&w=3840&q=100)
Trump signals approval of Nippon deal, US Steel to Stay in Pittsburgh
President Donald Trump said on Friday that US Steel will keep its headquarters in Pittsburgh as part of what he called a planned partnership that seemed to signal that he'll approve a bid by Japan-based Nippon Steel to buy the iconic American steelmaker.
Still, Trump's statement left it vague as to whether he is approving Nippon Steel's bid after he vowed repeatedly to block it. But investors seemed to take it as a sign that he would approve it, sharply pushing up US Steel's shares.
Nippon Steel's nearly $15 billion bid to buy US Steel was blocked by former President Joe Biden on his way out of office and, after Trump became president, subject to another national security review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
Trump said in a statement that after much consideration and negotiation, US Steel will remain in US, and keep its Headquarters in the Great City of Pittsburgh.
What Trump called a planned partnership will create at least 70,000 jobs and add $14 billion to the US economy, he said, although it wasn't clear what the terms of the deal would be or who would own US Steel under the arrangement.
Josh Spoores, the Pennsylvania-based head of steel Americas analysis for commodity researcher CRU, said he's seeing this partnership' is a green light for the acquisition.
The companies didn't immediately comment. Shares of US Steel jumped 21 per cent on the news, and continued rising in aftermarket trading.
Keeping US Steel's headquarters had always been part of Nippon Steel's bid to buy it. To sweeten the deal, Nippon Steel had offered up a $2.7 billion commitment to upgrade facilities in Pennsylvania and Indiana on top of an earlier commitment to spend $1.4 billion.
However, US Steel's CEO David Burritt warned last September that blocking Nippon Steel would mean US Steel would largely pivot away and it would raise serious questions about remaining headquartered in Pittsburgh.
US Steel's board and stockholders approved Nippon Steel's bid last year. It has been opposed by the United Steelworkers union. The union had no immediate comment Friday.
As recently as December, Trump said he was "totally against the once great and powerful US Steel being bought by a foreign company.
Then in February, Trump suggested that Nippon Steel wouldn't buy US Steel, as it had planned, but that it would instead invest in US Steel.
Last month, Trump ordered a new national security review of Nippon Steel's proposed bid.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
16 minutes ago
- Mint
IndoSpace appoints Stellar Value Chain founder Anshuman Singh as MD and CEO
Bengaluru: Everstone Group-backed IndoSpace, India's largest warehousing developer, has appointed Anshuman Singh, founder of Stellar Value Chain Solutions, as its managing director and chief executive, said two people familiar with the development. Rajesh Jaggi, who played a key role in building the IndoSpace business and managing it, will continue as vice-chairman (real estate) at the Singapore-based private equity firm. IndoSpace, founded in 2007, is a joint venture between private equity firm Everstone Group and industrial real estate company Realterm. In 2023, global logistics provider CEVA Logistics acquired Stellar Value Chain, a third-party logistics firm Singh founded in 2016. Before that, he had co-founded Future Supply Chain Solutions Ltd. 'Anshuman Singh, with his extensive experience in the logistics space, has joined IndoSpace to steer the future growth of the company, in terms of development of assets and leasing, and acquisitions in an opportunistic manner. The company is also planning value-added services for its clients as a new offering,' said the first of the two people cited earlier, both of whom requested not to be named. An IndoSpace spokesperson didn't respond to queries. IndoSpace is the largest developer and operator of Grade A industrial and logistics real estate with a pan-India network of over fifty logistics parks, spanning 60 million sq. ft across 11 cities. The warehousing and logistics sector in the country has seen sustained interest from global investors who are looking to buy good-quality warehousing assets or entire portfolios from developers and operators. 'With a mature, institutionally-backed asset portfolio, IndoSpace is looking to monetize it. It has been exploring the possibility of an infrastructure investment trust (InvIT) or an initial public offering (IPO) in the medium term,' said the second person. Last year, IndoSpace sold 2.5 million sq. ft of warehousing space to Alta Capital for around $100 million. The warehousing assets were located at Pune and Sri City, Andhra Pradesh. Market leader IndoSpace competes with Blackstone-owned Horizon Industrial Parks, Ascendas Firstspace, ESR India among others in an asset class which has witnessed growing demand for modern warehousing and industrial facilities, and a solid appetite among institutional investors for ready and good-quality industrial assets. 'IndoSpace not only had the first-mover advantage, but it set the tone for warehousing development in India, and built with global standards from the start. In recent years, the market has become competitive with an increasing number of players of global repute,' said Chandranath Dey, India head – operations, business development, industrial consulting & integrated logistics, India, JLL, a property advisory. This year, IndoSpace inked a long-term lease of over 700,000 sq. ft with RenewSys India for warehousing space in Khalapur near Mumbai. It also leased 127,000 sq. ft in Pune to Steelcase Asia Pacific Holdings.
Mint
17 minutes ago
- Mint
Manu Joseph: What Elon Musk can learn from the ‘richest man ever'
Elon Musk, the world's richest man among those whose wealth is known, recently found himself in a rare spot for someone of his influence: overplaying his hand. In a public spat with Donald Trump, Musk denounced the American president, suggested he should be impeached and even floated a serious allegation involving the late Jeffrey Epstein, who was charged with sex trafficking minors. Musk also claimed his money helped Trump win the presidency. Such bluster would have been the doom of a billionaire in most nations. That Musk survived this is due to the one Western value he unwittingly relied on while helping ruin it: the right to criticize power fearlessly. Also Read: X factor: The rise and fall of Elon Musk as a political figure Yet, even in America, where the old habit of being the West lingers, Musk was forced to back-pedal. Trump threatened him on social media with legal scrutiny and the withdrawal of government contracts. To understand the limits of wealth when it meets state power, Musk may want to get to know, if he doesn't already, one man who many consider the richest person who ever lived. No one clarifies the relationship between money and state better than Jacob Fugger, a 16th-century banker. In today's money, Fugger's wealth would be worth some $400 billion dollars in hard assets. Musk's net worth is similar, but more volatile, as we have seen lately. But this does not demonstrate Fugger's true financial might in his time. In his book,The Richest Man Who Ever Lived: The Life and Times of Jacob Fugger, Greg Steinmetz states that when Fugger died in 1525, his wealth amounted to 2% of Europe's GDP at a time when Europe was an economic powerhouse and there was no US. In comparison, Musk's peak net worth was lower as a proportion of the US economy. Also Read: Why regretful tweets can't fix Musk's Tesla mess The political influence of Musk is impressive, but Fugger was at another level. Fugger dealt with emperors and popes. He financed wars, revolutions and once practically bought the Holy Roman Empire for his royal client. He also got a pope to cancel a Christian sin—usury, or the practice of charging interest on loans. In 1523, he wrote a letter to Charles V, one of the most powerful men on earth at the time as the holy Roman Emperor with a string of other monarchic titles. To this man, his lender Fugger wrote, 'It is well known that without me your majesty might not have acquired the imperial crown… You will order that the money which I have paid out, together with the interest upon it, shall be reckoned up and paid without further delay." The first part of the quoted line sounds like Musk and on the whole it appears even more self-destructive than Musk's online fight with Trump. But Charles paid up. Maybe because Fugger was not being as disrespectful as we imagine, maybe medieval Europe was a place where seasoned men of the world spoke frankly. Also, Fugger was right; Charles couldn't do without him. Also Read: Musk versus Trump: A case of mutually assured destruction Fugger, like Musk, was given to boasting. But his boasts were strategic—a form of advertising to remind monarchs that only he could move great sums. Whatever Fugger did must have been respectful by the customs of his time. In any case, he did not hesitate to flatter. After all, it was an age when it was not so hard for an emperor to execute a mere wealthy man, or put him away in some dungeon. But there was a delicate way to deal with power. Emperors controlled all land and they could convert it into money, but a way of the world even then was that rulers ruled by spending money and not making it. So they needed those special men who knew how to make it, who had a lot of it and who could lend it in return for various privileges, like mining rights. It was a tricky business to lend to emperors, for those powerful men were often broke and could simply renege. The only thing stopping them was a loss of reputation, which would make their future borrowing impossible or more expensive. Even so, emperors stole all the time from businessmen. Also Read: Manu Joseph: America and the bearable loneliness of losing the West When Charles's grandfather Emperor Maximilian needed funds, he didn't just ask nicely. He forced Fugger and other bankers to buy imperial bonds with no collateral, under a 'fairness' argument—that people like Fugger were able to do business because of the safety and peace Maximilian assured. Fugger wrote to Maximilian stating something many capitalists after him would say—that big business, by its very existence, is a moral force because it creates employment. But eventually, Fugger had to buy bonds. Like Musk, Fugger took great political bets. He funded the Church and also sponsored events that led to a movement against the Church, the Reformation. He also pioneered an early news network to gain an intelligence advantage over rivals. Yet, through it all, Fugger knew how to behave in front of a crown. Fugger appeared to understand that there were two streams of power—one that came from the masses, which was accumulated in one person, the power of the state. And another sort of power which came from being useful to the state. In Fugger's time, it was very clear that it was foolish to challenge the state's power. In Musk's time, there is a feeling in the West that a man like him can challenge the state, or the new emperors of our time. This is a myth. Sure, Musk is wildly famous himself, which could lead anyone in his place to overvalue it. But being famous is not the same as being the repository of the will and grouses of people. Celebrity is often not the same as politics. The author is a journalist, novelist, and the creator of the Netflix series, 'Decoupled'.
Mint
17 minutes ago
- Mint
Ajit Ranade: West Asia's upheaval intensifies India's challenges of geopolitics
Next Story Ajit Ranade The Israel-Iran war will make it harder for New Delhi to navigate global turbulence even as an oil flare-up poses a threat. But it could also spur domestic policy changes—in favour trade diversification, for example—that strengthen our economy. The fallout of the hostilities: Over a hundred people already killed, cities plunged into fear, critical infrastructure damaged and diplomacy left in the rubble. Gift this article The world crossed a dangerous threshold on 13 June. Israel attacked Iran, targeting nuclear facilities, military bases and even residential zones in order to kill top military leaders and nuclear scientists. Israel sees a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat and says that Iran's uranium enrichment programme had reached a point where a nuclear weapon was just weeks away. The world crossed a dangerous threshold on 13 June. Israel attacked Iran, targeting nuclear facilities, military bases and even residential zones in order to kill top military leaders and nuclear scientists. Israel sees a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat and says that Iran's uranium enrichment programme had reached a point where a nuclear weapon was just weeks away. The enrichment, while in violation of Iran's commitment to complying with nuclear safeguards, as noted recently by the United Nations' watchdog, was still nowhere close to weapons grade, as per US experts. Hence Israel's unprovoked attack was a big shocker. Israel so far had stopped short of full-scale war, preferring sabotage, cyber-attacks and targeted killings. But now Israel has crossed a line of no return for itself, Iran and the world. Iran launched a counter attack with over 200 ballistic missiles. It aimed at more than 150 Israeli targets that included nuclear sites and residential zones. Also Read: Javier Blas: An Israel-Iran war may not rattle the oil market The fallout of the hostilities: 130 people already killed, cities plunged into fear, critical infrastructure damaged and diplomacy left in the rubble. This escalation by Israel into war has upended Middle Eastern geopolitics. What was once a high-stakes diplomatic standoff has now escalated into a military confrontation. This will likely spiral up, notwithstanding global voices for restraint. From a statement of US President Donald Trump, it is obvious that Israel had tacit American support, with all its military might. He has been drawn into making a choice that he would have rather avoided: i.e., choosing between playing peacemaker and backing Israel solidly. On the other hand, all the Gulf states have condemned Israel's strike. But some like Saudi Arabia and the UAE might be quietly relieved at Iran's weakened position. Riyadh is Tehran's rival in a quest for regional dominance. China has stayed pointedly silent. Iran is central to its energy security and infrastructure ambitions for the Belt and Road Initiative, but Israel is also a key technology partner. Maybe China wants to position itself as a non-interventionist peacemaker, striking a contrast with unconditional support by the US for Israel, the aggressor. This Middle East distraction for Washington can work to China's advantage, as it gains manoeuvring space to flex muscle on Taiwan and in the wider Indo-Pacific. Russia had asked for an immediate Security Council meeting and resolution, knowing full well that the US will stonewall it with a veto. Hence its condemnations have lacked force. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), of which India is a member, has condemned Israel's attack, but India has carefully distanced itself from the SCO's common statement. Europe is alarmed by Israel, but not sympathetic to Iran, given the latter's record on enrichment. These actions of various international players reveal a global system where major powers are acting increasingly based on narrow transactional interests rather than any shared security architecture. It has injected fresh volatility into an already fragile global order. Israel has America's political, military and diplomatic support, whereas no major power is unequivocally with Iran. At most, it has ambivalent, conditional or weak support from various quarters. Non-state actors that could have aided it, such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, have been weakened. Hence, Tehran's resilience will be tested and it might resort to desperate measures. It has threatened strikes on the military bases of Israel's allies. These include US bases. It has also drawn attention to another lever of high-impact force with a threat to bar the movement of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, from where 20% of the world's oil flows. Meanwhile the Ali Khamenei administration is facing strong opposition at home, which Israel has sought to exploit. Instability in West Asia affects India deeply, for the stakes are immediate and structural. Some 60% of India's crude oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz. We have 8 million citizens in the Gulf region. Oil prices above $100 will worsen inflation, widen the current account deficit, hasten the rupee's fall and strain the fiscal deficit. Last year net inbound foreign direct investment (FDI) was almost negligible. Investors will now adopt a wait- and-watch attitude, thus hurting our growth prospects. New Delhi has to balance its energy security and Chahabar interests in Iran with its tech and defence partnership with Israel. It cannot remain silent on Israel's attack on Iran sovereignty because that would seem like moral abdication. This is the third such conflict where India finds itself locked in a narrow diplomatic navigation route and forced into a tight balancing act. Can New Delhi publicly and strongly condemn Russia in Ukraine? Can it condemn Israel's ongoing treatment of people in Gaza? It has to protect its strategic autonomy, while remaining a credible power with aspirations to UN Security Council membership and great power status. India's response reflects preference for non-alignment and quiet diplomacy. Also Read: Israel's war on Iran to hit Indian workforce India's foremost priority is the domestic economy, given our vulnerability to commodity prices, oil, exchange rates and investment flows. We cannot count on discounted Russian crude, not least because of the likely US reaction. Our free trade agreement with the UK will kick in next year, and a treaty with the US is uncertain. The big rate cut by the Reserve Bank surprised the market, but now in hindsight seems like a great pre-emptive strike. A large monetary stimulus will be useful ahead of signs of economic weakening. There is also massive liquidity injection. Prior to the present conflict, the 2025-26 GDP growth estimate of 6.5% was the lowest in four years. It might get worse, along with world growth, as even the World Bank's Global Economic Prospects points out. India's private sector investment-to-GDP ratio has been stagnating at 10% for a decade. A recent government survey of private sector capital expenditure intentions points to a decline this year. The government will have to keep up public capex to provide a growth impetus, as it has done in the past four years. On FDI, we must think creatively, as we need at least 2% of GDP on a net basis. New Delhi must revisit its stance on Chinese investment to allow it at least in non-sensitive sectors, such as automotive products (especially electric vehicles), infrastructure and renewable energy. Chinese exports can use Indian value chains. In the medium term, we need to diversify our energy sources and export markets. Our services export boom must go beyond Western customers. And, of course, we need a great thrust on building human capital, skilling and research. Paradoxically, the West Asian crisis might be an opportunity for India to emerge stronger with a bigger stature. The author is senior fellow with Pune International Centre. Topics You May Be Interested In Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
