward.
The interview escalated even further once discussion turned toward artificial intelligence campaign advertisements Pratt had shared online.
The ads used AI-generated comic-book imagery featuring political figures and exaggerated dystopian themes criticizing California leadership.
Critics labeled the ads dangerous, misleading, and inflammatory. But many viewers reacted very differently. Online audiences began mocking what they perceived as establishment media becoming more emotionally disturbed by AI-generated memes than by actual urban decline visible across major cities.
That comparison quickly spiraled into broader criticism of media credibility itself. People began reposting old clips from 2020 showing reporters standing in front of burning buildings during riots while describing events as “mostly peaceful.”
Those comparisons intensified accusations of media double standards. To many viewers, establishment media figures appeared willing to minimize real-world disorder while simultaneously treating exaggerated political memes as major threats.
Whether fair or unfair, that perception deeply shaped online reaction to the interview. And perception matters enormously in modern politics.
Because once audiences begin believing media institutions selectively frame outrage depending on ideological convenience, trust erodes rapidly.
That erosion of trust became one of the central emotional themes surrounding Pratt’s appearance. At multiple points, even the hosts themselves seemed unsure how aggressively to challenge him without appearing disconnected from realities many viewers already believe exiSt.
That tension became visible. And the more visible it became, the stronger Pratt’s anti-establishment image grew online.
Ironically, attempts to portray him as unserious often strengthened his appeal instead. Especially among frustrated voters exhausted by carefully scripted political language and media narratives they no longer trust completely.
Pratt also benefited from sounding unusually direct compared to traditional politicians. He criticized leaders for prioritizing press conferences, rhetoric, and ideological branding while ordinary residents increasingly worry about basic quality-of-life issues.
His argument was simple. People want safe parks. Functioning streets. Clean neighborhoods. Responsive emergency services.
And many feel local governments have failed to provide those basics despite enormous tax burdens.
That message cuts across ideological lines more effectively than many traditional partisan arguments. Which explains why the interview spread far beyond normal celebrity gossip audiences.
This stopped being about Spencer Pratt specifically. Instead, he increasingly became a symbol for something much larger: frustration with political institutions, distrust toward media narratives, anger over visible urban decline, and exhaustion with ideological battles replacing practical governance.
That emotional undercurrent explains why the segment resonated so strongly online. Millions of viewers did not suddenly become passionate Spencer Pratt supporters overnight.
But many recognized something emotionally familiar in what he described. And perhaps most importantly, many viewers believed he was speaking honestly rather than strategically.
That distinction matters tremendously in modern political culture. Especially during a time when large portions of the public increasingly view politicians, media personalities, and institutions as scripted, artificial, or disconnected from ordinary life.
By the end of the interview, the original premise had completely collapsed. What was supposed to be a harmless celebrity segment accidentally became one of the most viral political media moments of the year.
Not because Spencer Pratt dominated through traditional political skill. But because millions of Americans quietly saw pieces of their own frustrations reflected in what he said.
And judging by the reaction afterward, establishment media figures may have underestimated just how powerful that frustration has become.
