To restore manufacturing in America, Trump should approve the Nippon Steel deal
Amid economic turbulence rivaling the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, American industry is searching for renewal. One rare and promising opportunity lies in Nippon Steel's $14.9 billion bid to acquire U.S. Steel.
More than a merger, this is a lifeline for a historic American company — and a strategic bet on the future of domestic manufacturing. If approved, it would turbocharge U.S. Steel's global competitiveness, secure thousands of high-paying union jobs, and reinforce America's industrial backbone. Yet political resistance has been threatening this transformative partnership.
Since December 2023, Nippon Steel has presented a bold vision: to modernize U.S. Steel through a $7 billion investment — up from an initial $2.7 billion — including $1 billion for Pennsylvania's aging Mon Valley facilities. The investment would bring advanced technologies, improved efficiency, and the scale necessary to compete with international powerhouses like China's Baowu Steel. In a show of goodwill, Nippon has pledged to preserve U.S. Steel's Pittsburgh headquarters, honor union contracts, retain all workers, and pay $5,000 bonuses to employees upon deal completion.
These are not just numbers; they represent urgent reinvestment in American infrastructure and workers at a moment when many industrial facilities risk obsolescence. As U.S. Steel CEO David Burritt has warned, without these upgrades, key plants may close and headquarters could relocate. Union workers like Jason Zugai, a trainer at U.S. Steel's Mon Valley plant, have been blunt about the stakes: 'Without these investments from Nippon, our facility won't last.'
Despite this, the Biden administration blocked the deal in January 2025, citing national security concerns. Yet these concerns were unfounded. Japan is one of America's closest allies.
Nippon Steel's vice chairman, Takahiro Mori, aptly noted the rejection was politically motivated, favoring a domestic bidder, Cleveland-Cliffs. CEO Lourenco Goncalves openly boasted about using 'magic' to sabotage the deal for his own gain. If successful, Cleveland-Cliffs would monopolize U.S. blast furnace steelmaking, electrical steel production and iron ore reserves, and command two-thirds of automotive steel output.
That's not protectionism — it's consolidation at consumers' and workers' expense. History supports this fear: Cliffs closed plants, including one in West Virginia, and slashed jobs in Michigan and Minnesota just this year. Its record stands in stark contrast to Nippon's investment-driven strategy.
Fortunately, President Trump revived the deal's prospects on April 7 by ordering a new review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., set to conclude by June 5. A fair, fact-based review should confirm what market analysts already know: the deal poses no national security threat. On the contrary, it strengthens the U.S. By bringing advanced steelmaking technology to American shores, the deal ensures a resilient domestic supply chain vital to defense, infrastructure and energy independence.
Trump himself acknowledged Nippon Steel's strength on April 10, calling it a 'big, powerful company' likely to 'do a good job.' Yet he also insisted U.S. Steel must remain 'American' — suggesting Nippon should simply build a new plant. For the sake of the domestic steel industry, the president should instead allow Nippon's full ownership.
Constructing a greenfield facility would take years, cost billions more, and sidestep the very infrastructure and skilled labor force that make this deal viable. Crucially, Nippon's proprietary technology — the heart of its value proposition — is unlikely to be transferred in a minority stake or passive partnership. Full ownership is what unlocks transformation.
Critics, including the United Steelworkers and allies of Cleveland-Cliffs, frame the deal as 'foreign ownership.' But this is a mischaracterization. Nippon's plan retains U.S. Steel's operational independence, American branding and workforce. It brings the best of both worlds: American roots with Japanese investment and innovation. The alternative — a weakened, underfunded U.S. Steel or a Cliffs monopoly — undermines both worker livelihoods and national interests.
Investors understand what's at stake — U.S. Steel shares jumped 16.2 percent after Trump's review order; Nippon's stock climbed nearly 10 percent. But in the broader context of the U.S.-China rivalry, this deal is more than economic — it's geopolitical. Japan and the U.S. share a commitment to countering China's steel overproduction and global dumping practices. A strengthened U.S.-Japan steel alliance would fortify supply chains, reduce dependence on adversarial sources, and ensure American capacity to meet strategic needs.
Trump has built his platform on reviving American manufacturing. Here is a rare chance to deliver — not with rhetoric or tariffs alone, but with capital, technology and jobs. Tariffs may offer temporary protection, but direct investments can modernize mills or invent next-generation alloys much quicker. Nippon is ready to provide it.
As the review continues, the White House must resist political pressure and focus on facts. Approving this acquisition would be a legacy-defining decision: revitalizing an iconic American brand, securing thousands of union jobs, and cementing a global leadership role for U.S. Steel. Delaying or rejecting the deal would hand the advantage to foreign competitors, particularly China, and perpetuate industrial stagnation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Alex Padilla Tears Up Recounting His Kristi Noem Detainment on MSNBC: ‘It's All BS Coming From Trump'
California Sen. Alex Padilla appeared on MSNBC's 'The Beat' for his first interview following his forceful removal from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's Los Angeles press conference Thursday, giving correspondents a glimpse behind the viral moment. Padilla was forcefully removed by FBI agents and other plainclothes officials from the event after attempting to ask Noem a question about the Trump administrations ICE actions in L.A. Video footage shows the senator being pushed out of the room, pinned to the ground and being placed in handcuffs. NBC correspondent Jacob Soboroff pressed the senator on what made him particularly emotional speaking with the press pool outside after the incident. The Padilla came from a family of day laborers in the San Fernando Valley, and said this administration's target on immigrants, especially in L.A., feels personal. 'I understand their plight. I understand their struggle. I understand their sacrifice to just find the American dream, a good opportunity, maybe a good job, the ability to raise a family, and have the next generation have it a little bit better than you did,' Padilla told MSNBC with tears in his eyes. 'All the talk about immigration, you know, the — the misinformation, disinformation about, you know, invasions and insurrections, it's all B.S. coming from Trump.' Soboroff noted that the senator was raised by a father, who was a short order cook, and a mother, who was a housekeeper. After studying at MIT, Padilla returned to his hometown to rise the ranks in the public sector and serve his community. He told MSNBC that the Trump administration's targeting of immigrants is misguided. 'If all they were going to do is target violent, dangerous criminals, true threats to our national security, that'd be one thing. Nobody has a disagreement there,' he said. 'What's happening in practice is so many — yes, undocumented — immigrants, but who are otherwise law-abiding, peaceful and hardworking, to think this administration changed policy for federal agents to enter schools, houses of worship, let alone workplaces? If immigrants are that bad, why is that where you're looking for them?' The senator also responded to Noem's claims that he 'lunged' at her during the press conference. 'That's ridiculous. It's a lie, but par for the course for this administration, right?' he said. Padilla was down the hall in the federal building waiting for a scheduled briefing that had been pushed back because of the Secretary of Homeland Security's press conference, he said. The senator said he was escorted into the conference room to listen, but he had to speak up. 'At one point, it was just too much to take,' he said. 'This notion that Donald Trump and Kristi Noem have to come in and rescue the people of Los Angeles from Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass? It was too much. And so I spoke up. I introduced myself and said I had a question.' Padilla also told Soboroff and MSNBC host Ari Melber that he had an opportunity to speak with Noem, but he did not get an answer to his question or an apology. 'If this can happen to a United States senator for having the audacity to ask a question of the secretary of homeland security,' he explained, 'then just imagine what can happen to anybody in the country.' Watch the full interview below: The post Alex Padilla Tears Up Recounting His Kristi Noem Detainment on MSNBC: 'It's All BS Coming From Trump' | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Is Barely Even Pretending Anymore
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. accepted his new position as health secretary, he made a big show of distancing himself from his past life. 'News reports have claimed that I am anti-vaccine or anti-industry,' Kennedy, who has for decades promoted the debunked notion that vaccines cause autism and has baselessly sown doubt over the ability of the U.S. government to vet shots, said at his confirmation hearing in January. 'I am neither. I am pro-safety.' But for all Kennedy's talk, this week, he did exactly what a person would do if they were trying to undermine the scientific consensus on vaccination in the United States. He abruptly dismissed the entire expert committee that advises the CDC on its nationwide vaccine recommendations—and began to fill the roster with like-minded people ready to cast doubt on the benefits of vaccination. Like Kennedy, few of these new appointees to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice, or ACIP, have openly embraced the notion that they are anti-vaccine. But among them are individuals who have spoken out against COVID vaccines and policies, claimed vaccine injuries for their own children, and falsely linked COVID shots to deaths—or even baselessly accused those vaccines of 'causing a form of acquired immunity deficiency syndrome.' In January, I wrote that remaking the committee in exactly this way would be an especially harmful blow to Americans' health: Perhaps more than any other body of experts in the U.S., ACIP guides the nation's future preparedness against infectious disease. By appointing a committee that is poised to legitimize more of his own radical views, Kennedy is giving his skewed version of scientific reality the government's imprimatur. Whether he will admit to it or not, he is serving the most core goal of the anti-vaccine movement—eroding access to, and trust in, immunization. In an emailed statement, Health and Human Services Press Secretary Emily G. Hilliard reiterated that 'Secretary Kennedy is not anti-vaccine—he is pro-safety, pro-transparency, and pro-accountability,' and added that his 'evidence-based approach puts accountability and radical transparency first, which will restore trust in our public health system.' (Kennedy, notably, promised Senator Bill Cassidy during his confirmation process that he would maintain ACIP, as Cassidy put it, 'without changes.') Since the 1960s, ACIP has lent government policy on vaccines the clout of scientific evidence. Its mandate is to convene experts across fields such as infectious disease, immunology, pediatrics, vaccinology, and public health to carefully vet the data on immunizations, weigh their risks and benefits, and vote on recommendations that guide the public on how to use them—who should get vaccines, and when. Those guidelines are then passed to the CDC director, who—with only the rarest of exceptions—accepts that advice wholesale. 'These recommendations are what states look to, what providers look to,' Rupali Limaye, an expert in vaccine behavior at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told me. Medicare, for instance, is required to fully cover the vaccines that ACIP recommends; ACIP also determines which vaccines are covered by the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides free vaccines for children whose families cannot afford them. The experts who serve on ACIP have the opportunity, more than just about any of their scientific peers, to translate their vaccine rhetoric into reality. So far, Kennedy has dismissed the 17 people who were serving on ACIP, and filled eight of the newly open slots. Most of the new nominees have an obvious bone to pick with at least some vaccines, especially COVID shots, and have publicly advocated for limiting their use. Among the new members, for instance, is Robert Malone, a controversial physician who has spoken at anti-vaccine events, where he has denounced COVID vaccines and, without evidence, suggested that they can worsen coronavirus infections. Another appointee is Vicky Pebsworth, who serves on the board of the National Vaccine Information Center, an anti-vaccine nonprofit previously known as Dissatisfied Parents Together. A third, Retsef Levi, a health-care-management expert, called for the administration of COVID vaccines to be halted in 2023, and has questioned the shots' safety, despite a large body of evidence from clinical trials supporting their continued use. Overall, 'this is not a list that would increase confidence in vaccine decisions,' Dorit Reiss, a vaccine-policy expert at UC San Francisco, told me. (None of these new ACIP members returned a request for comment.) The next ACIP meeting is scheduled for the end of this month—and the agenda includes discussion about anthrax vaccines, chikungunya vaccines, COVID-19 vaccines, cytomegalovirus vaccine, the human-papillomavirus vaccine, influenza vaccines, the Lyme-disease vaccine, meningococcal vaccines, pneumococcal vaccines, and RSV vaccines. That's a big slate of topics for a brand-new panel of members, Paul Offit, a pediatrician and a vaccine expert who has previously served on ACIP, told me: Depending on how the meeting is structured, and on the input from CDC scientists, these new committee members could substantially alter the guidelines on several immunizations—perhaps so much so that certain shots could stop being recommended to certain groups of Americans. Based on the composition of the committee so far, Offit predicts that the new ACIP will eventually push the CDC away from full-throated endorsement of many of these vaccines. Even subtle changes in the wording of CDC recommendations—a should swapped for a may—can have big ripple effects, Limaye told me. Insurers, for instance, may be more reluctant to cover vaccines that are not actively endorsed by the CDC; some states—especially those in which vaccines have become a political battleground—may stop mandating those types of shots. If the CDC softens its recommendations, 'we will likely see more partisan divides' in who opts for protection nationwide, Jason Schwartz, a vaccine-policy expert at Yale, told me. Pharmaceutical companies may, in turn, cut down production of vaccines that don't have full CDC backing, perpetuating a cycle of reduced availability and reduced enthusiasm. And primary-care physicians, who look to the CDC's vaccination schedule as an essential reference, may shift the language they use to describe childhood shots, nudging more parents to simply opt out. Historically, medical and public-health associations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, have aligned their vaccine recommendations with ACIP's—because those recommendations were all driven by scientific evidence. Now, though, scientific consensus and government position are beginning to diverge: Multiple groups of physicians, scientists, and public-health scholars have issued statements condemning the vaccine decisions of Kennedy and his allies; a number of prominent scientists have now banded together to form a kind of alt-ACIP, dubbing themselves the Vaccine Integrity Project. As the views of fringe vaccine groups become the government's stance, Americans may soon have to choose between following the science and following what their nation's leaders say. Identifying as 'anti-vaccine' has historically been taboo: In a nation where most people remain largely in favor of shots, the term is pejorative, an open acknowledgment that one's views lie outside of the norm. But the more vaccine resistance infiltrates HHS and its advisers, the more what's considered normal may shift toward Kennedy's own views on vaccines; ACIP's reputation for evidence-backed thinking could even gild those views with scientific legitimacy. Assembling one's own team of friendly experts is an especially effective way to sanewash extremism, Reiss told me, and to overturn the system through what appear to be normal channels. If the nation's most prominent group of vaccine advisers bends toward anti-vaccine, the term loses its extremist edge—and the scientists who argue, based on sound data, that vaccines are safe and effective risk being labeled anti-government. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Democratic New York lawmaker erupts with f-bombs at GOP Rep. Lawler on House floor
Democratic Rep. John Mannion erupted at fellow New York Rep. Mike Lawler (R) on the House floor Thursday afternoon — with no shortage of f-bombs — in apparent outrage over Sen. Alex Padilla's (D-Calif.) incident with law enforcement earlier in the day. The blowup — some of which was picked up by the cameras in the House chamber — came shortly after Padilla was forcibly removed from a press conference Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was holding in Los Angeles and handcuffed, prompting a debate in the Capitol over who should be condemned for the altercation: the senator or law enforcement officials. Video of the House floor caught Mannion's booming voice, with the New York lawmaker yelling, 'Get on your f—ing side, Lawler.' 'This is f—ing madness, man. We've had enough. F—ing get over there and get some f—ing balls,' Mannion could be heard saying. At that point the chamber grew quiet, with lawmakers in both parties stopping their conversations and turning their attention to the dispute on the Democratic side of the chamber. Many looked confused in the immediate aftermath. 'Tell them. Tell them. You know who I am. You know who I am, a New Yorker just like you,' Mannion added. 'The country's falling apart.' In a post on the social platform X after the incident, Lawler called Mannion's conduct 'entirely unhinged and unprofessional.' 'That was a shameful display that exposed his complete lack of temperament,' he added. 'No wonder numerous staffers have previously alleged a toxic work environment. He should go seek help for anger management — and f— off.' Asked about the altercation, Lawler told The Hill: 'I told him to go f— himself.' Mannion's office passed along a statement from the congressman defending his actions, referencing Padilla's arrest as well as immigration raids as the Trump administration aims to deliver on his promise of mass deportations. 'I'm a kid from Tipp Hill that's fighting for my hometown and my country. I'm giving everything I have to stop the rise of authoritarian government and the destruction of American democracy,' Mannion said in a statement. 'If making some noise on the House floor and calling out Trump enablers draws attention to what's happening to our country right before our eyes — good. Today it's roughing up and handcuffing a United States Senator and a politicized military patrolling the streets of American cities.' 'It's the willing abandonment of the rule of law and a gross fealty to a want-to-be dictator who is tearing the country apart. None of this is normal or okay,' Mannion continued. 'I'm always going to stand up and speak out and fight for the people of this country.' The House floor squabble was not the only confrontation in the Capitol on Thursday: As Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) delivered remarks about the Padilla incident — endorsing censure for the senator — a string of House Democrats heckled the Speaker. Rep. Sam Liccardo (D-Calif), who represents the San Francisco Bay area, shouted, 'Mike, that's absurd.' Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) yelled 'why don't you stand up for Congress?' Another House Democrat exclaimed 'that's a lie.' Asked to respond to some of the remarks, Johnson declined. 'I'm not going to respond to that,' the Speaker said. 'I think the American people can draw their own conclusions. They saw a senator acting like a, wildly inappropriate, I'll leave it at that.' 'What I saw was agents asking him to quiet down so that the secretary could continue her press conference. He refused to do so. What were they supposed to do? They have to restrain someone who is engaging in that kind of behavior. They moved him out of the room,' Johnson later added. 'A sitting member of Congress should not act like that, it is beneath a member of Congress, it is beneath a U.S. senator. They are supposed to lead by example, and that is not a good example.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
