The Irony of the ANC Headwinds

Written in my personal capacity, reflecting my own views after years in this industry. Not an official statement on behalf of any company or corporation I’m affiliated with.

The ANC Debate is Missing Something Important

I’m the CEO of a company inside an Alaska Native Corporation. Before that, I spent nine years as an Explosive Ordnance Disposal operator before transitioning into the aerospace and defense sector. I was born and raised in Alaska and have spent my entire career in the defense sector. I have a unique perspective of both the ANC world and the defense sector.

Every few years, the ANC ecosystem finds itself back on defense. New critics. New skepticism. Another round of attacks on the ANC federal contracting program. We’re living through one of those cycles again right now.

Over the last eight months myself and many others have spent a lot of days in Washington, DC, meeting with this administration and with members of Congress, trying to walk people through what the ANC program actually is and how it actually works. Like most things, the narrative gets driven by misinformation, misunderstanding, and a lack of context. No one is “bad” for questioning programs. Sometimes, people are just missing critical information.

In one meeting, someone from the administration told us they’d “heard” that contracting officers just pick up the phone and hand ANCs contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. If only it were that easy. He looked surprised when we told him more than 90% of our work is competitively awarded, and more than half our business isn’t generated through the 8(a) program at all.

That conversation is fairly typical in these meetings. But there’s a perspective that is almost always missing from the discussion, and I think it’s a necessary element to discuss.

The administration is applying headwinds to the thing its own strategy depends on…

Look at Alaska’s GDP and you’ll find that ANCs are a juggernaut. A critical piece of the state’s economy. ANCs make up about 1/4 of Alaska’s total GDP, employ 15K - 20K people in Alaska, and while the range is estimated, employ 60K - 90K people worldwide. To someone outside Alaska, that might sound like a local issue, not a national one. It isn’t.

Alaska is a unique state and I’m not talking just about the beautiful landscape. It anchors America’s Arctic strategy, hosts some of our most important and strategic military installations, contains enormous natural resource potential, and occupies one of the most strategically important geographic positions in the world. Strong Alaska institutions aren’t simply good for Alaska. They’re part of America’s national security posture.

Cripple one of the state’s primary economic engines, and you’re not just hurting Alaska’s economy. You’re weakening one of the foundations that supports America’s long-term strategic interests.

I can’t help but think that the headwind has a degree of irony to it. This administration has been skeptical of ANCs, and the broader 8a program, while simultaneously issuing executive orders that place Alaska at the center of America’s national security strategy, particularly around defense and natural resource development. That, to me, is ironic.

I said exactly that in one of my meetings in Washington. ANCs are aligned with two of the administration’s highest priorities, and yet the administration is undermining one of the primary mechanisms that has helped build ANC strength in the first place.

You cannot order agencies to unleash Alaska’s extraordinary resource potential while treating the contracting authority that has helped build Alaska Native Corporations as though it’s simply an outdated DEI relic. Those two positions don’t coexist.

The contracting program isn’t disconnected from Alaska’s future. It’s one of the mechanisms that helps build it. Revenue generated through federal contracting becomes capital that ANCs reinvest into businesses, infrastructure, workforce and shareholder development, acquisitions, and long-term economic strength. That stronger balance sheet allows Alaska Native Corporations to participate in larger defense, infrastructure, and resource development efforts over time. Weaken that engine, and you weaken one of the institutions this administration says it wants to rely on.

It’s certainly important to note that companies like the one I run occupy a space the market actually needs. We’re large enough to execute meaningful national security work, but still small enough to stay agile, responsive, and not lock the government into massive, inflexible programs. And that alone is strong enough to advocate for our position in the government’s contracting ecosystem. However, when you add in the entire context of national defense and our need for US driven natural resource development, I think ANCs critical position should be hard to ignore.

I’m not saying every 8(a) award has been clean, or that oversight should be lighter. Name me one program or system that is flawless. Fraud should be rooted out. Pass-through abuse should be shut down. That’s a fair conversation, and GAO has been making many of those recommendations for years. ANCs are not, and have never been, exempt from audits nor FAR guidelines.

But there’s a difference between reforming a program and abandoning it.

Reform can strengthen the tool. To abandon it, you throw it away at the very moment the country is asking Alaska to shoulder an even greater strategic role.

The goal was never to eliminate competition. Nor was it a handout. ANCs are active participants in National Security and Development. The program was designed to help build economically strong Alaska Native Corporations that could compete, invest, create jobs, and contribute to America’s long-term national interests as well as be a source of strength for the people of the great state of Alaska. Frankly, I think that’s a good thing. And furthermore, I think the ANC program should be celebrated.

That’s why I think this debate deserves a lot more context than it’s getting today.