One of the angriest reactions to the Polar LNG stories that the FT and NYT ran on Oct. 23 and 24, 2026, was a claim that Trump’s circle stood ready to sell off Alaska’s natural wealth to the Russians. Is it accurate to say anyone handed Russia Alaska resources? Not on the record. North Slope gas belongs to the State of Alaska and the companies that lease it, and Novatek’s reported role is as a technology supplier and would-be minority investor in a startup, not as a buyer of Alaska’s gas fields.
Where it stands: Through Oct. 26, no sale, lease or transfer of Alaska resources to any Russian entity had been reported, and no charge or official finding existed. Business Standard’s write-up of the FT put it this way: “No US authority has publicly established that the alleged financing constituted a sanctions violation.”
The companies involved dispute the core allegation from former Polar LNG chief Joel Riddle that Novatek was secretly bankrolling and steering the venture. Polar LNG told the FT that “Development activities are being pursued in full compliance with applicable US laws.” Novatek, per Business Standard, “rejected allegations that it secretly controlled the venture or linked the provision of its technology to sanctions relief.” The Abu Dhabi parent says Novatek owns none of it, and an administration official quoted by the FT said the project had “only been broadly and briefly mentioned to the [administration] but no granular discussions have occurred.”
Who actually owns North Slope gas
Start with the asset itself. Alaska’s constitution puts the state’s resources under legislative control: “The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people.” A separate clause directs lawmakers to set “the issuance, types and terms of leases for coal, oil, gas” and other minerals.
In practice, the Department of Natural Resources rents out the rights, keeps title and collects royalties. Its North Slope areawide sale area “lies between the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska (NPRA),” according to a DNR sale notice, which also set a 12.5% royalty on some tracts. The November 2025 sale, as reported by the Anchorage Daily News, drew “a combined $16.97 million in high bids for 271 onshore tracts,” out of “3,121 tracts over about 5 million state-owned acres.”
Companies holding state leases produce and sell the gas. Glenfarne, the developer of the separate state-backed Alaska LNG project, said in May that it had supply agreements with “all three major North Slope producers: ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) , Hilcorp Alaska.” None of those companies is Russian. A president does not hold or sell these leases; the state does, under state law.
What Novatek’s reported role is
Every account so far describes Novatek offering equipment and know-how, and later seeking equity in an export company. Raw Story’s summary of the NYT says “Novatek, which is under partial U.S. sanctions, was already set to supply the project’s technology.” Novatek has also acknowledged licensing its methods to Tech Wave, Polar LNG’s parent, for use in Alaska, and says an April MOU with Polar Train LNG exists, Business Standard reported.
Novatek’s earlier public statement, given to the Anchorage Daily News in late February about its Alaska talks, was explicit. The ADN reported that “Novatek has no plans to develop fields or produce natural gas in the U.S., the company said,” and quoted it saying the “discussion is focused on supplying our technology for American companies’ projects to monetize gas reserves from Alaska’s North Slope fields.” It added: “Should the technology be deployed under projects in the United States, the respective equipment will be ordered from U.S. manufacturers.”
That statement predates the Polar LNG dispute. By October, Raw Story relays, Novatek was telling the NYT it wanted “minority shareholder” status in the venture. A minority stake in an LNG export company would be an ownership interest in a business, not in the gas under state leases. Riddle’s allegation is that Novatek’s influence already runs deeper than its statements say; the company denies that.
What an OFAC license would and would not cover
Much of the deal talk turns on equipment. Reuters reported in March that “Polar LNG is hoping to get approval from the US Office of Foreign Assets Control to buy the equipment, including a partially built liquefaction plant, from Arctic LNG 2.” Business Standard notes that “Arctic LNG 2’s operator faces blocking sanctions.” Novatek, which Reuters said owns about 60% of Arctic LNG 2, told the agency then that “Working-level discussions on possible engagement options are currently underway.”
📨 Get Free Accountability Coverage Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
A Treasury license of that kind would permit a specific transaction otherwise barred by sanctions, here the purchase of Russian-built hardware. It would not give a Russian firm drilling rights or title to Alaska gas, which remain matters of state leasing. No license approval had been reported as of Oct. 26. Our explainer on Polar LNG’s OFAC license request covers how that process works.
Selling Russia Alaska resources: the verdict table
| Part of the claim | Verdict | What the record shows |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska’s gas was being sold to Russia | Not supported | Gas on state land is state-owned and leased to producers |
| Novatek would control Alaska resources | Not supported as stated | Reported role: technology, equipment, sought minority stake |
| Russian money reached the venture | Disputed allegation | Riddle and texts per NYT; companies deny control |
| Trump’s circle arranged a sale | Not supported | No sale reported; NYT says no indication envoys knew of Novatek ties |
| Alaska gas was discussed in Russia talks | Accurate as reported | FT and NYT, citing people familiar with talks |
The part of the claim with a factual basis
The anger is not built on nothing. People familiar with the negotiations told the FT that “one proposal involved Novatek helping develop the Alaska facility in exchange for sanctions relief for Arctic LNG 2,” as Newsmax relayed it. The NYT reported that Vladimir Putin raised the Alaska idea with envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in September, while also reporting “There is no indication Witkoff or Kushner knew about Polar LNG’s ties to Novatek, the Times reported.” Novatek denies tying its role to sanctions relief.
So Alaska energy was on the table in U.S.-Russia talks, as reported. What no outlet has reported is any agreement, by Trump, his family or his envoys, to sell or transfer Alaska’s resources to Russia. Trump Jr.’s only connection in the coverage is Gentry Beach, a college friend; his spokesman told the NYT the two men are no longer close. The broader swap reporting is in our piece on the reported Arctic LNG 2 relief proposal.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who owns the natural gas on Alaska’s North Slope?
Gas on state land belongs to the State of Alaska, which leases drilling rights through its Department of Natural Resources and collects royalties. Major producers such as ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Hilcorp hold leases and supply agreements.
Is Russia buying Alaska gas fields?
No such sale has been reported. Novatek said in February that it has no plans to develop fields or produce gas in the United States, and its reported role in Polar LNG is technology supplier and would-be minority investor.
What does Novatek want from Polar LNG?
An equity position. Novatek has said it intends to take a minority stake in the Alaska venture. It has already granted Tech Wave, the parent, rights to its LNG design and signed an April MOU with Polar Train LNG.
Did Trump agree to give Russia Alaska resources?
No report says so. The FT described a proposal in the peace talks pairing Novatek help in Alaska with Arctic LNG 2 relief. The administration says it barely came up, and Novatek rejects any connection to sanctions relief.
Would an OFAC license give Novatek rights to Alaska gas?
No. The license Polar LNG sought would cover buying equipment from the sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 project. Gas leasing rights are granted by the State of Alaska.
Sources
- The Constitution of the State of Alaska — Office of the Lieutenant Governor of Alaska, accessed October 26, 2026
- Notice of Sale: Beaufort Sea Areawide 2003, North Slope Areawide 2003 — Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas, July 29, 2003
- Alaska onshore North Slope oil auction sets new mark for tract leases sold — Anchorage Daily News, November 20, 2025
- Glenfarne, ConocoPhillips Sign North Slope Gas Sales Precedent Agreement for Alaska LNG — Glenfarne Group (company release), May 18, 2026
- Texas investor with Trump family ties pursues project to tap North Slope gas — Anchorage Daily News, March 3, 2026
- Whistleblower CEO quits over hidden Russian cash behind gas deal in Trump peace talks: NYT — Raw Story (summarizing The New York Times), October 24, 2026
- Top executives quit $25 bn US gas project over alleged Russian control — Business Standard (citing the Financial Times), October 25, 2026
- Alaska’s Polar LNG looking to buy discounted equipment from sanctioned Russian firm — Baird Maritime (Reuters), March 31, 2026
- Planned LNG plant in Alaska seeks equipment from sanctioned Russia firm — Reuters via Radio Canada International (Eye on the Arctic), April 1, 2026
- Former CEO: Russian Firm Backed Alaska Gas Venture — Newsmax via Yahoo News, October 24, 2026
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.