With US Steel Buyout a Go, Let's Talk About the Golden Share
Nippon Steel and US Steel, a major American steel manufacturer, announced on June 13 that their deal had been approved by the United States government. President Donald Trump signed an executive order approving the deal on the same day.
Approval of the acquisition was contingent upon Nippon Steel entering into a "National Security Agreement" with the US government. Under the agreement, the US government will be issued a "golden share." It gives the president veto power over vital US Steel management issues that might impact national security.
The golden share only provides the President with veto power. At the same time, the government will not have any financial stake in the company.
Nippon Steel will be allowed to hold 100% of the common shares of US Steel, making it a wholly owned subsidiary. The acquisition is expected to be completed quickly. Screenshot of the landing page for the United States Steel (US Steel) website (screenshot verified April 15, 2025)
For the two companies, expansion of scale is imperative to counter Chinese steelmakers. Currently, China accounts for the majority of the world's crude steel production. The new tie-up of Japanese and American steel makers is also highly significant in terms of economic security since Japan and the US are allies. We welcome the US government's approval of the deal.
Steel is required for building warships and other defense assets. Therefore, ensuring a domestic supply is considered essential from a security perspective. For that reason, the US government has protected steel as an important industry.
However, it cannot be denied that long-standing protectionist policies have stalled technological innovation and capital investment in the US steel industry. This is a cause behind its reduced international competitiveness.
As approved, the deal calls for Nippon Steel to invest about $11 billion USD (about ¥1.6 trillion JPY) in US Steel by 2028. The money will be used for updating outdated facilities and equipment, along with building new steel plants.
Since Nippon Steel's demand that US Steel become a wholly owned subsidiary has been met, it will now be in a position to provide advanced technologies. Prominent among those are electromagnetic steel sheets for electric vehicles. It should also further the development of the American steel industry. Nonetheless, a series of actions taken by the US government along the way have left considerable fallout. President Trump speaks at a rally in May, held at one of US Steel's major factories Pennsylvania. (©Kyodo)
The proposed acquisition was first announced in December 2023. However, in the runup to the 2024 presidential election, then-President Joe Biden and presidential candidate Donald Trump announced their strong opposition.
Biden issued an order banning the deal on January 3, citing national security concerns. However, he never clearly explained why acquisitions by companies in allied countries should be a security concern. His stance must be judged as nothing but unjustified political intervention.
Even now, the details of Nippon Steel's national security agreement as a condition of approving the acquisition, and the scope of the President's golden share veto power, have yet to be clarified.
President Trump has said, however, "We have a golden share, which I control, our president controls." In order for the acquisition to achieve optimum results, this mechanism should not overly bind the management judgment of Nippon Steel.
(Read the editorial in Japanese .)
Author: Editorial Board, The Sankei Shimbun
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
33 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Mark Carney is walking a high-stakes foreign-policy tightrope between Canada's values and interests
Mark Carney leads the first Canadian government in decades to have been elected almost entirely on the basis of a foreign-policy agenda. And the last weeks have been dominated by his urgent efforts to turn that agenda into reality. But which foreign policy? On one hand, Mr. Carney has a mandate to pursue a policy of Canadian values and ideals. He owes his party's re-election to the powerful mood of defensive nationalism that swept Canada after Donald Trump began his attacks on Canada's economy and sovereignty. Voters overwhelmingly wanted the new PM to realign Canada away from the United States and into a new set of alliances with countries that share our democratic and egalitarian principles. The economist who entered politics with a book titled Values seemed ideally positioned to do this. In fact, his campaign platform mentioned Canadian values more than 20 times, and national interests only once. On the other hand, Mr. Carney was expected to return Canada to the cold hard realism of protecting our core national interests. Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau were both foreign-policy idealists (albeit with different ideals) whose approach to the world often involved the largely symbolic projection of Canadian values. With Mr. Trump's re-election, things got real. His policies threatened our trade, defence and governance interests, a large part of which are inextricably tied to the United States. Experts observed that in order to prevent economic catastrophe, Mr. Carney would have to hold his nose and make a deal with Mr. Trump – 'a plan that identifies where our national interests converge and where we can deepen the relationship,' as Edward Greenspon, Janice Gross Stein and Drew Fagan wrote in The Globe, even if that meant trading away some of our ideals. Opinion: Carney takes the elbows down – and it may pay off Some success for Carney, not a win for the G7 Those two approaches, on their face, are mutually incompatible. Yet what we've seen, most visibly during the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alta., is a Prime Minister pretty actively pursuing both of them at once. Mr. Carney is walking along a razor-thin ridge, balanced precariously between one chasm that could destroy our standard of living and another that threatens our fundamental principles. He is very much pursuing a policy to realign Canada with countries closer to its values. This is most visible in military affairs, where he has made major spending commitments to join the European-led effort to replace lost U.S. support for Ukraine and to forge a new collective-defence alliance in the event of a U.S. departure from, or the collapse of, NATO. On the trade file, his fast-paced resumption of economic-integration talks with Britain is meant to supplement the successful Canada-European Union agreement. In the diplomatic space, Canada's decision to break with its neutral Mideast policy and join France and Britain in censuring Israel's denial of Gaza aid and their plan to recognize Palestinian statehood was clearly an effort to shift our foreign policy toward countries more aligned to our values. But Mr. Carney is also pursuing a deal with Mr. Trump that would protect our interests, at almost any cost. This has meant flattering rather than confronting the far-right President, and avoiding the sort of mildly critical remarks that scuppered Mr. Trudeau's previously good relationship with Mr. Trump at the 2018 G7 summit in Quebec. More substantially, roughly half of Mr. Carney's immigration and border bill consists of policies designed to take a load off federal bureaucracies by shifting migrants into more manageable categories, while the other half is comprised of border-security theatre transparently intended to meet Mr. Trump's absurd demands. As G7 wraps, Carney vague on aims of 30-day time frame for U.S. talks Likewise, Mr. Carney is discussing the notion of Canadian participation in Mr. Trump's 'golden dome' missile-defence megaproject just as the renegotiation of our crucial free-trade agreement is beginning. There has been little public effort to shift defence procurement away from the U.S., at least not before a trade deal is complete. The potential political and thus economic cost of jeopardizing our trade relationship would be unbearable. At some point, these twin foreign policies are going to collide. But luckily for Mr. Carney, a number of his policy initiatives involve what the military would call 'dual-use' technology. His big arms-spending commitments satisfy Mr. Trump's obsession with arbitrary NATO targets, but a good chunk serve the more urgent purpose of buying weapons for Ukraine to compensate for Mr. Trump's abandonment. Mr. Carney can truthfully claim to be cracking down on illegal immigrants, and while Mr. Trump might imagine this is similar to his mass-deportation agenda, Ottawa is actually taking the more sensible and Canadian approach of turning them into legal immigrants. So far, this Janus-faced statecraft appears to be succeeding. The risk is that this juggling of interests and values could result in damage to both, probably at the hands of Mr. Trump. But it's also quite likely the only way to emerge from this dark era with both somewhat intact.
Toronto Star
41 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Judge orders Columbia protester Mahmoud Khalil freed from detention
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge on Friday ordered the U.S. government to free former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil from the immigration detention center where he has been held since early March while the Trump administration sought to deport him over his role in pro-Palestinian protests. Ruling from the bench in New Jersey, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz said it would be 'highly, highly unusual' for the government to continue to detain a legal U.S. resident who was unlikely to flee and hadn't been accused of any violence. More from The Star & partners
Toronto Star
41 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Federal judge puts off additional rulings in case against Trump's National Guard deployment in LA
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California's challenge of the Trump administration's military deployment on the streets of Los Angeles returned to a federal courtroom in San Francisco on Friday for a brief hearing after an appeals court handed President Donald Trump a key procedural win in the case. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer Breyer put off issuing any additional rulings and instead asked for briefings from both sides on whether the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from conducting civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil, is being violated in Los Angeles.
