WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
  • Greg Gutfeld challenged Jessica Tarlov’s defense of a second Republican named Dan Sullivan appearing on Alaska’s Senate ballot.
  • The Justice Department sued to block certification if incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan loses, alleging the second Sullivan entered to mislead voters.
  • The New York Times reported that Democrat operatives aligned with Mary Peltola searched for another Dan Sullivan during summer 2025.
  • Operatives reportedly considered outside spending, Alaska Values, and a “MAGA party” as ways to divide Republican and conservative votes.

Jessica Tarlov tried to defend the disputed Dan Sullivan ballot scheme in Alaska during an episode of “The Five,” only for Greg Gutfeld to dismantle her argument. The clash centered on a second Republican candidate sharing the incumbent senator’s name.

The confrontation followed a lawsuit filed last week by the Justice Department in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. The department wants to block certification of the Senate results if Sen. Dan Sullivan, an Alaska Republican, loses.

According to the lawsuit, the second Dan Sullivan entered the race as a Republican “with the intention of misleading” supporters of the incumbent. The department argued that certifying results affected by that candidate would violate the state’s duty to protect election integrity.

“Should Alaska certify any electoral results tainted by the inclusion on the ballot of Daniel J. Sullivan… the State and its officers will fail in its obligation to protect the integrity of its election,” the lawsuit says.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

MORE NEWS: Rashida Tlaib Brazenly Dismisses Abdul El-Sayed’s Alleged Muslim Brotherhood Family Ties on Hidden Camera [WATCH]

Tarlov portrayed the filing as evidence that Republicans were revealing their own game. “And they're giving the game up,” she said, before arguing that voters could distinguish between the incumbent and the other candidate bearing the same name.

That defense prompted Gutfeld to suggest that the panel should “do a segment on that and how low down it was to introduce somebody of the same name.” He then mocked the idea that the candidate had simply appeared through pure coincidence.

“Oh, who did?” Gutfeld replied. “I don't know who did. It just happened. Another Dan Sullivan showed up. How did that happen? It was just, you know, pure coincidence.”

When Tarlov continued, Gutfeld argued that defending the maneuver destroyed any principled limit on election tactics. In his telling, excusing something that dirty meant there was no longer a meaningful reason to object when comparable conduct occurred.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

Following recent reports that Congress is considering a nationwide voter ID requirement for federal elections, do you support requiring voters to show identification before casting a ballot?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from Objectivist.co, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

“I get it. But see, what you just do, what you've done is you've opened the door for everything,” he said. “Now nothing, now there's no reason to even defend the most lowdown dirty thing when you defend that.”

The criticism went beyond the television exchange. Democrats would never tolerate Republicans placing another Mary Peltola on the ballot and would instead condemn such a move as an “attack on democracy.”

Tarlov also denied that Democrats were involved. The following morning, however, The New York Times reported that Democrat operatives aligned with Peltola had searched during the summer of 2025 for another man named Dan Sullivan who could enter the race.

The reported objective was straightforward: Confused voters might direct support toward the second Sullivan rather than the incumbent. The operation reportedly involved Peltola campaign aides, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee officials, campaign lawyers, and a Democrat operative who allegedly recruited candidates using the fake name “Zane.”

Close

MORE NEWS: Alaska Governor Orders Criminal Probe Into Peltola Campaign’s Explosive Decoy Dan Scheme [WATCH]

The effort did not stop with a shared name. Drywall contractor Gerald Heikes entered the contest and became the fourth person on the ballot, creating another possible avenue for drawing votes away from Republican candidates.

After the primary, the group reportedly helped persuade far-left Democrat David Leslie to leave the race. His departure opened a ballot position for Heikes, who could potentially siphon votes from the Republican side.

Aides also considered directing money toward the new candidates through outside spending and a new super PAC called Alaska Values. They additionally discussed starting a “MAGA party” that could further divide conservative voters, but that idea was ultimately abandoned.

Former Peltola campaign manager Elisa Rios became a significant source for The New York Times report. She later attempted to withdraw what she had said, but the newspaper published her account and stated that it matched the rest of its reporting.

Alaska’s nonpartisan primary system allowed candidates to appear under party labels without party officials first vetting them. That structure created the opening for another Dan Sullivan to run as a Republican despite the incumbent already carrying that name.

If Peltola wins by fewer votes than the combined total received by the spoiler candidates, the state could face a fierce legal battle. The Justice Department’s lawsuit has already placed the dispute over certification squarely before a federal court.

For Gutfeld, the central point was the glaring double standard. Democrats have repeatedly presented themselves as guardians of democracy, yet their media defenders were suddenly willing to wave away a reported operation designed to exploit voter confusion when political power was at stake.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.