Japan's Nippon seals controversial US Steel deal after Trump pact
NEW YORK — Japanese firm Nippon Steel has completed its long-sought takeover of US Steel, after agreeing to yield unusual control to the US government.
Nippon's $14.9bn (£11bn) purchase of the smaller American company, will create one of the world's biggest steelmakers and turns Nippon into a major player in the US.
The plan, first announced in 2023, had been seen as a lifeline for the storied but struggling 124-year-old US Steel.
But the deal ran into trouble during last year's presidential election, when US President Donald Trump and his Democratic opponents said they were concerned about the foreign acquisition of one of the last major steel producers in the US.
However, Trump reversed his stance, after Nippon made concessions which the President said had satisfied his national security concerns.
He gave the official green light to the deal in an executive order on Friday.Nippon agreed to pay $55 per share and take on the company's debt, a deal worth $14.9bn together.It said it had also promised the government it would invest $11bn in US Steel by 2028, including a new facility that would be completed after that year.It also granted the US government a "golden share" in the company, giving the government say over key decisions, including the transfer of jobs or production outside of the US, and certain calls to close or idle factories.Nippon also committed to maintain its headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and install US citizens to key management positions including its chief executive and the majority of its board."This partnership ensures that US Steel will retain its iconic name and headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and that it will continue to be mined, melted, and made in America for generations to come," Nippon and US Steel said in a statement as shares in US Steel stopped trading.They said the deal would "protect and create more than 100,000 jobs".Trump has made protections for the steel industry a key part of his economic agenda, raising tariffs on imports of the metal to 50% to benefit American producers.The president said he changed his mind about deal after hearing from local officials, who were alarmed by warnings from US Steel that it might cut jobs without the investment from Nippon.Leaders of the US Steelworkers union had opposed the takeover, which former president Joe Biden blocked in his final weeks of office.The companies subsequently filed a lawsuit accusing him of improperly politicising a national security review.In a statement, the president of the US Steelworkers union said that Nippon's final agreement had granted the president a "startling degree of personal control" over a corporation, while predicting attention on the company would now fade."However, our union will remain. We will continue watching, holding Nippon to its commitments," president David McCall said. — BBC
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
29 minutes ago
- Arab News
Targeting Iran's supreme leader is madness
The idea resurfaced last week that Israel may try to assassinate Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as if he were just another easy military target in the fierce war between Israel and Iran, which may soon involve the US. President Donald Trump made it clear he opposed Israel's move and did not support it. This issue is far more serious than just another military objective: it could become a matter of ideology and trigger deeply dangerous cycles of revenge. There have been times in history when warring parties refrained from targeting leaders and symbolic figures for reasons beyond direct military calculation. For example, Emperor Hirohito of Japan was a ruler and a sacred symbol. Documents confirm that he authorized his military leaders to go to war, invade Manchuria, and carry out the attack on Pearl Harbor, which led to America's entry into the Second World War. But during the war, and on the recommendation of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the US government decided not to target him. He was also excluded from the list of Japanese leaders prosecuted after the allied victory and the occupation of Tokyo. That decision paved the way for reconciliation between the US and Japan, and helped the Japanese people accept the Americans. Hirohito remained emperor and respected until his death, living for another 45 years. There have been times in history when warring parties refrained from targeting leaders and symbolic figures for reasons beyond direct military calculation. Abdulrahman Al-Rashed Ayatollah Khamenei is a spiritual leader, and any harm inflicted on him would cause wounds that may never heal — regardless of how decisive the Israeli or American victories are on the battlefield. The supreme leader is a lifelong authority, not a president. He would play a vital role in bringing about peace, just as Ayatollah Khomeini did in 1988, when he unilaterally announced an end to the war with Iraq — a war we thought would end only with the complete destruction of one or both countries. We remember that no one in the Iranian regime at that time dared to call for a ceasefire with Iraq — except the supreme leader. Some people get carried away by the intoxication of war, blinded by overwhelming military power and temporary victories, only to create hatred that could last for decades or even centuries when they could have achieved victory without doing so. There is no doubt that the Israelis possess superior intelligence capabilities and overwhelming destructive power, which allow them to penetrate deep into Iran and reach its leadership's hideouts, as they have done in Lebanon and Gaza. But Iran's supreme leader cannot be equated with Hezbollah's secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah, who was assassinated last year. The difference in symbolic weight is enormous, and the consequences of a miscalculation are grave. Ayatollah Khamenei is a spiritual leader, and any harm inflicted on him would cause wounds that may never heal. Abdulrahman Al-Rashed And even if the comparison isn't entirely accurate, the execution of Saddam Hussein on Eid Al-Adha in 2006 — though he was a Baathist and not a religious or tribal leader — came at a heavy price. US generals later attempted to reconcile with Sunni forces, but failed. Washington still suffers the consequences of that event, especially with half the Iraqi population. That grave mistake could have been avoided, and the resulting rift healed, after their military victory. Israelis are capable of stunning military victories, as they achieved in 1967 and again last year — but that doesn't mean they win the larger war. We are truly on the brink of a new and critical chapter of history that will reshape what we've known and lived through over the past half century. What's needed now is the threat of force without reaching for its maximum limits — to bring about change through consensus, as much as possible. That would benefit everyone, including Israel, the US, Iran, and all the nations in the region. Both winners and losers share an interest in reducing tensions and achieving a collective peace. • Abdulrahman Al-Rashed is a Saudi journalist and intellectual. He is the former general manager of Al-Arabiya news channel and former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article was originally published. X: @aalrashed
Arab News
29 minutes ago
- Arab News
NATO leaders to meet amid growing geopolitical instability
The 32 leaders of NATO's member states will gather in The Hague from Tuesday for a major summit. This will be the alliance's first summit since US President Donald Trump returned to the White House and it comes at a time of growing geopolitical instability. From war in Ukraine to tensions in the Middle East and the increasing assertiveness of China, there is no shortage of serious challenges. If this week's G7 meeting in Canada is any indicator, this NATO Summit will be short and unlikely to produce a common position on most of the major challenges confronting the alliance. Already, the signs suggest that this summit will be more modest in ambition and structure than previous gatherings. The number of scheduled sessions is lower than usual and a draft of the summit communique circulating through NATO capitals is significantly shorter in both length and scope than past declarations. However, despite these limitations, the alliance's leaders will be eager to project unity. The summit will likely feature strong public messaging on those areas where consensus exists — especially the issue Trump cares about most: increasing European defense spending. More divisive issues, such as the future of Ukraine, the threat posed by China and the ongoing war between Israel and Iran, will be relegated to closed-door meetings. Defense spending will dominate the public agenda. Since the 2006 NATO Summit, member states have committed to spending at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on national defense. For many years, this pledge was largely ignored. By the time Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014, only three member states were meeting the target. That same year, at the NATO Summit in Wales, alliance leaders reaffirmed the 2 percent goal and agreed to reach it by 2024. While meaningful progress has been made — 23 countries now meet or exceed the 2 percent threshold — there is no question that Trump views the current level of spending as insufficient. The signs suggest that this summit will be more modest in ambition and structure than previous gatherings Luke Coffey That is why Trump is now pushing for a new benchmark: a combined 5 percent of GDP, to be phased in over the next several years. Under this proposal, NATO members would spend 3.5 percent of GDP on core defense capabilities, with an additional 1.5 percent allocated to defense-adjacent areas such as cybersecurity, critical port infrastructure, strategic transportation networks and national resilience efforts. A few countries have already stepped forward. Poland, the Netherlands and Sweden have laid out detailed and credible plans to reach the new targets. Other countries, such as Spain, have shown greater reluctance, but recent weeks have seen a shift in attitude due to pressure from both Washington and key European allies. Another area where consensus is building is on defense industrial cooperation. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the West's response exposed serious deficiencies in the defense production capabilities of NATO countries. The war has revealed that many allies lack the industrial base to sustain high-intensity conflict, replenish munitions and scale up production quickly. These shortcomings have alarmed policymakers and pushed NATO to take a more active role in coordinating defense production. While NATO, as an intergovernmental security alliance, cannot dictate national industrial policies, it can play a vital coordinating role. It can identify capability gaps, establish common standards and promote the interoperability of weapons and munitions among member states. Still, not all issues lend themselves to consensus. Some of the most pressing matters will be discussed privately. First among them is Ukraine. With US congressional funding for Ukraine set to expire by the end of summer, and with the Trump administration showing decreasing interest in leading peace talks, European countries will soon need to shoulder a much larger share of the burden. The Trump administration is expected to push its European allies to reduce Chinese influence on the continent Luke Coffey How they will do this — and whether they are politically willing to do so — remains unclear. It will require significant political will, financial resources and a united approach that has so far been lacking across much of Europe. As long as Trump is in office, NATO is unlikely to take a leading role in organizing or funding long-term assistance to Kyiv. Another issue looming over the summit is China. The Trump administration is expected to push its European allies to reduce Chinese influence on the continent, particularly in areas such as telecommunications infrastructure, port ownership and advanced technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing. However, NATO's mandate as a military alliance limits what it can directly do. It lacks the tools to regulate investment or economic policy. The responsibility will therefore fall to national governments and the EU. Even so, the Trump administration will almost certainly use the summit to press the point behind the scenes. Finally, the war between Israel and Iran will feature prominently in closed-door discussions. Although NATO has no formal mandate in this conflict, the issue is of vital concern to many members. A prolonged or expanded war — particularly if it spills into Iranian territory — could create massive regional instability, including refugee flows, terrorism and economic disruption. Moreover, Turkiye, a NATO member, shares a border with Iran, adding to the alliance's concern. Allies will be watching carefully for signals about how this conflict may evolve and what role, if any, NATO should play in contingency planning. It is in everyone's interest that this summit is perceived as a success. Privately, Trump administration officials have reassured their European counterparts that there will be no surprises. American officials know that Europe remains vital to US interests. Europe is America's largest export market and the biggest source of foreign investment. NATO is not only a military alliance — it is the foundation of the transatlantic economic and strategic order. And in the end, that reality will likely keep Trump invested in the alliance's success. • Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
US to move third aircraft carrier closer to Mideast conflict
The USS Gerald R. Ford will depart for Europe next week, a Navy official said Friday, placing a third American aircraft carrier in closer proximity to the Middle East as Israel and Iran trade strikes. Israel launched an unprecedented air campaign against Iran last week, and US President Donald Trump has said he is weighing whether to join Israel in the fight. 'The Gerald Ford carrier strike group will depart Norfolk (Virginia) the morning of June 24 for a regularly scheduled deployment to the US European Command area of responsibility,' the Navy official said. The US Carl Vinson carrier strike group has been operating in the Middle East since earlier this year, taking part in an air campaign against Yemen's Iran-backed Houthis. And a US defense official has confirmed that Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth ordered the Nimitz carrier strike group to the Middle East, saying it was 'to sustain our defensive posture and safeguard American personnel.' Trump said Thursday he will decide whether to join Israel's strikes on Iran within the next two weeks, citing a chance of negotiations to end the conflict. That deadline comes after a tense few days in which the US president publicly mulled hitting Iran and said that Tehran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei was an 'easy target.' Trump had spent weeks pursuing a diplomatic path toward a deal to replace the nuclear deal with Iran that he tore up in his first term in 2018, but has since backed Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities and military top brass. A key issue is that the United States is the only country with the huge 'bunker buster' bombs that could destroy Iran's crucial Fordo nuclear enrichment plant. A number of key figures in his 'Make America Great Again' movement have vocally opposed US strikes on Iran, and Trump's promise to extract the United States from its 'forever wars' in the Middle East played a role in his 2016 and 2024 election wins.
