Possible Postal Service changes present challenge to Alaska Bypass Mail

A plane flies over the town after taking off from the dirt runway on Sept. 14, 2019, in Kivalina, Alaska. (Photo by)
In late February, Alaska Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, and House Speaker Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, issued a letter to the state's congressional delegation voicing concerns over active and proposed federal spending cuts. In a list of potentially targeted agencies and programs they included one unique to Alaska: Bypass Mail.
Bypass Mail is an Alaska-only classification of parcel post mail that bypasses U.S. Postal Service facilities. It includes food and other products that are shipped from Anchorage and Fairbanks through private carriers to retailers off of the road system. Bypass Mail must be from a single seller to a single recipient, shrink-wrapped and moved on pallets for ease of storage, and in a minimum order of 1,000 pounds. The USPS subsidizes the service, at an estimated cost of $133 million in 2022.
Alaskans' concern over Bypass Mail is rooted in recent comments by President Donald Trump, who recently suggested ending the independence of the U.S. Postal Service. On Feb. 21, the Washington Post reported that Trump planned to transfer the USPS to the Department of Commerce. The president added the next day that the Commerce secretary was 'going to look at' postal reform. On March 5, presidential adviser Elon Musk announced his support for privatizing the Postal Service, saying, 'I think we should privatize the Post Office and Amtrak for example …. We should privatize everything we possibly can.'
Calls to privatize the Postal Service have occurred since the 1980s, with rural delivery serving as a primary target. That's especially true for Alaska, where much of the state relies on air mail delivery. Virginia Congressman Gerry Connolly, ranking Democrat on the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was succinct last month in his estimation of what privatization would mean for the state, telling CNN, 'If you privatize the Postal Service, there's not a piece of mail that could be delivered in Alaska for any kind of reasonable price.'
Those who oppose Bypass Mail, including the national-level Postal Service leaders, have repeatedly argued that it is not a mail service like others provided by the USPS. Instead, it is more similar to a private freight service. A 2011 USPS report referred to it as 'a freight service that includes items seemingly considered nonmailable anywhere else in the United States.'
Bypass mail grew organically, out of the inability in the 1970s for Anchorage post offices to process the high volume of parcel post that was shipped to the bush. This mail reached its final destination by air and postal employees at that time began shifting large orders directly to the air carriers in a system they devised on their own.
Rural mail service through the U.S. has been protected against previous cost-cutting attempts by a mandate in the 1970 Postal Reauthorization Act, which was co-sponsored by Alaska U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, created the USPS as the independent agency it is today. It codified into law that the USPS must provide 'equitable service to all Americans.'
Bypass Mail has periodically been targeted for criticism. It was the subject of a strongly negative 2011 USPS report, followed by a 2014 congressional hearing. Then-Congressman Don Young testified at the time to the often unspoken and unsolvable part of the Alaska mail problem: lack of roads. 'Now, you build me some highways, Mr. Chairman,' he challenged California Republican Congressman Darrell Issa, 'and I will go along with you.' The hearing resulted in no changes to the Bypass Mail system.
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy suggested eliminating Bypass entirely in 2020, but backed down in the face of political opposition.
While those seeking to eliminate Bypass have suggested that without it shippers would promptly turn to freight services, Grant Aviation's Vice President of Commercial Operations Dan Knesek is mindful of parcel post's history. He cautions that those seeking to discontinue the program should be aware of how parcel post was previously the overwhelming choice for most Alaskan shippers and what returning to it would entail for the USPS.
'If those [thousands of pounds of] boxes were not shipped via Bypass, every box would be taken individually into the local post office by the shipper, every box would be weighed individually by a postal employee, and every box would then have to be stored in the post office until every box was separately dispatched for delivery. When it arrived in the destination village, the USPS would have to have employees out at that airport to receive every single box and either store them in those post offices or deliver them immediately. Right now,' he concluded, 'none of that storage and none of that handling is done by postal employees. It is almost entirely done by the aviation industry in Alaska. If the post office was to remove Bypass then it would need to invest in warehouses, hangars, trucks, forklifts, staff and everything else to do what the carriers are doing, and have done, in Alaska for decades.'
Under the current system, USPS's only responsibility for Bypass Mail is to cover some of its costs. Once received by a carrier, the shipments are always under their control. The USPS thus is freed from responsibility for storage, loading, unloading, and delivery.
Last year, according to Knesek, Grant Aviation moved 17 million pounds of U.S. mail as a Bush air carrier, with the majority of it Bypass Mail. Bush carriers serve small villages, mainline carriers serve hub destinations where the mail is then disseminated to Bush carriers.
Additionally, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, which currently has figures through November 2024, reports that Bering Air moved 13.8 million pounds that year, Alaska Central Express moved 11.3 million pounds, Ryan Air moved 11 million pounds and Wright Air Service moved 5.4 million pounds. Several other companies flew figures less than one million pounds and Everts Air Cargo, which flies both mainline and Bush mail, flew just over 25 million pounds.
When asked to comment on privatization and how it would affect Alaska, a USPS spokesperson replied that there was no statement at this time as the 'inquiry is centered on action by the administration and cuts that haven't happened.'
Meanwhile, on March 14, DeJoy released a letter informing Congress that the USPS had entered into an agreement with the General Services Administration and Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. The agencies were going to assist USPS in 'identifying and achieving further efficiencies'.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hill

an hour ago

• The Hill

Republicans line up behind Trump after strike on Iran — with few detractors

Republicans on Capitol Hill quickly lined up behind President Trump after he announced that the U.S. conducted a strike on three Iranian nuclear facilities, a strong show of support for the White House with few detractors inside the GOP. Trump announced on Truth Social just before 8 p.m. EDT on Saturday that the U.S. 'completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran,' including Fordow, the nuclear site hidden in a mountain south of Tehran. He is scheduled to address the nation from the White House at 10 p.m. Republican leaders in the House and Senate backed the action, which had become a debate of sorts in Washington — especially among GOP — since Israel struck Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this month in what it called a 'pre-emptive' attack. 'The military operations in Iran should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says,' Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) wrote in a statement on X. 'The President gave Iran's leader every opportunity to make a deal, but Iran refused to commit to a nuclear disarmament agreement. President Trump has been consistent and clear that a nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated. That posture has now been enforced with strength, precision, and clarity.' 'The President's decisive action prevents the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, which chants 'Death to America,' from obtaining the most lethal weapon on the planet,' he added. 'This is America First policy in action. God bless our brave men and women in uniform – the most lethal fighting force on the planet – as we pray for their safe return home. May God bless America.' Johnson was briefed on the strike beforehand, a source familiar with the matter told The Hill. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) wrote in a statement with X: 'I stand with President Trump.' 'The regime in Iran, which has committed itself to bringing 'death to America' and wiping Israel off the map, has rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace. The mullahs' misguided pursuit of nuclear weapons must be stopped,' he said. 'As we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), similarly, backed Trump after the strike and applauded him for making the 'right call.' 'Iran has waged a war of terror against the United States for 46 years. We could never allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. God bless our brave troops. President Trump made the right call and the ayatollahs should recall his warning not to target Americans,' Cotton wrote on X. 'As I have said multiple times recently, I regret that Iran has brought the world to this point,' Crawford echoed in a statement. 'That said, I am thankful President Trump understood that the red line — articulated by President of both parties for decades — was real. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are making it clear that the world would never accept Iran's development of a nuclear weapon.' While the majority of Republicans backed Trump in the wake of the strike, there were some GOP detractors on Capitol Hill. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has been advocating for the U.S. to avoid intervention in the Israel-Iran conflict, wrote on X minutes after Trump announced the offensive: 'This is not Constitutional.' Massie helped lead a bipartisan war powers resolution to prohibit U.S. involvement in the Middle East dispute. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) suggested that the move was unconstitutional. 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional. I look forward to his remarks tonight,' he wrote on X. Trump's decision to strike a trio of Iranian nuclear sites came after a week of debate on Capitol Hill over whether the U.S. should take action in Iran after Israel launched an attack on Iran, prompting a back-and-forth between the two countries. Trump on Thursday said he would decide whether to take action within the next two weeks. 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiation that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go in the next two weeks,' Trump said in the statement read by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. The big question had been whether the U.S. would deploy a large bomb known as a 'bunker buster' to strike the Fordow facility, which is underground. While some lawmakers advocated for the move, others — including some of the president's most vocal supporters on the right-flank — pushed against the U.S. directly getting involved in the conflict. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for example, said 'Me and my district support President Trump and his MAGA agenda, it's what we voted for in November, and foreign wars weren't a part of it.' On Saturday night, she offered prayers for the safety of U.S. troops and Americans in the Middle East. 'Let us pray that we are not attacked by terrorists on our homeland after our border was open for the past 4 years and over 2 Million gotaways came in.🙏 Let us pray for peace. 🙏,' she added. But across the GOP conferences on Capitol Hill, Republicans were quick to back the move by the president. 'Our commander-in-chief has made a deliberate —and correct— decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime,' Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) wrote in a statement on X. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies and stability for the middle-east. Well-done to our military personnel. You're the best!' House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), the No. 3 House Republican, said Trump 'was right then, and he is right today: NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE.' 'A nuclear Iran posed a threat to the Middle East and to the world. @POTUS has been consistent that this dangerous regime should NEVER possess a nuclear weapon,' he added in a statement on X.

Hamilton Spectator

an hour ago

• Hamilton Spectator

Trump wins immediate praise from Republicans in Congress after announcing strikes on Iran

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional Republicans — and at least one Democrat — immediately praised President Donald Trump after he said Saturday evening that the U.S. military bombed three sites in Iran. 'Well done, President Trump,' Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina posted on X. Texas Sen. John Cornyn called it a 'courageous and correct decision.' Alabama Sen. Katie Britt called the bombings 'strong and surgical.' Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin posted: 'America first, always.' The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said Trump 'has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.' Wicker posted on X that 'we now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies.' The quick endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump had publicly mulled the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican and a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, posted on X after Trump announced the attacks that 'This is not Constitutional.' Many Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say. The Senate was scheduled to vote as soon as this week on a resolution by Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine requiring congressional approval before the U.S. declared war on Iran or took specific military action. Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House intelligence panel, posted on X after Trump's announcement: 'According to the Constitution we are both sworn to defend, my attention to this matter comes BEFORE bombs fall. Full stop.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Axios

an hour ago

• Axios

Trump faces bipartisan blowback in Congress on Iran strikes

While most congressional Republicans and some pro-Israel Democrats are praising President Trump's strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, pockets of opposition are already emerging in both parties. Why it matters: The objections center on the argument that Trump needed congressional authorization for such a provocative use of military force, with one House Democrat pushing for a vote to restrict further unilateral action. "We need to immediately return to DC and vote on [Rep. Thomas Massie's] and my War Powers Resolution to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war," said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). Massie (R-Ky.), a libertarian who often breaks with Trump, said in a post on X reacting to the strikes: "This is not Constitutional." What happened: Trump announced in a Saturday night post on Truth Social, "We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran." "A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow," he added. "All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors." The decision to intervene directly in Israel's war with Iran marks a historic escalation in the Middle East, Axios' Barak Ravid reported. State of play: Khanna and Massie, along with Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), had been trying to build bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress for their war powers measures in the days leading up to the strikes. There is little appetite among the ruling Republicans, outside of a handful of right-wingers, to be in direct conflict with Trump on the issue. Both Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) publicly backed the strikes on Saturday night. Zoom in: The position that Trump's strikes were constitutionally unsanctioned is more mainstream with Democrats, including House Intelligence Committee ranking member Jim Himes (D-Conn.). Himes called the strikes a "clear violation of the Constitution" in a statement, adding, "We also don't know if this will lead to further escalation in the region and attacks against our forces." "I am continuing to closely monitor the situation and demand answers from the Administration," he added. Kaine posted on Saturday that he will "push for all Senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war."