
Trump's tariff pressure pushes Asia toward American LNG, but at the cost of climate goals
Buying more US 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.
US 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 US 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 US 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 US 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.
LNG deals could derail renewable ambitions
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Locking into long-term deals could leave countries with outdated infrastructure as the world shifts rapidly toward cleaner energy sources like solar or wind that offer faster, more affordable ways to meet growing power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.
The LNG math doesn't add up
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 US 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.
LNG deals raise energy security concerns
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. "The U.S. is not a very predictable entity. And to rely on energy from there is a very risky proposition," he said.
LNG only contributes to energy security when it's available and affordable, says Dario Kenner of Zero Carbon Analytics.
"That's the bit that they leave out ... But it's pretty important," he said.
This was the concern during the recent potential disruptions to fuel shipments through the Strait of Hormuz and earlier during the war in Ukraine, when LNG cargoes originally destined for Asia were rerouted to Europe. Despite having contracts, Asian countries like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka were outbid by European buyers.
"Events in Europe, which can seem very far away, can have an impact on availability and prices in Asia," Kenner said.
Asian countries can improve their energy security and make progress toward cutting carbon emissions by building more renewable energy, he said, noting there is vast room for that given that only about 1% of Southeast Asia's solar and wind potential is being used.
"There are genuine choices to meet rising electricity demand. It is not just having to build LNG," he said.
(ANIRUDDHA GHOSAL with contribution from Jintamas Saksornchai)
Hashtags

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

The Hindu
13 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
A federal judge on Friday (July 25, 2025) blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen States remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The States have argued Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Lawyers for the government had argued Mr. Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. Mr. Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Mr. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Mr. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent on Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday (July 23, 2025), a San Francisco-based appeals court found the President's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by States. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Mr. Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Mr. Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost States funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Mr. Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.


Mint
13 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump Birthright Order Blocked Again in Fresh Legal Setback
President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship was blocked nationwide for the third time in less than a month, the latest sign that a US Supreme Court decision restricting 'universal injunctions' is having little impact on the dispute. The injunctions set up what is likely to be yet another set of appeals that could reach the Supreme Court, which has largely backed Trump in his broad crackdown on immigration. The justices haven't yet taken up the question of whether Trump's birthright citizenship order is constitutional. A federal judge in Boston ruled on Friday that an injunction pausing Trump's order nationwide is the only way to offer full protection to the Democratic-led states the filed the suit. The judge said his actions are in line with the Supreme Court's findings. US Judge Leo Sorokin said in his ruling that he could not narrow his injunction in part because Justice Department lawyers hadn't offered useful details about how such a ruling would work. 'With stakes this high, the court simply cannot adopt the defendants' blasé approach to the details and workability of a more limited injunction,' the judge said. A nationwide injunction protecting all affected babies was granted in a class-action suit in New Hampshire on July 10, while a federal appeals court this week upheld a similar block in a suit brought by four Democratic-led states. The new ruling comes in a suit brought by 18 states. A judge in a separate class-action suit is weighing another potential injunction. The Fight Over Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order: QuickTake Trump's order would restrict citizenship to babies with at least one parent who is a US citizen or green card holder. Critics say it violates a provision of the Constitution that grants citizenship to virtually every baby born in the US. The government says the directive closes a loophole that encourages illegal immigration. Trump's order was initially put on hold nationwide months ago in three separate cases. But the Supreme Court on June 27 paused those orders after ruling that judges generally can't issue nationwide injunctions that block federal policies outright. The justices returned the cases to the lower courts to weigh whether their injunctions needed to be narrowed or amended so that they provide relief only to the people or groups that sued. Sorokin held a hearing on the matter earlier this week. The Supreme Court's opinion, hailed as a major victory by the Trump administration, hasn't stopped judges from finding that broad injunctions against the president's birthright citizenship order are still necessary to protect US-born children of migrants while the cases proceed. In their request to maintain a nationwide injunction, the Democratic-led states said the Supreme Court's finding on so-called universal injunctions 'has no bearing on this case.' The states argue that a nationwide injunction is the only way to prevent harm that they say would be caused by allowing the executive order to take effect in some states, creating a chaotic patchwork of citizenship. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.


Mint
13 minutes ago
- Mint
Investors eye possible US-Europe trade deal as deadline looms
NEW YORK, July 26 (Reuters) - Investors are hopeful a potential trade deal between the U.S. and European Union could bring more certainty to markets ahead of next Friday's tariffs deadline. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was set to meet U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday in Scotland after EU officials and diplomats said they expected to reach a framework deal this weekend. Trump on Friday said there was a 50-50 chance or perhaps less that the U.S. would reach a trade agreement with the EU. Trade tensions between the U.S. and Europe may have provided some investors with a rationale to be cautious, said Sameer Samana, head of global equities and real assets at the Wells Fargo Investment Institute. "It's one of our largest trading relationships... So if that last piece falls into place, then you've probably got at the margin more people that have to get back in the markets," Samana said. "It's been a source of uncertainty that will go away." A deal would likely include a 15% baseline tariff on all EU goods entering the U.S. and probably a 50% tariff on European steel and aluminum, the officials and diplomats said. Optimism over easing trade tensions broadly has helped push U.S. stocks to record highs. Trump's April 2 "Liberation Day" announcement of sweeping global tariffs sent stocks plunging in the immediate aftermath, due to spiking fears about a recession that have since faded. Still, investors have been bracing for increased volatility heading into August 1, which the U.S. has set as a deadline for raising levies on a broad swath of trading partners. The EU is facing U.S. tariffs on more than 70% of its exports - 50% on steel and aluminum, 25% on cars and car parts and a 10% levy on most other EU goods, which Trump has said he would hike to 30% on August 1. Hopes for a deal with Europe rose after Trump struck a trade agreement with Japan earlier in the week. "The deal with Japan and the likely one soon with the EU are especially important given both are major U.S. trading partners, together accounting for about a quarter of all goods imports," analysts at Capital Economics said in a note on Friday. In the agreement with Japan, the country's auto sector, which accounts for more than a quarter of its U.S. exports, will see existing tariffs cut to 15% from levies totaling 27.5% previously. An agreement that also lowers EU auto tariffs to 15% "would be no small deal" for the region as well, as about 10% of its shipments to the U.S. are in the same category, Capital Economics said. Investors over the weekend were also watching for developments on trade between the U.S. and China. Officials from the two countries plan to meet in Stockholm next week to discuss extending an August 12 deadline for negotiating a deal. (Reporting by Lewis Krauskopf; Editing by Alden Bentley and Edward Tobin)