The expanding geographic ranges of tick species that are known pathogen vectors can have implications for human, domestic animal, and wildlife health. Although Alaska is home to several hard tick species, it has historically been outside of the range of the most common medically important ticks in the contiguous United States and western Canada. To assess the status of tick species establishment in the state and to provide a baseline for tracking future change in the distribution of ticks, we reviewed and compiled historical tick records and summarized recent tick occurrence records collected through the development of the Alaska Submit-A-Tick Program and through tick drag sampling at sentinel sites in southcentral Alaska. Between 1909-2019, there were 1190 tick records representing 4588 individual ticks across 15 species in Alaska. The majority of ticks were species historically found in Alaska: Haemaphysalis leporispalustris, Ixodes angustus, Ixodes auritulus, Ixodes howelli, Ixodes signatus, and Ixodes uriae. Over half of all tick records in the state were collected in the last 10?yr. During this time, the number of tick records and the number of tick species recorded in Alaska each year has increased substantially. Between 2010-2019, there were 611 tick records representing 1921 individual ticks. The most common hosts for reported ticks were domestic animals (n?=?343, 56 %) followed by small wild mammals (n?=?147, 24 %), humans (n?=?49, 8%), and wild birds (n?=?31, 5%). Less than 5% of records (n?=?25) were of unattached ticks found in the environment. Since 2007, non-native tick species have been documented in the state every year, including Amblyomma americanum, Dermacentor andersoni, Dermacentor occidentalis, Dermacentor variabilis, Ixodes pacificus, Ixodes ricinus, Ixodes scapularis, Ixodes texanus, and Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato (s.l.). Almost half of the records (n?=?68, 48 %) of non-native tick species from 2010 to 2019 represented ticks found on a host (usually a dog or a human) that had traveled outside of Alaska in the two weeks prior to collection. However, A. americanum, D. variabilis, I. pacificus, I. texanus, and R. sanguineus s.l. have been found on humans and domestic animals in Alaska without reported recent travel. In particular, there is evidence to suggest that there is local establishment of R. sanguineus s.l. in Alaska. A tick species historically found in the state, I. angustus was frequently found on human and dogs, suggesting a potential role as a bridge vector of pathogens. Given the inconsistency of tick monitoring in Alaska over the past century, it is difficult to draw many conclusions from temporal trends in the data. Continued monitoring through the Alaska Submit-A-Tick Program will allow a more accurate assessment of the changing risk of ticks and tick-borne diseases in the state and provide information for setting clinical and public health guidelines for tick-borne disease prevention.