Trump plugs $54 billion natural gas project in Alaska, flanked by a senator in a tight race
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said South Korea plans to invest about $54 billion in a natural gas project in Alaska, an announcement he made in the Oval Office on Wednesday flanked by a Republican senator who has found himself in a tough reelection race in the state.
But while Trump and Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan — a two-term senator and long-time advocate for the pipeline project — described it as a fait accompli, South Korean officials were more cautious, saying they needed to assess the project’s commercial viability before committing to the investment.
The announcement was the second time in three days that the president used promises of big projects to try to elevate Senate candidates in states where Trump won comfortably each time he has run — but where Republicans are now in surprisingly competitive races just weeks ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections. On Monday, Trump made a similar-styled announcement about a massive steel plant in Iowa.
But South Korea’s participation in the Alaska project — an 807-mile (1,300-kilometer) pipeline connecting Alaska’s North Slope to a liquefied natural gas export terminal in the southern part of the state —“has not been finalized,” said Han Jeoungae, secretary-general of South Korean President Lee Jae Myung’s liberal Democratic Party. She said that she believes Trump’s comments were “intended to emphasize the U.S. position.”
“We will decide whether to invest in the Alaska LNG project only after thoroughly reviewing it in accordance with our domestic legal procedures and based on the principle of commercial viability,” she wrote on Facebook.
Trump and Alaskan leaders in the Oval Office did not describe the project as pending. Trump praised Sullivan —who is facing a competitive challenge from Democrat Mary Peltola, a former congresswoman — for pushing it forward, saying “He’s been working on this deal and other deals in Alaska, the pipeline, for almost 20 years, and we’re now getting it done.”
Sullivan thanked Trump and his cabinet for their work on the deal. “Mr. President, this one is huge for Alaska,” Sullivan said, adding that he’d been working on it “relentlessly.”
Peltola, Sullivan’s Democratic challenger, also praised the project and Trump’s advocacy for it, saying in a statement that she had been part of the bipartisan push to bring it “closer to reality” and looked forward to “continuing this bipartisan work with the President as Alaska’s next United States Senator.”
Trump is hitting the road to promote his administration’s actions
The push to deliver big projects in areas where GOP candidates could use a boost comes as Trump’s approval ratings have sunk ahead of the 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. “We have to turn this around,” he said on Wednesday, suggesting his administration hasn’t done enough to promote its accomplishments.
“I’ve done a very bad job of explaining,” the president said during an earlier event in the White House East Room. He’s promised to try to rectify that by spending much of the next month on the road campaigning. He begins that swing on Thursday with trips to Texas and Alabama, followed by Ohio on Saturday and Nebraska on Monday. All four are normally solidly red states.
Democrats are targeting Alaska and Iowa
On Monday, Trump announced plans for a $15 billion steel plant to be built by a Minnesota company owned by an Indian industrial conglomerate in Iowa, where 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.
Democrats need to gain a net of four seats in the 100-member Senate to overtake Republicans and gain a majority, and the seats in Iowa and Alaska are among those they’re targeting.
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.
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.
