President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, March 4, 2025. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Alaska political leaders on Wednesday broadly welcomed President Donald Trump’s remarks to Congress talking up the prospects of the state’s long-sought but faltering natural gas pipeline.
In his speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, the president said, “It will be truly spectacular. It’s all set to go.”
Trump said South Korea and Japan want to partner and invest “trillions of dollars each” into the “gigantic” pipeline, which has been estimated to cost $44 billion. Japanese news outlets reported Tuesday that no final investment decisions had been made by either nation.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy — who earlier in his political career was skeptical of the pipeline — said that the president’s support “will ensure this massive LNG project is completed, and clean Alaska gas supplies our Asian allies and our Alaskan residents for decades to come.”
Advertisement
U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said on social media that “the stars are aligned like never before” for the project, which he called “a decades-long energy dream for Alaska.”
In a later post, Sullivan said that he and Dunleavy had urged Trump to give Alaska LNG a “shout out” in his congressional address.
U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who in recent days has been critical of Trump’s moves to fire federal employees en masse, freeze federal funding and publicly criticize Ukraine’s president, thanked Trump for promoting the pipeline on the national stage.
“This project can provide Alaska and the world with clean and affordable energy for decades to come, while creating thousands of new jobs and generating billions of dollars in new revenues,” Murkowski said.
U.S. Rep. Nick Begich said, “Alaska is poised to play a central role in America’s energy resurgence.”
Advertisement
The decades-long plan to construct an 800-mile pipeline to deliver natural gas from the North Slope for export has stalled in recent years.
In his speech to Congress, Trump said, “My administration is also working on a gigantic natural gas pipeline in Alaska, among the largest in the world, where Japan, South Korea and other nations want to be our partner with investments of trillions of dollars each. It has never been anything like that one. It will be truly spectacular. It’s all set to go. The permitting has gotten.”
The Alaska Gasline Development Corp. — the state agency leading the project — has state and federal permits, but it has not secured financing.
A corporation spokesperson thanked Trump on Wednesday for his “vocal advocacy” for the pipeline.
“There is tremendous momentum behind Alaska LNG from potential offtakers, financiers, and other partners eager to participate in this national energy infrastructure priority,” said Tim Fitzpatrick, an AGDC spokesperson, by email.
Advertisement
Conservative Republican state legislators have been more supportive and optimistic about the project in recent months. The Republican House minority caucus thanked Trump for prioritizing Alaska LNG.
“The proposed LNG project will not only be a huge boost to the economy of Alaska but provide the nation with long term energy security and provide our allies in the global marketplace with needed resources,” said Anchorage GOP Rep. Mia Costello, the House minority leader.
But Alaska state lawmakers have remained broadly skeptical.
The Legislature last year planned to shutter AGDC because it had failed to deliver a pipeline.
”There’s still a lot we need to learn,” said Anchorage Democratic Rep. Donna Mears, chair of the House Energy Committee.
Advertisement
Legislators have questioned who will finance the project, who will buy the gas, whether a connection would be built to deliver gas to Fairbanks, and if the state would need to invest some of its resources to see the pipeline built.
Members of the Senate majority recently estimated that the state had already spent well over $1 billion to advance the pipeline and related projects.
AGDC recently announced that Glenfarne, a New York-based company, in January signed an exclusive agreement with the state agency to lead development of the project.
Palmer Republican Sen. Shelley Hughes said at the time that the outlook for Alaska LNG was “more positive than it’s ever been.”
One factor that has revived interest: Trump’s tariff threats against Japan and South Korea, The New York Times reported.
Advertisement
Japanese news outlets reported on Tuesday that while South Korea and Japan’s governments are continuing to study the project, no final investment decisions have been made.
Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told Japan’s parliament on Tuesday that “we will carefully examine its technical possibilities and profitability,” The Japan Times reported.
Larry Persily, an oil and gas analyst and former Alaska deputy commissioner of revenue, said it would be significant if Japan and South Korea signed binding agreements to buy Alaska gas. Pledging to examine the project would be familiar to Alaskans, he said.
“We’ve had decades of that,” he said.
Nick Fulford, an analyst with the Legislature’s oil and gas consultant GaffneyCline, presented to legislative committees on Wednesday about the global gas market and Alaska LNG.
Advertisement
Fulford said Alaska LNG would be a “very expensive project” due to capital costs, but its operating costs would be relatively low. The Alaska project’s vulnerabilities — compared to gas developments in the Middle East — are based on “capital cost inflation,” he said.
GaffneyCline’s forecasts for natural gas demand in coming decades range widely, so do cost estimates for construction of the Alaska pipeline.
Persily said at lower demand levels, Alaska LNG does not seem to be needed in the global market. Wide-ranging cost estimates to complete the project are a cause for concern, he said.
“We’re far away from having a reasonable, confident estimate,” Persily said. “Is it a $44 billion project? Is it $50 billion? Is it $60 billion? We don’t know.”
A new home under construction in Potter Valley in Anchorage. (Loren Holmes / ADN)
This June, two very different offers reach Alaska families, and both amount to the same thing: $10,000. The difference is everything.
Bill Walker, running for governor, would hand every eligible Alaskan a one-time $10,000 check and then end the Permanent Fund dividend for good. Ask one question: Where does his $10,000 come from?
It comes from the Permanent Fund, the people’s own money and the savings Alaskans built for their children. Walker would spend that endowment once to pay Alaskans to give up the yearly dividend forever.
Think about what that does. It cancels the annual check that gives a family a reason to keep an Alaska address and replaces it with a single payout. You hand people their own savings, call it a gift and cut the tie that held them here in the same motion. It is the oldest mistake in governing money: raid what you have saved to buy a moment’s applause and call the spending generosity.
Advertisement
A plan that spends the people’s savings to send the people away is not bold. It is foolish.
Now consider the other $10,000. Through Alaska Housing Finance Corp., the state offers families up to $10,000 to build a new, energy-efficient home. AHFC raids nothing. It earns its own way. Over the years, it has returned more than $2 billion to the state treasury, and it spends some of that income the way any good business does: to win a customer.
Here, the customer is an Alaskan who wants to own a home, put down roots and stay.
That is the oldest sound move in business: Invest a little of what you earn to bring in someone who stays. The homeowner remains, the community gains a family and the corporation keeps earning. The money spent comes back. A plan that puts earnings to work to bring people home is not charity. It is clever.
Same amount. Opposite source. Opposite wisdom. One spends savings; the other spends earnings. One pays Alaskans to leave; the other pays them to stay. One empties the state; the other fills it.
Advertisement
This Homeownership Month, the choice is the size of a single check, and the whole question is where the check comes from and what it asks of you. Ten thousand dollars of your own fund, to wave you goodbye. Or $10,000, earned and reinvested, to help you stay and build.
Evan Swensen is the publisher of Publication Consultants in Anchorage and the author of “What’s the Money For: A Permanent Fund Mortgage Proposal.”
• • •
The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.
A man with the same name and party affiliation as Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan is eligible to challenge the senator in the August primary, a judge ruled Friday.
Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews’ ruling overturns a June 15 decision by Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher to disqualify the challenger and keep him off the primary ballot. Matthews’ ruling can be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Attorneys for the state have said Tuesday is the deadline for a final ruling so that ballots for the Aug. 18 primary can be printed.
The judge ruled that the division’s decision to exclude Dan J. Sullivan because his candidacy was not “in good faith” was not based on the Constitution, Alaska law or the division’s own regulations. The retired teacher from the small fishing community of Petersburg filed to challenge the incumbent.
Advertisement
Dan Sullivan, who has filed to run for U.S. Senate in Alaska, poses for a photo Friday, June 26, 2026, in Petersburg, Alaska.
Katie Holmlund/AP Photo
“Instead, the decision was based upon a new, previously unstated, ‘good faith’ criteria,” the judge wrote.
The division is appealing the decision, Sam Curtis, a spokesperson with the state Department of Law, said by email Saturday. Jeffrey Robinson, an attorney for Dan J. Sullivan, said in an email he expected the division to appeal and couldn’t comment until the Alaska Supreme Court rules on the case.
Advertisement
The controversy over the two Dan Sullivans has underscored the stakes involved in the incumbent’s reelection campaign. The Alaska race is one of about half a dozen U.S. Senate races expected to be highly competitive in the fall, and the seat is one Democrats are trying to flip in their efforts to try to regain the majority. But it’s expected to be an uphill battle in a state that President Trump won by 13 points in 2024.
The senator and allies, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have condemned the challenger’s efforts to join the race, arguing his presence could confuse voters. Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom earlier this month opened an investigation into the non-Senator Sullivan’s candidacy.
Under Alaska’s election system, the top four candidates from the primary, regardless of party, move on to the ranked-choice November general election.
The senator has accused the challenger Sullivan of working with Democrats and the campaign of Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola — who is considered the senator’s main opponent — to cause confusion and boost Peltola’s chances. The sitting senator brought the situation to reporters’ attention at the Capitol earlier this month, accusing Democrats of being “complicit in trying to trick Alaskans” to “rig an election in their favor.”
Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, speaks to reporters at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., June 30, 2025.
Advertisement
Mark Schiefelbein/AP Photo
Peltola’s campaign and state Democrats have denied the allegation, as has the challenger.
Sen. Sullivan and Peltola are the highest-profile candidates in the crowded race and the only ones to report raising any money.
Beecher has said she determined the challenger Sullivan is not eligible to run because his candidacy was not filed in good faith and instead was done with an intent to confuse voters. She said he had registered to vote as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and, in conjunction with his candidacy, changed his party affiliation to Republican. She also cited similarities between his campaign website and the senator’s, and his work with a consultant whose clients have included some Democrats. She did not mention finding any evidence of alleged coordination.
In arguing to keep the challenger disqualified, attorneys for the state pushed back on suggestions the ballot could be designed in a way to reduce voter confusion over two candidates with the same name and party running for the same office.
Advertisement
“The Constitution does not require States to place a sham candidate on the ballot and then attempt to mitigate the damage through design choices,” attorney Rachel Witty, with the Alaska Department of Law, and outside attorneys Christopher Murray and Michael Francisco wrote in court filings.
Attorneys for the challenger Sullivan argued that the Constitution lays out three exclusive qualifications for the Senate, addressing only age, citizenship and residency. They said Beecher lacked the legal authority to boot their client off the ballot.
The challenger Sullivan has said that sharing a name and party affiliation with the incumbent gave him “an instant megaphone.” But the 69-year-old retired teacher and former U.S. Forest Service employee said he had considered a run for some time and had grown frustrated with the senator.
He initially was certified on the state’s candidate list as Dan J. Sullivan, with the senator listed as Dan S. Sullivan and identified as the incumbent.
