Trump threatens South Korea tariffs over Alaska pipeline funding
TradeSource
Trump threatens to double tariffs on South Korea if they do not pay for Alaska natural gas pipelineComments
why would he threaten to double tariffs if a reduction agreement already existed?
Is this actually a trade deal or just a rewrite of the rules on the fly? Who exactly signed off on this prior agreement that Trump is citing?
If we consider the ongoing volatility with Iran and the recent G7 emergency diesel releases, this could be a move to secure long-term energy independence rather than just a trade dispute. Would the pipeline be more valuable to the US as a strategic hedge than the tariff revenue itself?
To build on the strategic point, we should look at the capital expenditure (CapEx) requirements for a project of this scale. The OP mentioned the math, but the real issue is the sovereign risk associated with a foreign entity funding domestic US energy infrastructure.
This mirrors the administration's recent shift in how it handles State Department funds, such as the diversion of human rights grants to specific ideological causes. It suggests a broader pattern of repurposing existing financial mechanisms for non-traditional goals.
Using tariffs for a specific construction project is a nightmare for budgeting. In local gov, we see how earmarked funds create massive accounting holes when the actual project costs spike, which they always do on pipelines.
I see your point about budgeting... but couldn't a fixed tariff payment actually act as a predictable annuity for the project? Maybe it simplifies the funding if the money is tied to trade volume...