Independent Journalism · Not Legal Advice · Verify Against the Court Record · Editorial Policy
A fleet of cargo ships docked near oil storage tanks along a serene coastline with a clear blue sky above.

Trump’s Alaska LNG Pitch to Japan and Korea Meets a Second, Novatek-Linked Plan

by

For more than a year, President Donald Trump has made selling Alaska’s natural gas to Asian allies part of his trade agenda, folding the Alaska LNG Japan Korea pitch into tariff deals and investment pledges. On Oct. 23 and 24, 2026, the FT and the New York Times reported on Polar LNG, a separate North Slope export startup that is chasing the same buyers and that, by Novatek’s account, signed a memorandum with the Russian company in April.

Where it stands: On Oct. 25 the White House said in a release that Trump “secured a $54 billion deal with Korea and Taiwan” for the pipeline. South Korean officials have said for weeks that no investment has been decided, and the project company told the Energy Department this spring that it had no long-term LNG contracts.

Joel Riddle, who quit as the startup’s top executive in September by his account, told both papers that Novatek was paying for and directing the venture without disclosure. Each company involved disputes him. Polar LNG labels Riddle a “disgruntled former employee” dismissed for cause, and it insists “Development activities are being pursued in full compliance with applicable US laws.” Novatek says it wants only a “minority shareholder” position and, according to Newsmax’s summary of the FT, rejects any tie to sanctions relief. The startup’s parent, Abu Dhabi-based Tech Wave, says Novatek holds no ownership interest in it. No U.S. authority has established a sanctions violation, Business Standard noted, and the NYT found nothing to suggest that Steve Witkoff or Jared Kushner, the president’s envoys, were aware of the startup’s Novatek connection.

How the White House built the Asia pitch

The sales effort runs through trade agreements rather than through company contracts. The White House fact sheet on the July 2025 Japan deal said Japan “will invest $550 billion directed by the United States” and that the two governments “are exploring a new offtake agreement for Alaskan liquefied natural gas (LNG).” Exploring is the operative word. The document set no volume or price.

Three months later, during Trump’s Tokyo visit, a second White House fact sheet said Tokyo Gas and JERA had each signed letters of intent with Glenfarne, the developer that owns 75% of Alaska LNG alongside the state, and that Japanese buyers’ combined interest “now represents more than 10% of the project’s export capacity.”

Letters of intent are not purchase contracts. In its semi-annual report to the Energy Department, filed March 27, 2026, the project company stated plainly that it “has not yet entered into any long-term contracts” for LNG exports or gas supply.

Korea: a $54 billion announcement Seoul says it never made

The Korea piece has drawn the sharpest dispute. At a Sept. 30 Oval Office event, Trump said South Korea would put more than $50 billion into the project as part of the trade deal that cut U.S. tariffs on Korean goods. “They paid to get them reduced, and part of that money is going into this project,” Trump said, according to Alaska Public Media.

Seoul pushed back within a day. Trade minister Kim Jung-kwan said the joint fact sheet included neither the dollar figure nor any direct commitment, only “that we are beginning the review process.” The Anchorage Daily News quoted the fact sheet itself: the countries “have agreed to commence working on the Alaska LNG project, subject to meeting commercial reasonableness under the Strategic Investment MOU and all applicable domestic legal requirements.”

Trump answered with a tariff threat. “Tell them if they don’t sign shortly, I’m gonna double it up,” he said, which the ADN described as an apparent reference to his 15% tariff on Korea. Vice President JD Vance, during a stop in Anchorage the following week, said “we’re going to get this done,” and suggested Japan and other nations could step in if needed. After a lunch with Korean officials, Democratic state Sen. Bill Wielechowski told Alaska Public Media there was “just zero decision made” by Seoul.

The fact sheet also says Washington “intends to provide assurances, to the extent possible,” on offtake prices and priority access for Korea. One regulatory detail favors Seoul: Korea is on the Energy Department’s list of free trade partners whose gas export approvals are deemed in the public interest. Japan and Taiwan are not on that list, though Alaska LNG already holds a 2020 Energy Department order authorizing exports to non-FTA countries.

Alaska LNG Japan Korea commitments and the rest of the buyer list

Taiwan’s government has put more on the record than Seoul. Its economy ministry said on Oct. 14 that state-owned CPC would buy six million tonnes a year once production starts and could invest up to $4.4 billion, Reuters reported. The ministry added that “Specific investment arrangements, equity stakes and related terms will be determined through subsequent negotiations and commercial contract procedures,” and did not say a binding deal had been signed.

Glenfarne says it must contract 80% of the plant’s planned output to finance it and has 13 million tonnes a year under preliminary agreements with TotalEnergies, JERA, Tokyo Gas, Taiwan’s CPC, Thailand’s PTT and Korea’s POSCO. POSCO’s heads of agreement, the first such deal signed, covers 1 million tonnes a year for 20 years and a steel supply role, Alaska Business reported.

Country What is on record Status as of Oct. 26
Japan $550B investment pledge; Alaska offtake “exploring” Tokyo Gas, JERA letters of intent
South Korea White House says $54B Seoul: review only, no decision
South Korea (POSCO) 1 million tonnes a year, steel Heads of agreement
Taiwan CPC: six million tonnes a year, up to $4.4B Terms still to be negotiated
Thailand (PTT) Preliminary offtake deal Not binding
All buyers 13 million tonnes a year, preliminary No long-term contracts filed with DOE

Where Polar LNG and Novatek fit

Polar LNG is not part of Alaska LNG, but it is aiming at the same customers. In March, Polar LNG said in comments reported by Reuters that a first phase of $8 billion to $9 billion would produce LNG “that could be sold to Japan, South Korea and other countries,” and that it was open to investment from Japanese companies.

📨 Get Free Accountability Coverage Alerts

Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime

Its Oct. 23 statement went further, saying the ice-class tankers it needs could create shipbuilding work “potentially in cooperation with South Korean and Japanese partners.” The same statement says Polar LNG could complement other Alaska gas projects and that it has applied to the Treasury Department’s sanctions office for a license to buy an unfinished gravity-based structure from Novatek.

There is also a Korean link on the shipping side. Several ice-class LNG carriers built by South Korea’s Hanwha for Russian projects “remain undeliverable due to sanctions,” gCaptain reported in April, and it was unclear whether such ships could serve an Alaska plant.

Riddle framed his objection in national terms: “It’s not only unlawful, but it’s not in the U.S. interest,” he told the NYT, according to Raw Story. That is his opinion; Polar LNG rejects it, and no regulator has ruled. As of October 26, no public response from the governments of Japan, South Korea or Taiwan to the Polar LNG reports had turned up in the coverage reviewed for this article.

The price question buyers keep asking

The underlying obstacle is cost. Citing Reuters, Alaska Public Media reported that each unit of Alaska LNG gas could cost about double what Gulf Coast supply does, and it pointed out that Korea’s KOGAS already holds a 5% stake in the cheaper LNG Canada project. “So far, we haven’t seen buyers willing to sign contracts that indicate that they’re willing to pay substantially above market for LNG from Alaska,” said Jason Feer of Poten & Partners.

For how the two Alaska export plans compare, see our Polar LNG vs. Alaska LNG explainer; for the decades of earlier attempts, see our North Slope gas history. The underlying allegations are laid out in our main report, and Alaska’s delegation’s positions are in our Sullivan explainer.

Taiwan’s ministry said that if the project stays on schedule, Alaska gas could begin reaching the island as early as 2032.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has South Korea agreed to invest in Alaska LNG?

Not as of October 26, by Seoul’s own account. President Trump said on Sept. 30 that Korea was backing the project with $54 billion, but President Lee Jae Myung and Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan said no investment had been decided and the project must first pass commercial and legal reviews under a U.S.-Korea investment memorandum.

What has Japan committed to Alaska LNG?

The July 2025 White House fact sheet said only that the two countries were exploring an Alaska LNG offtake agreement. In October 2025, Tokyo Gas and JERA signed letters of intent with developer Glenfarne. Letters of intent are not binding purchase contracts.

Does Taiwan plan to buy Alaska LNG?

Taiwan’s economy ministry said on Oct. 14 that state-owned CPC would buy six million tonnes a year once production starts and could invest up to $4.4 billion, with terms still to be negotiated. It did not say a binding contract had been signed, Reuters reported.

Is Polar LNG part of the Alaska LNG project?

No. Polar LNG is a separate startup planning a nearshore plant on the North Slope. It has said it could complement Alaska LNG. It has also applied to OFAC for a license to buy unfinished Novatek equipment, and its former CEO’s allegations of undisclosed Russian financing are disputed by the company.

Does Alaska LNG have binding buyers yet?

In its spring 2026 report to the Energy Department, the project company said it had not yet entered into any long-term LNG export or supply contracts. Glenfarne lists 13 million tonnes a year under preliminary agreements and says it needs 80% of output contracted to finance the project.

Sources

This article is news reporting and analysis based on the public sources listed above, as they stood on the dates shown. Where officials, lawmakers or analysts disagree, including on whether an action is lawful, their positions are attributed to them; Donald Trump Class Action is not a court and nothing here is legal advice. Facts in a developing story can change.

Owed money from a settlement? Check what is open at OpenClassActions.com. Caring for someone with dementia? Find practical guides at HelpDementia.com. Working out a skin routine? Evidence-based answers at AcneAdvocate.com. Forgot the name of a movie? Identify it at FindThisMovie.com. Was your data exposed? Track active breaches at DataBreachRadar.com.
⚠️ OPINION & EDITORIAL CONTENT: All articles, commentary, and analysis on donaldtrumpclassaction.com represent the personal opinions of the authors and are presented for informational and editorial purposes only. This site is not affiliated with Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, or any government agency. Nothing here constitutes legal, financial, or professional advice. Read full disclaimer.

We use essential cookies to make this site work and remember your preferences. We do not use advertising or analytics cookies. Privacy Policy. Cookie Policy.