Trump officials set for talks with Asia leaders on Alaska energy
Almost two dozen foreign officials are set to join top U.S. government leaders in meetings focused on Alaska's energy resources, as U.S. President Donald Trump encourages other nations to buy natural gas from the Frontier State.
Foreign representatives visiting Alaska for the discussions in coming days are expected to include representatives from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, India and the United Arab Emirates, said people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified because they weren't authorized to speak publicly.
The U.S. delegation will be led by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who's also the chair of Trump's National Energy Dominance Council; the panel's vice-chair, Energy Secretary Chris Wright; and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, the people said.
The trip is set to include visits to an oil pipeline and gas processing facilities on Alaska's North Slope as well as meetings with industry officials and indigenous people, they said.
It comes as Trump moves to expand energy development in the state, a priority he outlined in an executive order hours after his Jan. 20 inauguration. And it coincides with a broad push by other nations to curry favor with the president, including through investment commitments, to ward off threatened tariffs.
Trump has repeatedly touted the $44 billion Alaska LNG project, which is meant to transport natural gas across the state for export. Although it has been planned for decades, the project faces headwinds due to its large price tag, mammoth scale and the sheer challenge of constructing an 1,290 kilometer pipeline across Alaska.
Trump pressed Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba on the project during their meeting in February, winning his commitment to cooperate on strengthening energy security, "including increasing exports of United States liquefied natural gas to Japan in a mutually beneficial manner.'
Representatives of the Philippines, Taiwan and South Korea also have been in talks with administration officials on the venture.
Discussions are expected to unfold over several days, including during site visits at the prolific Prudhoe Bay oil field, which has pumped crude for roughly five decades, and where units of ConocoPhillips and Hilcorp Energy Co. have operations. Other conversations are expected in Utqiagvik and Anchorage, including as part of Governor Mike Dunleavy's Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference.
Trump officials see the visit as a chance to highlight the administration's focus on unleashing Alaska's energy abundance and draw a contrast with policies under former U.S. President Joe Biden they say locked up the state's oil, gas and mineral potential. While Alaska LNG will be a significant portion of the discussions, a person familiar with the matter said, there's an opportunity to examine the state's resource potential and further policy shifts that can help deliver it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
8 hours ago
- Japan Times
Trump tariffs face threat at top court — over rulings that blocked Biden
A legal argument that the U.S. Supreme Court used to foil Joe Biden on climate change and student debt now looms as a threat to President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. During Biden's presidency, the court's conservative majority ruled that federal agencies can't decide sweeping political and economic matters without clear congressional authorization. That blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from setting deep limits on power-plant pollution and the Education Department from slashing student loans for 40 million people. The concept — known as the "major questions doctrine' — is now playing a central role in the case against Trump's unilateral imposition of worldwide import taxes. With Supreme Court review all but inevitable, the justices' willingness to employ the doctrine against Trump may determine the fate of his signature economic initiative. The U.S. Court of International Trade cited the Biden-era rulings and the major questions doctrine when it ruled 3-0 last week that many of Trump's import taxes exceeded the authority Congress had given him. The challenged tariffs would total an estimated $1.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Critics say the administration's tariffs would have an even bigger impact than the estimated $400 billion Biden student-loan package, which Chief Justice John Roberts described as having "staggering' significance in his 2023 opinion invalidating the plan. "If this is not a major question, then I don't know what is,' said Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School and one of the lawyers challenging the tariffs. "We're talking about the biggest trade war since the Great Depression.' Until they were partly suspended, Trump's April 2 "Liberation Day' tariffs marked the biggest increase in import taxes pushed by the U.S. since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs and took the U.S.'s average applied tariff rate to its highest level in more than a century. The prospect of that massive tax increase and the resulting economic shock roiled financial markets and prompted fears of imminent recessions in the U.S. and other major global economies. The administration contends that the major questions doctrine doesn't apply when Congress gives authority directly to the president, rather than to an administrative agency. The government also says the doctrine is inapt when the subject is national security and foreign affairs — policy areas where the president has long been recognized to have broad powers. "No one doubts the significance of the challenged tariffs, but significance alone does not implicate the major questions doctrine, otherwise, it would apply to countless government actions, including every emergency statute,' the Justice Department said in a filing at the Court of International Trade. The legal clash centers on Trump's power under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which says the president may "regulate' the "importation' of property to address an emergency situation. The Court of International Trade said those words weren't clear enough to legally justify Trump's taxes given that the Constitution gives the tariff power to Congress. In addition to major questions, the panel also invoked the nondelegation doctrine, a related conservative-backed legal theory that says lawmakers can't give away their constitutional legislative and taxing powers. The two doctrines together "provide useful tools for the court to interpret statutes so as to avoid constitutional problems,' the trade court said. "These tools indicate that an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The ruling is now on temporary hold while a federal appeals court considers whether to keep the tariffs in force as the legal fight continues. So far, the major questions doctrine has divided the Supreme Court cleanly along ideological lines. The six conservative justices were united when the court first used the phrase in a 2022 ruling that said the EPA overstepped its authority with an ambitious emissions-reduction program during Barack Obama's presidency. The majority said it was doing nothing new by subjecting the plan to extra-tough scrutiny. "We 'typically greet' assertions of 'extravagant statutory power over the national economy' with 'skepticism,'' Roberts wrote, borrowing words from a 2014 ruling. Roberts said the court used similar reasoning, though without the "major questions' label, when it blocked Biden's pandemic eviction moratorium and his vaccine-or-test mandate for workers. The court's liberals accused their conservative colleagues of creating a convenient exception to their usual laserlike focus on statutory text. "The current court is textualist only when being so suits it,' Justice Elena Kagan said in dissent in the climate case. "When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the 'major questions doctrine' magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.' The sharp ideological divide masks a more subtle split among the court's conservatives about the purpose of the major questions doctrine. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has described it as a tool for ascertaining the most natural reading of a statute, while Justice Neil Gorsuch has cast it as a means of keeping Congress and the president in their proper constitutional lanes. The key question now is what the court will do with the major questions doctrine when it comes in the context of tariffs and a Republican president who appointed three of the justices. "The court has not been at all transparent about the grounds on which it will invoke this doctrine,' said Ronald Levin, an administrative law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. "It's left its options completely open.'
Japan Times
9 hours ago
- Japan Times
Trump pulls Musk ally's NASA nomination, will announce replacement
The White House on Saturday withdrew its nominee for NASA administrator, Jared Isaacman, abruptly yanking a close ally of Elon Musk from consideration to lead the space agency. President Donald Trump will announce a new candidate soon, said White House spokeswoman Liz Huston. "It is essential that the next leader of NASA is in complete alignment with President Trump's America First agenda and a replacement will be announced directly by President Trump soon," she said. Isaacman, a billionaire private astronaut who had been Musk's pick to lead NASA, was due next week for a much-delayed confirmation vote before the U.S. Senate. His removal from consideration caught many in the space industry by surprise. The White House did not explain what led to the decision. Isaacman, whose removal was earlier reported by news outlet Semafor, did not return a request for comment. Isaacman's removal comes just days after Musk's official departure from the White House, where the SpaceX CEO's role as a "special government employee" leading the Department of Government Efficiency created turbulence for the administration and frustrated some of Trump's aides. Musk, according to a person familiar with his reaction, was disappointed by Isaacman's removal and considered it to be politically motivated. "It is rare to find someone so competent and good-hearted," Musk wrote of Isaacman on X, replying to the news of the White House's decision. Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It was unclear whom the administration might tap to replace Isaacman. One name being floated is retired U.S. Air Force Lt. General Steven Kwast, an early advocate for the creation of the U.S. Space Force and Trump supporter, according to three people familiar with the discussions. Isaacman, the former CEO of payment processor company Shift4, had broad space industry support but drew concerns from lawmakers over his ties to Musk and SpaceX, where he spent hundreds of millions of dollars as an early private spaceflight customer. The former nominee had donated to Democrats in prior elections. In his confirmation hearing in April, he sought to balance NASA's existing moon-aligned space exploration strategy with pressure to shift the agency's focus on Mars, saying the U.S. can plan for travel to both destinations. As a potential leader of NASA's some 18,000 employees, Isaacman faced a daunting task of implementing that decision to prioritize Mars, given that NASA has spent years and billions of dollars trying to return its astronauts to the moon. On Friday, the space agency released new details of the Trump administration's 2026 budget plan that proposed killing dozens of space science programs and laying off thousands of employees, a controversial overhaul that space advocates and lawmakers described as devastating for the agency.
Japan Times
9 hours ago
- Japan Times
America's next top general in Europe will also lead NATO forces
President Donald Trump will maintain the traditional role of a U.S. general at the helm of NATO, at least for now, three U.S. officials, a Western official and a NATO source said, even as Washington pushes European allies to take more responsibility for their security. Trump himself privately communicated the decision to NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, the Western official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The Pentagon, White House and NATO did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The decision will relieve European NATO allies and even some of Trump's fellow Republicans amid concerns that Washington's tough talk on Europe, and skepticism about the war in Ukraine, could signal a swift retrenchment in America's military leadership. Still, officials say U.S. warnings that Trump's administration needs to shift its focus to Asia and homeland security are sincere. While no decisions have been made, Trump's administration has discussed possible troop reductions in Europe, where about 80,000 U.S. personnel are based today. The next expected U.S. nominee for the positions of both Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and U.S. European Command (EUCOM) is Air Force Lt. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, the U.S. officials said. The U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of an announcement expected in the coming days. The position of SACEUR, which oversees all NATO operations in Europe, has been filled by a U.S. general since its creation after World War II. U.S. Army General Dwight D. Eisenhower became the alliance's first SACEUR in 1951. Since taking office in January, Trump's administration has pressured Europe to ramp up its own defense spending, saying Europe should be primarily responsible for defense on the European continent. How quickly Europe assumes such a role remains a big question, and there have been discussions within the administration about the possibility of handing over the job of Supreme Allied Commander Europe to a European nation, officials say. "Make no mistake: President Trump will not allow anyone to turn Uncle Sam into 'Uncle Sucker,'" U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters during a visit to NATO headquarters in February. During Trump's first term, maintaining NATO and the leading U.S. role in the alliance was a top priority for his Pentagon chiefs. Retired Marine Corps Gen. Jim Mattis, his first defense secretary, resigned in part because of Trump's skepticism towards NATO. While the United States was still expected to pressure Europe to do more, and could in the future start redirecting U.S. troops elsewhere as part of a broader review of U.S. deployments, the U.S. decision to maintain the role of SACEUR is certain to be welcomed by key allies of Trump in Congress. The two Republican lawmakers who lead the Pentagon's oversight committees in the U.S. Congress issued a rare joint statement in March expressing alarm about a potential U.S. withdrawal from the SACEUR command structure. Grynkewich, who is now the director for operations at the U.S. military's Joint Staff, would succeed Army Gen. Christopher Cavoli, who has been in the role since shortly after Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, helping oversee billions of dollars in U.S. security assistance to Kyiv. Trump entered office in January predicting he would be able to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. In the months since, he has found that the conflict is more intractable than he believed and has blamed his predecessor, Joe Biden, for allowing it to happen.
