
Trump's tariff pressure pushes Asia towards American LNG
Asian countries are offering to buy more U.S. liquefied natural gas in negotiations with the Trump administration as a way to alleviate tensions over U.S. trade deficits and forestall higher tariffs. Analysts warn that strategy could undermine those countries' long-term climate ambitions and energy
security.
Buying more U.S. LNG has topped the list of concessions Asian countries have offered in talks with Washington over President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on foreign goods. Vietnam's Prime Minister underlined the need to buy more of the super-chilled fuel in a government meeting, and the government signed a deal in May with an American company to develop a gas import hub. JERA, Japan's largest power generator, signed new 20-year contracts last month to purchase up to 5.5 million metric tons of U.S. gas annually starting around 2030.
U.S. efforts to sell more LNG to Asia predate the Trump administration, but they've gained momentum with his intense push to win trade deals.
Liquefied natural gas, or LNG, is natural gas cooled to a liquid form for easy storage and transport that is used as a fuel for transport, residential cooking and heating and industrial processes.
Trump discussed cooperation on a $44 billion Alaska LNG project with South Korea, prompting a visit by officials to the site in June. The U.S. president has promoted the project as a way to supply gas from Alaska's vast North Slope to a liquefication plant at Nikiski in south-central Alaska, with an eye largely on exports to Asian countries while bypassing the Panama Canal Thailand has offered to commit to a long-term deal for American fuel and shown interest in the same Alaska project to build a nearly 810-mile (1,300-kilometer) pipeline that would funnel gas from The Philippines is also considering importing gas from Alaska while India is mulling a plan to scrap import taxes on U.S. energy shipments to help narrow its trade surplus with Washington.
'Trump has put pressure on a seeming plethora of Asian trading partners to buy more U.S. LNG,' said Tim Daiss, at the APAC Energy Consultancy, pointing out that Japan had agreed to buy more despite being so 'awash in the fuel' that it was being forced to cancel projects and contracts to offload the excess to Asia's growing economies.
'Not good for Southeast Asia's sustainability goals,' he said.
Experts say LNG purchasing agreements can slow adoption of renewable energy in Asia.
Locking into long-term deals could leave countries with outdated infrastructure as the world shifts rapidly toward cleaner energy sources like solar or wind that offer faster, more affordable ways to meet growing power demand, said Indra Overland, head of the Center for Energy Research at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.
Building pipelines, terminals, and even household gas stoves creates systems that are expensive and difficult to replace—making it harder to switch to renewables later. 'And you're more likely then to get stuck for longer,' he said.
Energy companies that profit from gas or coal are powerful vested interests, swaying policy to favor their business models, he said.
LNG burns cleaner than coal, but it's still a fossil fuel that emits greenhouse gases and contributes to climate change.
Many LNG contracts include 'take-or-pay' clauses, obliging governments to pay even if they don't use the fuel. Christopher Doleman of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis warns that if renewable energy grows fast, reducing the need for LNG, countries may still have to pay for gas they no longer need.
Pakistan is an example. Soaring LNG costs drove up electricity prices, pushing consumers to install rooftop solar panels. As demand for power drops and gas supply surges, the country is deferring LNG shipments and trying to resell excess fuel.
Experts said that although countries are signaling a willingness to import more U.S. LNG, they're unlikely to import enough to have a meaningful impact on U.S. trade deficits.
South Korea would need to import 121 million metric tons of LNG in a year — 50% more than the total amount of LNG the U.S. exported globally last year and triple what South Korea imported, said Doleman. Vietnam — with a trade surplus with the U.S. twice the size of Korea's — would need to import 181 million metric tons annually, more than double what the U.S. exported last year.
Other obstacles stand in the way. The Alaska LNG project is widely considered uneconomic. Both coal and renewable energy in Asia are so much cheaper that U.S. gas would need to cost less than half its current price to compete. Tariffs on Chinese steel could make building building gas pipelines and LNG terminals more expensive, while longstanding delays to build new gas turbines mean new gas power projects may not come online until 2032. Meanwhile, a global glut in LNG will likely drive prices lower, making it even harder for countries to justify locking into long-term deals with the United States at current higher prices.
Committing to long-term U.S. LNG contracts could impact regional energy security at a time of growing geopolitical and market uncertainties, analysts said.
A core concern is over the longterm stability of the U.S. as a trading partner, said Overland.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
China welcomes new US-Russia contact as Trump seeks end to Ukraine war
China's President Xi Jinping has told Russia's Vladimir Putin he is pleased to see Moscow maintain contact with the United States to advance a political resolution of the Ukraine crisis. The remarks during a phone call between the two leaders on Friday come after the Kremlin said President Putin would meet US President Donald Trump in the coming days. During the phone call, Xi said China would maintain its stance on the need for peace talks and a diplomatic solution to the Russia-Ukraine war, Chinese state broadcaster CCTV reported. The Kremlin said Putin had called his Chinese counterpart to update him on the latest US-Russia talks, during which Xi expressed support for a 'long-term' solution to the Ukraine conflict. The call between Xi and Putin was their second in less than two months. Putin is expected to visit China in September for events marking the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. The two countries have further bolstered their economic, trade and security cooperation since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which triggered a sharp deterioration in Moscow's relations with the West. China has never denounced Russia's war nor called for it to withdraw its troops, and many of Ukraine's allies believe that Beijing has provided support to Moscow. Beijing insists it is a neutral party, regularly calling for an end to the fighting while also accusing Western countries of prolonging the conflict by arming Ukraine. Trump has voiced growing frustration with Putin over the lack of progress towards peace in Ukraine and has threatened to impose heavy tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil, including China. The US president on Wednesday said he could announce further tariffs on China similar to the 25 percent duties he has already imposed on India over its purchases of Russian oil. In response to those remarks, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said on Friday that Beijing's trade and energy cooperation with Russia was 'just and legitimate'. 'We will continue to take reasonable measures to ensure energy security based on our own national interests,' Guo Jiakun said in a statement. Calls with other allies Putin and Trump are set to hold talks, although no firm date or venue has been set. Both sides have confirmed preparations for a summit are under way and have suggested that a meeting could take place next week. China has been mentioned in media reports as a possible venue for the Putin-Trump summit, with speculation that Trump could join Putin there in early September. The Kremlin also said Putin had spoken to the leaders of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and briefed them on talks he held with US envoy Steve Witkoff on Wednesday. Putin also discussed Ukraine in a phone call with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko on Friday, the Belarusian state news agency BelTA reported. Indian President Narendra Modi also held a phone call with Putin to discuss the situation in Ukraine and bilateral relations. 'Had a very good and detailed conversation with my friend President Putin. I thanked him for sharing the latest developments on Ukraine,' Modi said on X. The Indian president added that he looked forward to hosting Putin in India later this year, without specifying the date. Had a very good and detailed conversation with my friend President Putin. I thanked him for sharing the latest developments on Ukraine. We also reviewed the progress in our bilateral agenda, and reaffirmed our commitment to further deepen the India-Russia Special and Privileged… — Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) August 8, 2025 Pause in conflict may be 'close' The calls came amid rising hopes for a breakthrough in the Ukraine war, now in its fourth year. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said on Friday that a pause in the conflict could be close, after speaking to Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Tusk said Zelenskyy was 'very cautious but optimistic' and that Ukraine was keen that Poland and other European countries play a role in planning for a ceasefire and an eventual peace settlement. 'There are certain signals, and we also have an intuition, that perhaps a freeze in the conflict – I don't want to say the end, but a freeze in the conflict – is closer than it is further away,' he told a news conference on Friday. 'There are hopes for this.' Trump's efforts to pressure Putin into stopping the fighting have so far delivered little progress. Russia's bigger army is slowly advancing deeper into Ukraine while it relentlessly bombards Ukrainian cities. Russia and Ukraine are far apart on their terms for peace. Almost two weeks ago, Trump moved up his ultimatum to impose additional sanctions on Russia, as well as introduce secondary tariffs targeting countries that buy Russian oil, if no Kremlin moves towards a settlement were forthcoming. The deadline expired on Friday. It was unclear what steps Trump intended to take as a consequence.


Al Jazeera
6 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Who counts in America? Trump wants to decide
Do undocumented immigrants count as people?Anyone watching as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents increasingly bypass due process to detain and deport unauthorised immigrants might assume the Trump administration's answer is a resounding 'no'. Now, regardless of deportation policies, the approximately 11 million unauthorised immigrants in the United States could soon disappear, statistically at least, if Republicans have their way. President Trump recently instructed the US Department of Commerce to prepare for a new census that excludes undocumented immigrants. This marks the latest and boldest attempt by Trump and his congressional allies to alter how the census accounts for unauthorised immigrants. Although not explicitly stated, Trump may be trying to push this off-cycle census through ahead of the 2028 presidential election or even before next year's midterms, which he appears intent on influencing. Assuming Trump was being literal in his social media declaration that 'People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS,' millions could effectively vanish from the official population count. If this incomplete census were used for congressional apportionment, it would reduce representation in Congress and the Electoral College for states with large numbers of unauthorised immigrants. The immediate partisan impact is unclear. According to the Pew Research Center, if non-citizens had been excluded before the 2020 election, California, Florida and Texas would each have lost one congressional seat and Electoral College vote, while Alabama, Minnesota and Ohio would each have gained one. Political gerrymandering would likely shape who benefits from redistricting. Republicans are already aggressively redrawing maps in states like Texas, with possible retaliatory moves in California and other Democrat-led states. Beyond electoral shifts, the broader goal appears to be marginalising undocumented people and punishing 'sanctuary' jurisdictions. This reinforces the Republican narrative that Democrats deliberately tolerate illegal immigration for political gain. Legally, how to count unauthorised immigrants depends on interpreting the Constitution, the framers' intent and the scope of executive authority in conducting the census. Non-citizens have historically been included in the count, and the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on excluding them. However, with a conservative supermajority on the court, there is a real chance the justices could allow it – either by reinterpreting the Constitution's language or deferring to the executive branch. Even if Trump fails to push through a new census, his administration could still suppress the count by other means. During his first term, he tried to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. The Census Bureau stopped collecting this data from all respondents in 1950 and removed the question entirely by 2000, instead gathering it through separate surveys such as the American Community Survey. Many feared its return would deter participation from undocumented, and even legal, immigrants, leading to an undercount. The Supreme Court blocked the effort in 2019, citing insufficient justification. But it left the door open to future attempts with more credible rationales. Socially, the question of how to count non-citizens recalls earlier and sometimes shameful practices in the United States. For much of its early history, significant groups were denied full recognition in the political system despite living in the country. The Constitution's original enumeration formula stated that state populations would be calculated 'by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.' Slave and free states struck the infamous 'three-fifths' compromise, counting enslaved people as three-fifths of a person for congressional and Electoral College apportionment. Meanwhile, 'Indians not taxed' were excluded altogether, as most Native Americans were not considered US citizens despite residing within the country's borders. They were instead seen as members of sovereign nations – such as the Cherokee, Creek or Iroquois – even as their land, rights and dignity were stripped away. Only with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 were Native Americans granted birthright citizenship and formally included in the population count. These examples show two marginalised non-citizen groups, enslaved Black people and Indigenous Americans, treated in opposite ways: one partially counted, the other excluded. With history offering no clear precedent, today's debate raises valid questions about how non-citizens, including the undocumented, should be represented. One view holds that because only citizens vote, non-citizens should not affect apportionment. The opposing view argues that excluding undocumented immigrants worsens their vulnerability and denies their very existence, even as government policies directly affect their lives. Unauthorised immigrants both use and support public systems. While they are barred from most federal benefits such as Social Security and Medicare, they still access emergency healthcare, school meal programmes and limited housing support. They also factor into education and policing budgets in the communities where they live. At the federal level, immigration policy disproportionately affects states where undocumented residents make up a larger share of the population. At the state level, policies must be shaped with their presence in mind. For example, California now offers food assistance to all elderly residents regardless of immigration status. Undocumented immigrants also contribute to public finances, paying nearly $100bn annually in federal, state and local taxes. This includes more than $30bn for programmes they largely cannot use, such as Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance. In 40 of 50 states, they pay higher state and local tax rates than the wealthiest 1 percent. States' economic contributions to the federal budget are directly influenced by these residents. It makes sense, therefore, to acknowledge them through accurate enumeration. The Trump administration is instead enforcing a skewed, incomplete and politically motivated interpretation of its constitutional duties regarding census-taking and apportionment. This approach could also affect other debates with far-reaching implications. The Department of Justice is urging the Supreme Court to fast-track a ruling on Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship. This is another area where the Constitution appears clear. The 14th Amendment affirms that anyone born in the US is a citizen, with few exceptions, such as the children of diplomats. Trump is also seeking to expand the grounds for revoking naturalised citizenship, a penalty currently applied only in rare cases that usually involve fraud. A narrower definition of who 'counts' in the census could fuel arguments for a narrower definition of who counts as a citizen. Similarly, a policy of excluding non-citizens could encourage efforts to strip citizenship from naturalised or US-born residents in order to exclude them as well. The presence of millions of undocumented immigrants reflects an immigration system that has failed under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Until meaningful reform is enacted, pretending these individuals do not exist is a misguided, politicised and harmful response to the reality of their lives within US borders, regardless of how they arrived. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.


Al Jazeera
6 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump and the global rise of fascist anti-psychiatry
Despite spending more on psychiatric services and prescribing psychiatric medications at a higher rate than almost any other nation, mental health in the United States over the last two decades has only been getting worse. Rates of depression, anxiety, suicide, overdose, chronic disability due to mental health conditions, and loneliness have all been rapidly increasing. No quantity of psychiatric drugs or hospitalisations appears adequate to reverse these trends. Despite this, the US medical and psychiatric establishment has persistently refused to use its substantial political power to demand the transformation of care by expanding non-medical support systems to address the root social causes of mental illness, such as poverty, childhood trauma and incarceration, rather than focusing on reactive treatment via lucrative medication-centric norms. This failing status quo has created an opening for President Donald Trump and Secretary of Health Robert F Kennedy Jr's emerging plans to remake the nation's approach to mental health, with disastrous consequences now coming into focus. Trump and Kennedy have hijacked legitimate anger at a broken system to justify destroying public care infrastructure, including Medicaid, food and housing assistance, harm-reduction and overdose prevention programmes, and suicide-prevention hotlines for LGBTQ youth, while promoting wellness scams and expanding the police state. They focus on the 'threat' supposedly posed by psychiatric medications and call to reopen the asylums that once confined approximately 560,000 people, or one in 295 US residents, in horrific conditions, until protests against their cruelty led to their closure beginning in the 1950s. Trump invokes false claims about mental illness to demonise immigrants, whom he is now hunting via a mass arrest and incarceration campaign. Last month, he signed an executive order that allows police to arrest and forcibly institutionalise poor Americans who are unhoused, deemed mentally ill, or struggling with addiction, effectively incarcerating them for indefinite periods. Trump's order, which also defunds housing-first programmes and harm-reduction services, while criminalising homelessness and encampments, contains no provisions to protect people from abuse or from the political misuse of psychiatric labels and institutionalisation to target his opponents. This raises concerns about risks to LGBTQ youth and other vulnerable groups. It also threatens groups upon which the administration has shown a eugenicist fixation: transgender people, people with autism, and others with disabilities that RFK Jr and Trump have characterised as a threat or burden on society. The order appears to grant the government the power to deem anyone mentally ill or abusing substances, and to confine them indefinitely in any designated treatment facility, without due process. In a context where there is already a profound shortage of psychiatric beds even for short-term treatment, there are no provisions for new funding or regulatory systems to ensure that facilities are therapeutic or humane, rather than violent, coercive warehouses like American asylums of decades past. Trump's allies, including some medical professionals aligned with ideologies of social control and state coercion, may dismiss this as overly pessimistic. But that requires ignoring the fact that Trump's executive order follows Kennedy's proposal for federally funded 'wellness farms', where people, particularly Black youth taking SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors primarily used to treat anxiety and depression) and stimulants, would be subjected to forced labour and 're‑parenting' to overcome supposed drug dependence. These proposals revive the legacy of coercive institutions built on forced labour and racialised interventions. Kennedy has also promoted the conspiracy theory that anti-depressants like SSRIs cause school shootings, comparing their risks with heroin, despite a total lack of scientific support for such claims. In his early tenure as health and human services secretary, he has already gutted key federal mental health research and services, including at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Given this, it is unclear what kind of 'treatment', other than confinement and cruelty, Trump and RFK Jr plan to deliver in their new asylums. Trump and Kennedy's lies about mental health, cuts to public care and vision for expanding the incarceration of immigrants, homeless people, and anyone they label as mentally ill, worsen mental health while creating more opportunities to profit from preventable suffering, disability and death. These tactics are not new, and their harmful consequences and political motivations are well established. From Hungary to the Philippines, right-wing politicians have deployed similar rhetoric for comparable purposes. In a precedent that likely informs Trump's plan, Brazil's former president, Jair Bolsonaro, attacked psychiatric reformsas leftist indoctrination and defunded successful community mental health services, replacing them with coercive asylum and profit-based models, while advocating pseudoscience linked to evangelical movements. Bolsonaro claimed to defend family values and national identity against globalist medical ideologies, while sacrificing countless Brazilian lives via policies later characterised by the Senate as crimes against humanity. Bolsonaro's record is instructive for anticipating Trump's plans. Trump has made no secret of his admiration for Brazil's disgraced former president and their shared political ideologies. Bolsonaro's reversal of Brazil's internationally recognised psychiatric reform movement, which emphasised deinstitutionalisation, community-based psychosocial care and autonomy, inflicted profound harm. Under his rule, institutionalisation in coercive 'therapeutic communities', often operated by evangelical organisations, with little oversight, and similar to RFK Jr's proposed 'wellness farms', skyrocketed. Investigations revealed widespread abuses in these communities, including forced confinement, unpaid labour, religious indoctrination, denial of medication, and physical and psychological violence. Bolsonaro's government poured large sums into expanding these dystopian asylums while defunding community mental health centres, leaving people with severe mental illness and substance use disorders abandoned to punitive care or the streets. This needless suffering pushed more people into Brazil's overcrowded prisons, where psychiatric care is absent, abuse rampant and systemic racism overwhelming, with Black people accounting for more than 68 percent of the incarcerated population. Bolsonaro's psychiatric agenda enhanced carceral control under the guise of care, reproducing racist and eugenicist hierarchies of social worth under an anti-psychiatry banner of neo-fascist nationalism. Trump and Bolsonaro's reactionary approaches underline a crucial truth: Both psychiatry and critiques of it can serve very different ends, depending on the politics to which they are attached. Far-right politicians often use anti-psychiatry to justify privatisation, eugenics and incarceration. They draw on ideas from the libertarian psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, who argued in the 1960s that mental illness was a 'myth', and called for the abolition of psychiatric institutions. In the US today, these political actors distort Szasz's ideas, ignoring his opposition to coercion, by gutting public mental health services under the guise of 'healthcare freedom'. This leaves vulnerable populations to suffer in isolation, at the hands of police or fellow citizens who feel increasingly empowered to publicly abuse, or even, as seen in the killing of Jordan Neely in New York City, execute them on subways, in prisons, or on the streets. By contrast, critics of psychiatry on the left demand rights to non-medical care, economic security and democratic participation. Thinkers such as Michel Foucault, Frantz Fanon, RD Laing and Ivan Illich advocated for deinstitutionalisation not to abandon people, but to replace coercion with community-led social care that supports rights to individual difference. Their critiques targeted not psychiatry itself, but its use by exploitative, homogenising political systems. To oppose reactionary anti-psychiatry, mental health professionals and politicians cannot simply defend the status quo of over-medicalisation, profit-driven care and the pathologisation of poverty. Millions justifiably feel betrayed by current psychiatric norms that offer little more than labels and pills while ignoring the political causes of their suffering. If the left does not harness this anger towards constructive change, the right will continue to exploit it. The solution is not to shield America's mental health systems from critique, but to insist on an expansive political vision of care that affirms the need for psychiatric support while refusing to treat it as a substitute for the political struggle for social services. This means investing in public housing, guaranteed income, peer-led community care worker programmes, non-police crisis teams and strong social safety nets that address the root causes of distress, addiction and disease. Mental health is fundamentally a political issue. It cannot be resolved with medications alone, nor, as Trump and RFK Jr are doing, by dismantling psychiatric services and replacing them with psychiatric coercion. The fight over mental health policy is a fight over the meaning of society and the survival of democratic ideals in an era where oligarchic power and fascist regimes are attempting to strangle them. Will we respond to suffering with solidarity, or with abandonment and punishment? Will we recognise the collective causes of distress and invest in systems of care, or allow political opportunists to exploit public disillusionment for authoritarian ends? These are the questions at stake, not just in the United States, but globally. If the psychiatric establishment refuses to support progressive transformation of mental health systems, we may soon lose them altogether as thinly disguised prisons rise in their place. If you or someone you know is at risk of suicide, these organisations may be able to help. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.