The Trump administration has said very little on the record about Polar LNG since the FT and the New York Times ran a former chief executive’s claim, in stories dated Oct. 23 and 24, that Russia’s Novatek was secretly funding the Alaska gas startup. Pieced together, the White House Polar LNG response so far is two unnamed officials, a Treasury no-comment, an Energy Department that did not answer the Times, and a president who, when asked, talked about post-war business instead.
Where it stands: As of Oct. 26, apart from President Trump’s brief Oct. 24 remarks, every administration comment found in the coverage reviewed for this article came from officials who were not named. No agency had announced a decision on the license Polar LNG says it requested from Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, and, as Business Standard noted, “No US authority has publicly established that the alleged financing constituted a sanctions violation.”
The allegation itself belongs to Joel Riddle, Polar LNG’s chief executive until his September exit. The companies dispute it. Polar LNG called Riddle a “disgruntled former employee” who was fired for cause, Raw Story reported from the Times, and told the FT that “Development activities are being pursued in full compliance with applicable US laws.” Novatek said “requisite approvals will need to be obtained from US and Russian authorities” and denied that its part depended on any easing of sanctions. The parent company, Tech Wave of Abu Dhabi, said Novatek holds no share in it, according to Newsmax’s summary of the FT.
The White House Polar LNG response: “broadly and briefly”
The fullest White House statement came from an official who spoke to the FT without a name attached. The FT’s sources had described a proposal under which Novatek would help build the Alaska plant and Russia’s sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 project would get relief. Asked about it, the official said: “This has only been broadly and briefly mentioned to the [administration] but no granular discussions have occurred.”
The Times reported a similar answer. A U.S. official, speaking anonymously about closed-door talks, said the deal had “only been broadly mentioned and that no granular discussions had occurred,” according to the Times passage reproduced by Reporting From Alaska. The same Times report said there is “no indication” that the president’s two negotiators, Witkoff and Kushner, knew anything about the company or how it connects to Novatek.
Both comments address the diplomacy, not the money. In the coverage reviewed here, no administration official spoke to Riddle’s specific claim that Novatek financed the company before Washington approved anything.
The Daily Beast, which followed the Times story, wrote that “The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.” The Daily Beast report does not say whether an answer came later.
The Times also gave a sense of how the administration views deals like this one. It described Polar LNG as one of “a series of energy deals White House officials believe could help smooth relations with Moscow and eventually pave the way to end the war in Ukraine.” For how the plan reached Putin’s table, see our report on the Witkoff-Kushner talks.
Treasury: a no-comment and a pending license
Treasury matters most here because its Office of Foreign Assets Control decides whether Polar LNG may buy Russian equipment. Its public line is a standard one. An official told the FT: “While we do not comment on allegations of sanctions violations, we take potential violations extremely seriously.”
Bloomberg’s wire story, carried by ThePrint, said Treasury and Novatek did not immediately reply to emailed questions sent outside business hours.
Treasury has been quiet about this company from the start. When Polar LNG launched in late March and said it hoped to buy a partly built plant from Arctic LNG 2, Reuters wrote: “The U.S. Treasury Department had no comment.”
What is on record comes from others. Polar LNG’s Oct. 23 statement says it applied to OFAC for a license covering “the proposed purchase of an unfinished GBS,” the gravity-based structure that carries an LNG plant. The FT reported that the company had also sought permission to negotiate with Novatek and had not received it. And according to the Times, memos from the law firm Baker Botts said Treasury sanctions enforcers had flagged “potential Russia-related sanctions concerns.” Treasury has not confirmed or described those concerns itself. Our explainer on the OFAC license covers how such requests are handled.
Energy Department: a warning, then silence
The agency that, according to the Times, received the executives’ warning has not commented in any coverage reviewed here. Riddle says he and two other executives who left alerted the administration to the alleged Russian financing and asked officials to look into it. “I felt like I did the right thing to notify authorities at the appropriate time,” he told the Times.
The Times reported that “The Energy Department, where the warning was sent, did not respond when asked about the matter.” That nonresponse is a Times detail; the FT accounts reviewed here do not mention the Energy Department. As of Oct. 26, no Energy Department statement on Polar LNG had turned up in the coverage reviewed. What any agency could do next is covered in our piece on possible investigations.
📨 Get Free Accountability Coverage Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
What Trump said when he was asked
The president got the question on Saturday, Oct. 24, after voting early in Palm Beach County, Florida. Seoul Economic Daily wrote that reporters asked him about Russian investment moves in Alaska. SBS News, citing the White House pool report, said he spoke “when asked about the matter.”
His answer was about the future, not the company. “We’d like to get back to life where Russia and Ukraine make a deal, and then we’d be able to do business with both,” Trump said, according to AOL. “Certainly, we’ll do business with Ukraine and with Russia after this war ends, I would think.”
AOL wrote that he “skipped over a question about Russian investment in Alaska’s natural gas sector.” SBS said he “did not state a specific position on Russia’s actual investment in the Alaska LNG project.” Neither outlet reported him naming Polar LNG, Novatek or Riddle. The broader record of his remarks on post-war business is in our Trump’s words tracker.
Who said what, and when
| Who | What they said | When / to whom |
|---|---|---|
| Treasury | No comment | At launch, to Reuters |
| Unnamed White House official | Only “broadly and briefly” mentioned | Oct. 23-24, to the FT |
| Unnamed U.S. official | No granular discussions | Oct. 23, to the NYT |
| Treasury official | Won’t comment; takes violations seriously | Oct. 23-24, to the FT |
| Energy Department | Did not respond | Oct. 23, to the NYT |
| White House | No immediate response | Oct. 24, to the Daily Beast |
| President Trump | Business with both after the war | Oct. 24, Palm Beach County |
No statement from the State Department, Witkoff or Kushner about Polar LNG turned up in any coverage we reviewed through Oct. 26.
The waiver backdrop and what it left alone
The reports landed a week after Trump’s Oct. 16 executive order waiving the sanctions in the new Graham Act, a step catalogued in our 2026 waivers timeline. Two days later, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told NBC that “no sanctions have been lifted,” as reported by the Kyiv Independent. That interview came before the Polar LNG stories and did not address them.
The order’s own text says the waiver does not touch sanctions imposed under the executive orders on Russia’s “specified harmful foreign activities.” That is the program under which the State Department blocked the operator of Arctic LNG 2 in November 2023, according to its fact sheet, which also records Novatek’s own 2014 addition to a Treasury list of sectoral targets. Reuters reported in April that the partly built plant Polar LNG hopes to buy would come from Arctic LNG 2.
The company’s Oct. 23 statement lists the OFAC application as submitted. Treasury has not said publicly whether, or when, it will rule.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has the White House commented on Polar LNG?
Only through unnamed officials, in what we found through October 26. An unnamed White House aide told the FT the idea had surfaced broadly and briefly, with no detailed talks. A U.S. official told the New York Times much the same. The Daily Beast said the White House did not immediately answer its request for comment.
What did Trump say about Russian investment in Alaska gas?
Asked about it by reporters in Palm Beach County on October 24, Trump said America would deal commercially with Russia and Ukraine alike after the fighting stops. Reports from AOL and SBS said he did not take a position on Russian money in the Alaska project itself.
What has Treasury said about Polar LNG?
Speaking to the FT, a Treasury official said the department won’t discuss specific sanctions allegations but views potential breaches very seriously. Treasury has not said publicly whether it will grant the license Polar LNG says it applied for.
Did the Energy Department respond to the warning about Russian funding?
Riddle says he and two other departing executives warned the administration and urged an investigation. According to the New York Times, the department that received the warning gave the paper no reply.
Did Trump’s Graham Act waiver lift sanctions on Novatek?
The October 16 order says it does not affect sanctions under the executive orders on Russia’s harmful foreign activities, the program used to block the Arctic LNG 2 operator in 2023. It does set aside the new Graham Act sanctions, legislation that Raw Story, summarizing the Times, said specifically targets Novatek. Novatek’s separate 2014 financing restrictions are not mentioned in the order.
Sources
- Former CEO: Russian Firm Backed Alaska Gas Venture — Newsmax (via Yahoo News), October 24, 2026
- Russia secretly backed Alaska LNG shipping scheme — Reporting From Alaska (quoting the New York Times), October 25, 2026
- Whistleblower CEO quits over hidden Russian cash behind gas deal in Trump peace talks: NYT — Raw Story, October 24, 2026
- Secret Russian Funding Revealed in Trump-Putin Energy Scheme — The Daily Beast, October 24, 2026
- Alaska LNG export terminal got funding from Russia’s sanctioned Novatek before US nod—FT report — ThePrint (Bloomberg wire), October 24, 2026
- Top executives quit $25 bn US gas project over alleged Russian control — Business Standard, October 25, 2026
- Polar LNG Announces Leadership Change and Outlines Vision for Alaska North Slope Development — Polar LNG (company statement), October 23, 2026
- Planned LNG plant in Alaska seeks equipment from sanctioned Russia firm — Reuters (via Eye on the Arctic), April 1, 2026
- Trump shares plans to do business with both Russia and Ukraine after war ends — AOL, October 25, 2026
- Trump on Russian Investment in Alaska LNG: ‘We Will Do Business with Russia Too Once War Ends’ — SBS News, October 25, 2026
- Trump Says U.S. Will Do Business With Both Russia and Ukraine After War Ends — Seoul Economic Daily, October 25, 2026
- US Treasury Secretary downplays Russia sanctions waiver, warns Zelensky to ‘be careful’ — The Kyiv Independent, October 19, 2026
- Implementing the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 — The White House (Executive Order 14436), October 16, 2026
- Taking Additional Sweeping Measures Against Russia — U.S. Department of State, November 2, 2023
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.