Seoul Protests After Trump Announces South Korean Funding for Alaska LNG and Eight US Nuclear Plants

South Korea has publicly pushed back against the White House less than a day after President Donald Trump presented a list of American energy projects he said Seoul would pay for. On Thursday, Korea's Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan said he had lodged a strong protest with US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, arguing that the announcement went far beyond what the two governments had actually agreed.

At the centre of the dispute is the long-stalled Alaska liquefied natural gas project, which Washington is now presenting as settled and Seoul insists is not.

What Washington announced

At a White House event on Wednesday, US time, Trump unveiled three projects as part of South Korea's $200 billion strategic investment package: a gas-fired power plant in Texas of about 6 gigawatts, valued at around $22.3 billion; eight large nuclear reactors; and the Alaska LNG pipeline. Lutnick said just over $50 billion would go to Alaska LNG, and named Ohio, Tennessee, South Carolina and Kentucky as states where reactors would be built.

The Alaska project involves a pipeline of roughly 1,300 kilometres carrying gas from the North Slope to southern Alaska for liquefaction and export to Asian buyers such as South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Major energy companies walked away from earlier versions of the project years ago, citing poor economics.

Seoul's response

Korean officials say only the Texas plant has been formally selected under the investment framework. The Alaska and nuclear projects, in Seoul's view, remain subject to further negotiation and review.

President Lee Jae Myung said on social media that Korea had agreed to begin work on Alaska LNG only if its commercial viability is confirmed and it complies with Korean law, and that each nuclear plant must also prove viable on its own. The trade ministry added that nothing had been decided on whether to invest in Alaska LNG, or how much.

Kim said the only agreed language on Alaska is the three sentences in the joint factsheet, and that specific investment figures and definitive wording went far beyond it. According to Kim, Lutnick said he understood Korea's concerns and suggested both sides work to make the project succeed.

On the reactors, Kim said the US-named states were simply places that want new nuclear plants. Korea expects Washington to propose candidate sites, which Seoul will then assess for factors such as water supply and geology. The plan envisages two Korean-designed APR1400 reactors and six AP1000 units, but individual projects are not final.

The money constraint

The disagreement also comes down to cash flow. Seoul has secured an annual ceiling of $20 billion and an overall cap of $200 billion, with funds released in stages as projects hit milestones. The Texas plant alone is valued above $22 billion, which, by some analysts' arithmetic, leaves little room to begin funding Alaska LNG this year even if Seoul wanted to.

Korea is seeking US concessions that could improve the project's economics, including tariff relief on steel and equipment, tax adjustments and long-term LNG purchase arrangements. Kim said Washington had indicated it plans to move the project licence from private companies to the federal government, which could ease permitting and labour challenges.

Politics in the background

Korean broadcasters and trade experts have linked the timing to the US midterm elections in November, noting the political weight of a major Alaska project and the appeal of announcing large foreign investment commitments. Seoul's message is that the headline numbers should not be read as signed cheques.

For Asian energy importers, including India, the outcome matters because a viable Alaska LNG export route would add a new Pacific supply source at a time when West Asian disruptions have kept global gas and oil prices elevated.

This is an original summary based on public reporting. See our editorial policy for how we source, write, and correct our stories.