The most troubling aspect of the recent controversy surrounding the Alaska LNG project isn’t simply that a confidential commercial agreement became public. It’s what the episode says about Alaska’s ability to attract the private investment needed to build major infrastructure projects.

There is an important distinction that has been lost in much of the public discussion. A confidential business agreement is not a “secret” document. Confidentiality provisions are standard business practice. Every major company—whether in energy, technology, construction, manufacturing, or health care—enters into agreements that protect proprietary financial information, negotiating positions, and commercial strategies. Businesses rely on confidentiality because competitors, customers, and investors all have legitimate interests that require sensitive information to remain private.

If Alaska develops a reputation for treating confidential commercial agreements as political documents to be publicly circulated whenever they become convenient, companies considering billions of dollars of investment will naturally ask whether Alaska is a place where proprietary business information can remain protected.

That concern should matter to every Alaskan, regardless of where they stand on the Alaska LNG project.

The situation also raises legitimate questions because some of the lawmakers involved are licensed attorneys. Attorneys are held to professional standards that extend beyond ordinary political debate, including responsibilities concerning confidential information and respect for the legal rights of others. Whether any professional rule applies under these specific circumstances is ultimately a question for the appropriate authorities—not political commentators. But it is entirely appropriate to ask whether licensed professionals should exercise heightened caution when confronted with materials that appear to have been disclosed outside the normal course of business.

Equally important is the substance of the leaked agreement itself. Much attention has focused on provisions discussing circumstances under which the State of Alaska could owe compensation to Glenfarne. Presented without context, those provisions create the impression that Alaska faces an enormous financial obligation.

That is not the full story.

Commercial contracts routinely allocate risk by addressing unlikely or even remote contingencies. These provisions are designed to answer the question, “What happens if something extraordinary occurs?” They are not predictions that those events are expected to happen.

In this case, the scenario receiving the most attention appears to contemplate circumstances in which the State itself would terminate or otherwise prevent the project from moving forward. Public testimony before the Legislature has indicated that such a scenario is considered highly unlikely under the structure of the agreement. Project officials have stated that Glenfarne—not the State—bears the commercial risk if the project fails under ordinary business circumstances.

Reasonable people can debate whether the Alaska LNG project is the right investment, whether the tax structure is appropriate, or whether the agreement adequately protects Alaska’s interests. Those are healthy public policy debates.

But those debates should be based on complete context—not selective excerpts from confidential commercial documents whose disclosure may itself undermine Alaska’s reputation as a place where businesses can confidently invest.

At a time when Alaska is competing globally for capital, trust is an economic asset. Companies deciding where to invest billions of dollars pay close attention not only to tax rates and regulations, but also to whether governments respect the confidentiality that underpins complex commercial negotiations.

That is a discussion worth having.