I do not believe it is normal AE. I say this more strongly after having read the article cited by SD3. What the article -- written by a Brit -- says is that only 3 cases were found of "in future." Apparently, even in BE it cannot come at the end of a sentence. So, the author is down to 2 cases. Without showing his evidence, he claims they are (very likely) written by Americans. That may or may not be, but without the text and context, it is hard to know if this Brit is correct about their being American. And, even if they are, 2 cases compared to more than 1,1000 of "in the future" suggests these examples could also be typos (the author throws out something just because it is, according to his ear?, ungrammatical, but retains only twice that number -- possibly from a larger pool even -- of something that is correct in his dialect, despite his (presumably American) TAs objecting). What's more, the WSJ is East Coast and is not immune to infection from Britishisms. For example, one might find "boot" or "lorry" used in reference to transportation without any obvious connection to Britain -- and still these would not be American usages any more than the occasional use of a French word or grammatical construction.
It is too bad that the WSJ corpus is not publicly available. We could then also check the author's point about "in past," -- which is stated unequivocally -- and without proof -- is wrong. It is assumed that that formulation doesn't exist in the corpus. Well, as to ass-u-mptions...
Finally, even if "in future" is acceptable in and as AE, there is no evidence given as to whether it means the same thing as "in the future" or is more immediate.