Trump announces $54 billion South Korean investment in Alaska natural gas pipeline
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday plans for South Korea to invest roughly $54 billion to export natural gas from Alaska, a project long backed by Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, who's in a competitive reelection contest there.
Watch the announcement in the video player above.
It marks the second time in three days that the president has sought to highlight the promise of foreign investment made possible by his administration's trade policy in states where Republican Senate candidates are in tight election campaigns. Trump made a similar announcement on Monday in the Oval Office for a massive steel plant in Iowa.
"He's got my ear, and he's had my ear for a long time on Alaska," Trump said during an Oval Office event with Sullivan. The president added that "all these energy projects are all mine, and I got 'em done working with Dan Sullivan."
Educate your inbox
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
It was not clear how quickly South Korea's government would approve the project and how much it planned to spend.
The investment comes from pledges made as part of a 2025 trade deal with South Korea, which included promises of $350 billion in U.S. investments in exchange for lower U.S. tariffs on South Korean cars, auto parts and other products.
Without providing those details, Trump credited his tariffs for making the announcement possible, saying "our trade agreement with South Korea, they have to invest hundreds of billions of dollars."
"For doing that, I reduced their tariffs to 15%. But they paid to get them reduced," Trump said. "And, part of that money is going into this project."
Trump hitting the road to promote his administration's actions
Sullivan said "the sky is the limit when we get this project done."
"Mr. President, this one is huge for Alaska," Sullivan said, adding that he'd been working on it "relentlessly."
The project consists of an 807-mile (1,300-kilometer) natural gas pipeline connecting Alaska's North Slope to a liquified natural gas export terminal in southern Alaska and eventually will reduce energy costs for the state's residents by providing a reliable and secure supply, the White House said.
Officials said during the Oval Office event that building the pipeline will take three years and that exports of liquified natural gas would begin two years after that — but that was dependent on financing coming through fully.
The push to deliver big projects in areas where GOP candidates could use a boost comes as Trump's approval ratings have sunk to nearly historic lows ahead of midterm elections.
Even Trump himself has begun acknowledging that Republicans could face an uphill climb in their push to retain control of both chambers of Congress after November, but suggests it is because his administration hasn't done enough to promote its accomplishments.
"I've done a very bad job of explaining," the president said during an event in the White House's East Room, which came before the subsequent announcement on the Alaska investment.
He's promised to help rectify that by spending much of the next 30 days on the road, campaigning ahead of the midterms — though he is beginning that swing with trips to Texas, Alabama, Ohio and Nebraska, which are all normally solidly red states.
"I hope you can believe that I'm running. They like to say, 'Oh, nobody wants him.' Well, everybody that has me wins," Trump told the crowd at the Hispanic Heritage Month event. "We lose 40% when I don't run. When I run, we have tremendous success."
Sullivan, who has been a persistent advocate for the Alaska natural gas project and has encouraged South Korean investment, is a two-term senator facing a competitive challenge from Democrat Mary Peltola, a former congresswoman.
Democrats are targeting Alaska and Iowa
Wednesday's Alaska event came two days after Trump announced plans for a $15 billion steel plant to be built in Iowa by a Minnesota company owned by an Indian industrial conglomerate.
In Iowa, Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson is in a close U.S. Senate contest with Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek for the seat being vacated by retiring two-term Republican Joni Ernst. Hinson spoke in the Oval Office during the announcement.
Alaska and Iowa, where Trump won comfortably each time he has run for president, are among the states where Democrats are targeting Republican-held Senate seats in the 2026 midterm elections, less than five weeks away.
Democrats need to gain a net of four seats in the 100-member Senate to overtake Republicans in the majority.
Voters are worried about fuel costs
Trump's announcements come as voters express concern about near-record fuel prices related to the unresolved war with Iran and as majority Republicans in Congress are facing voters dissatisfied with Trump's handling of the economy.
In a late-July poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, only about one-third of Americans approved of Trump's handling of the economy, and about 7 in 10 described the economy as poor.
Beaumont reported from Des Moines, Iowa.
A free press is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy.
Support trusted journalism and civil dialogue.
NO SURRENDER — Ilhan Omar Fires Back at Donald Trump After Federal Agents Search Her Home
Ilhan Omar is refusing to back down after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., home in a criminal investigation—an extraordinary development that has reignited her long-running confrontation with Donald Trump just weeks before the midterm elections.
The Minnesota Democrat responded with a defiant message: “I will not be silenced.” She accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to target political opponents and described the search as another escalation in what she called a decade-long campaign of intimidation.
The statement immediately raised the political stakes. Omar is not simply disputing the circumstances surrounding the search; she is challenging the administration’s conduct and demanding that the public examine why federal agents took such a consequential step so close to an election.
But the central questions remain unresolved: What exactly are investigators looking for, what evidence supports the inquiry, and will the search trigger a broader confrontation between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration?
‘I Will Not Be Silenced’: Omar’s Defiant Response
On October 12, after news of the search emerged, Omar posted a response on social media that began with a brief reassurance: “I’m ok.”
She then delivered a much sharper political message, accusing the administration of targeting political enemies and weaponizing federal law enforcement.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns,” Omar wrote, describing the search as the latest escalation in what she characterized as political intimidation. She ended with a declaration that quickly became the defining line of her response: “I will not be silenced.”
Her congressional office issued a separate statement calling the search an “outrageous abuse of power” and an “unprecedented escalation” in the use of federal law enforcement against political opponents. The statement said Omar had done nothing wrong and argued that no president should be able to use the federal government to intimidate political adversaries.
Those are Omar’s allegations and her office’s position. The search itself was carried out under a judicially authorized warrant, according to the Justice Department. Whether investigators uncover evidence of wrongdoing—and whether the search was justified by the facts of the case—remains to be established.
What Happened at Omar’s Washington Home?
Federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, searched Omar’s Washington residence early Monday, October 12.
The Justice Department confirmed that agents executed a search warrant authorized by a court as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Officials did not publicly disclose a complete account of the evidence being sought or all the details of the inquiry.
Reporting by CBS News and The Washington Post indicated that investigators were examining immigration paperwork dating back to Omar’s childhood. The documents reportedly involved paperwork completed by her late father when the family came to the United States as refugees from Somalia.
The details remain limited, and the reported focus of the investigation should not be confused with a finding of guilt. A search warrant authorizes investigators to look for specified evidence; it does not establish that the person whose home is searched committed a crime.
Omar has repeatedly rejected allegations against her and portrayed the renewed scrutiny as politically motivated. Her office’s statement following the search reiterated that she had done nothing wrong.
As of the latest reports, authorities had not publicly laid out a complete evidentiary case against the congresswoman. That leaves a critical distinction at the center of the story: the investigation is real, but its ultimate findings are not yet known.
Why the Timing Has Become a Political Flashpoint
The search took place less than a month before the November midterm elections, when control of Congress is at stake. That timing has intensified questions from Democrats about whether the action could influence the political environment surrounding Omar’s reelection campaign.
House Judiciary Committee Democrats raised concerns about the search, while senior Democratic leaders condemned the action and questioned the use of federal power against a sitting member of Congress so close to an election.
The criticism centers on more than Omar’s personal dispute with Trump. It touches on a broader principle: federal law enforcement must be able to investigate potential crimes, but its decisions should be grounded in evidence and applied without improper political influence.
The Justice Department has confirmed the existence of a court-authorized search but has not publicly provided a full explanation of the investigative rationale. Without that information, it is not possible to establish from the public record alone whether the timing was politically motivated or driven by investigative necessities.
That uncertainty is likely to keep the controversy alive. Democrats are demanding answers about the decision and its timing, while the investigation itself remains ongoing.
A Long-Running Clash Between Omar and Trump
Omar has been one of Trump’s most prominent congressional critics. Their political conflict has repeatedly drawn national attention, with disputes involving immigration, national identity, federal enforcement and the congresswoman’s background.
Trump has frequently criticized Omar in public, while Omar has accused him of spreading false claims and using inflammatory rhetoric against her and the Somali American community.
In the days before the search, Omar had also criticized Trump’s rhetoric about Somali Americans. The latest federal action therefore arrived against the backdrop of an already bitter political relationship—not in isolation.
Still, a history of public hostility does not by itself prove that a federal investigation was politically directed. Establishing improper interference would require evidence about how the investigation was initiated, authorized and conducted.
That distinction matters because the controversy involves two separate questions: whether investigators have a legitimate basis to pursue the case, and whether the administration has handled the matter in a politically appropriate way.
Both questions deserve scrutiny, but neither should be treated as settled before the relevant evidence is available.
Democrats Demand Answers as the Investigation Continues
Omar’s response has been echoed by Democratic colleagues who say the search raises serious concerns about the use of federal power. Some have called for accountability and greater transparency about the investigation.
Their criticism is also shaped by the election calendar. A federal search involving a sitting member of Congress in the final weeks before voters head to the polls is certain to draw heightened political attention, even when authorities have a judicial warrant.
The administration’s position and the investigators’ evidence will be crucial to determining how the controversy develops. If officials disclose a clear evidentiary basis for the search, that information will help the public evaluate the government’s actions. If significant questions remain unanswered, pressure for congressional oversight may intensify.
For now, the public has only a partial picture of the investigation. Officials have confirmed a court-authorized search, but have not disclosed all the evidence or publicly established that Omar committed a crime.
What Happens Next for Ilhan Omar?
The immediate questions are whether investigators will release additional information, whether Omar or her representatives will provide further details, and whether congressional leaders will seek formal oversight of the search.
Omar has made her own position unmistakable: she intends to continue speaking out and views the search as an attempt to intimidate a political opponent. The Trump administration’s critics have embraced that interpretation, while the legal justification for the search must ultimately be evaluated through the evidence and applicable law.
The coming days could bring more details about the investigation, new statements from lawmakers and further debate over the role of federal law enforcement during an election season.
For now, the most defensible conclusion is also the most consequential: a federal search has triggered a major political confrontation, Omar has publicly challenged the administration’s motives, and key questions about the investigation remain unanswered.
Her “I will not be silenced” declaration has become a rallying cry for her response. Whether the dispute grows into a wider congressional battle will depend on what investigators reveal next—and whether the government can explain its actions in a way that withstands public and legal scrutiny.
