Steel plant in Vance's hometown trades clean future for more coal
Under Biden, the Middletown plant was supposed to receive a $500 million federal grant to repower a coal-fired blast furnace in order to produce steel with clean hydrogen and natural gas. For decades, a mist of black soot has blanketed the cars and homes of the people who live closest to the plant. Had the hydrogen plan been implemented, it could have transformed one of the dirtiest steel plants in the country into one of the cleanest. It would have created an additional 200 permanent jobs and 1,200 construction jobs at the plant that now employs about 2,500.
The Biden administration wanted the Cleveland-Cliffs plant to spark a new Industrial Revolution in cleaner technologies.
'Clean steel is the future, everyone knows that, and to pretend otherwise is sticking your head in the sand,' said Leah Stokes, professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who advised the Biden administration on clean energy policy. 'We can either lead globally and claim a big part of the future of clean industries or we can be laggards and continue to lose to countries like China.'
But the market for greener steel in the U.S. has yet to take off at scale.
The Biden administration invested in the plant to drive a hydrogen-based manufacturing hub in the region. That's because there is not a viable large-scale clean hydrogen market that could supply multiple industries working to cut carbon pollution.
In the Biden administration, Goncalves said he could 'make the hydrogen hub viable.'
By Monday, he sounded like Trump in his praise for coal, telling investors his company relied on 'American iron ore and American coal and American natural gas as feedstock, all produced right here in the United States of America.'
While Goncalves did not specify how the administration was helping his company with the coal it purchases, Cleveland-Cliffs' bottom line has been boosted by a 50 percent tariff that Trump imposed on imported steel last month — doubling the rate from 25 percent. As with other tariffs, that's a cost largely borne by customers, and the hike already has shown up in the price tag for some vehicles.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
a minute ago
- New York Post
America's growing copper crisis finds a promising solution in Arizona's backyard
The United States has a copper problem. Simply put, the U.S. uses a lot of it and there aren't enough American mines to pull it out of the ground fast enough. But Ivanhoe Electric is moving toward becoming the first U.S.-based company to open a copper mine stateside in over a decade – and with copper prices shooting to record highs, the timing couldn't be better. President Donald Trump issued an executive order in March hoping to add copper to the critical minerals list, which would expedite permitting and offer tax incentives to mining companies. And on July 8, the president announced a 50% tariff on copper imports starting Aug. 1. The U.S. only produces about half the copper it uses, ranking fifth in production behind Chile, Democratic Republic of Congo, Peru and China. Part of the reason is that it takes an average of 29 years for copper mines to begin production, due to a lengthy permitting and approval process. But Ivanhoe Electric's Santa Cruz Project, about 40 miles south of Phoenix in Casa Grande, Arizona, aims to be up and running by 2028, only eight years since it started the project. 3 The U.S. only produces about half the copper it uses, ranking fifth in production behind Chile, Democratic Republic of Congo, Peru and China. AFP via Getty Images 'It's like tomorrow in mining terms. It's incredibly, incredibly fast and incredibly efficient,' said Taylor Melvin, president and CEO of the Tempe-based company. 'One of our great advantages is being on private land here in Arizona. It allows us to have a much more streamlined permitting process, which allows us to have a more accelerated timetable to construction and production.' The company has been collecting core samples all over its 6,000 acres of land, plotting the best spots to mine. The mine will be underground and there's enough copper to produce nearly 3 billion pounds of copper over the next 23 years. When completed, it would 'place us in the top five or six mines in the United States,' says Melvin. Another advantage of the mine is how the copper is extracted. There are only two copper smelters in the U.S., meaning much of the copper that's mined gets shipped overseas to be processed. But Ivanhoe Electric will use leaching to extract the copper, due to the characteristics of the ore found at the Santa Cruz mine site. 3 The company has been collecting core samples all over its 6,000 acres of land, plotting the best spots to mine. Ivanhoe Electric 'We'll be producing pure copper metal on this site ready for consumption by U.S. consumers,' said Melvin. And Americans – and the rest of the world – are set to consume a lot more. According to the International Energy Agency, demand for copper was around 26 million tons in 2024. In 2050, that number is predicted to reach nearly 40 million tons. But there's one major problem: many mines will be empty by then, meaning production is set to go down unless new mines are established. 'Copper is absolutely a critical metal. We need copper for every aspect of our economy. We need it to expand and improve our electric grid. We need to support technological advances like artificial intelligence and the data centers that are required to support AI. And we absolutely need copper for our defense industry,' said Melvin. 'So it's really hard to imagine a metal that is more critical and in higher volume than copper.' 3 But there's one major problem: many mines will be empty by then, meaning production is set to go down unless new mines are established. Ivanhoe Electric That leaves Ivanhoe Electric and other U.S. copper companies in a strong position. Construction of the Santa Cruz project will employ 900 full-time workers, falling to around 600 after completion and during the mining phase. Many of the positions will pay six figures, and the jobs are all but guaranteed for the next 25 years. And with the backing of Trump and with hopes of officially moving copper onto the critical minerals list, mining companies have a positive outlook. 'In my 25 years in the natural resources in the copper mining industry, I've never seen a more supportive environment for domestic mining than we have right now,' said Melvin. 'We're in the perfect place at the perfect time with a project. To be a U.S. company with a product in the United States on private land that can produce copper metal to supply domestic demand is perfect at the time for Ivanhoe Electric, and it's a great environment in the United States for domestic mining right now.'
Newsweek
2 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's New Air Force One 'Gift' From Qatar Will Likely Cost US $1B
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A jet donated by Qatar that is expected to become President Donald Trump's next Air Force One could ultimately cost American taxpayers $1 billion or more in retrofitting and upgrades. The free Air Force One from Qatar, which Trump has described as a gift, has raised eyebrows after a $934 million transfer of funds was made to an unnamed classified project from the Pentagon, with officials in the Air Force saying that millions of dollars were needed to pay for renovating the aircraft. Newsweek has contacted the Air Force via email for more information. Why It Matters The Qatari jet, delivered as a "bona fide gift" to the United States, arrived at a time when the Pentagon sought alternatives to delayed Boeing aircraft for presidential use. While officials emphasized the absence of any quid pro quo, the process of converting a 13-year-old Boeing 747 into a secure, advanced command center for the president could add a significant, taxpayer-funded price tag that goes against the concept of a gift. What To Know On July 7, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Qatari Deputy Prime Minister Saoud bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani signed a memorandum of understanding, detailing Qatar's "unconditional donation" of a Boeing jet to the Pentagon, with no payment made to Qatar. The agreement explicitly said the gift should not be interpreted as bribery or an attempt to influence U.S. policy. The jet is being housed in San Antonio, awaiting extensive retrofitting and security upgrades before it can be used as Air Force One. President Donald Trump disembarks from Air Force One upon his arrival at Prestwick Airport, south of Glasgow, on July 25. President Donald Trump disembarks from Air Force One upon his arrival at Prestwick Airport, south of Glasgow, on July 25. Getty Images The renovation's official price is classified, but congressional budget analysis and reports from The New York Times have traced a $934 million transfer from the over-budget Sentinel nuclear missile modernization program, believed to be earmarked for the jet's transformation. Additionally, officials within the Air Force told The New York Times that the Air Force was using funding initially ring-fenced for nuclear modernization to upgrade the new plane, which would explain why the $934 million transfer originated from the Pentagon's nuclear program. "I think there has been a number thrown around on the order of $1 billion," Air Force Secretary Troy E. Meink told Congress in June. "But a lot of those costs associated with that are costs that we'd have experienced anyway, we will just experience them early." What People Are Saying President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social in May: "The Boeing 747 is being given to the United States Air Force/Department of Defense, NOT TO ME! It is a gift from a Nation, Qatar, that we have successfully defended for many years. It will be used by our Government as a temporary Air Force One, until such time as our new Boeings, which are very late on delivery, arrive." U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff told ABC in May: "It's a perfectly legal transaction; it's been vetted by White House counsel, by the Justice Department, there are outside law firms involved. So, it's a perfectly legal, government-to-government, department of defense-to-department of defense transaction that happens in the normal course, and has been happening in the normal course throughout our existence. "Governments exchange services—in this case the president has done … an incredible array of wonderful deals and created all kinds of opportunities for this country, for our economy, for the growth of our economy, and everything is always with the mind of doing something good for the American public, for the American taxpayer. This is another example—they decided to donate something because of all the wonderful things we've done for them in the past." What Happens Next The Pentagon is finalizing the registration and preparing to begin upgrades at a Texas facility known for classified aviation work.
Atlantic
30 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Death of Democracy Promotion
On April 29, 1999, precision-guided NATO bombs tore through the brick facades of two defense-ministry buildings in Belgrade, the capital of the rump state of Yugoslavia. The targets were chosen more for symbolic reasons than operational ones: The American-led coalition wanted to send the country's authoritarian government, at that time engaged in a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, a clear message that human rights weren't just words. They were backed by weapons. For decades, the ruins of the buildings, on either side of a major artery through central Belgrade, were left largely untouched. Tangled concrete and twisted rebar stuck out of pancaked floors. Serbian architects fought to preserve the destroyed buildings; the government has treated them as a war memorial. At the time of the 1999 NATO bombings, Aleksandar Vučić, Serbia's minister of information, was tasked with denouncing the West and backing his country's despot, Slobodan Milošević. Today, Vučić has risen in the ranks to become Serbia's president—an apologist for Russia who attacks the press, has been accused of nurturing close ties to organized crime, and is rapidly dragging his country toward authoritarianism. Vučić is not Milošević—he has not led his country into genocidal wars or faced judgment for war crimes at The Hague—but until recently, he might have expected that his authoritarian style would make relations with Washington rocky. That time is past. Instead of harshly condemning Serbia's abuses, America's president, Donald Trump, will build a Trump Tower Belgrade on top of the defense buildings' ruins. 'Belgrade welcomes a Global Icon,' the slick website for Trump Belgrade proclaims. 'TRUMP. Unrivaled Luxury.' The contract for the project has been signed with Affinity Partners, Jared Kushner's investment firm, which is largely funded with billions of dollars in cash from Saudi Arabia. This story is the material expression of the second Trump administration's turn against a long-standing tradition of Western democracy promotion—and of an embrace of conflicts of interest from which the world's despots can only take inspiration. The authoritarians who govern small countries such as Serbia no longer need to fear the condemnation, much less the bombs, of the American president when they crack down on their opponents, enrich themselves, or tighten their grip on power. On the contrary—the American flirtation with similar practices emboldens them. With Trump's unapologetic foreign policy in his second term, American democracy promotion is effectively dead. Prior to the Soviet Union's collapse, Western diplomats cared far more about whether a dictator was an ally or adversary to the Soviets than about the quality of a country's elections or its respect for human rights. If diplomats from Washington or London pushed too hard for democracy, there was a credible risk that a Western ally could defect and become a friend to Moscow. Once the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the world's despots no longer had so much cover; Western diplomats could now push harder. New norms developed, which led to a rapid surge in the number of competitive, multiparty elections. Human rights were no longer just an aspirational buzzword. Some countries lost foreign aid or were shunned by the international community if their government committed atrocities. This pressure to adopt democracy and protect human rights was never applied equally. Powerful countries, such as a rising China, became largely immune to Western cajoling. And strategically important countries, such as Saudi Arabia, in many cases got a free pass, facing little more than rhetorical condemnation while presidents and prime ministers continued to shake hands and ink major arms deals. Meanwhile, in smaller countries, such as Togo, Madagascar, or the former Yugoslavia, the post–Cold War push for democracy and human rights often came not just with lip service, but also with teeth. After all, the White House could afford to lose the goodwill of Madagascar in a dispute over values; its geopolitical priorities would suffer little downside. Moreover, weak countries such as Madagascar depended on foreign aid, such that Western governments wielded far more leverage in them than they did in larger, more self-sufficient countries. For a while, then, small-time despots faced a credible threat: Go too far, rights defenders could hope to warn strongmen, and a Western ambassador could soon be knocking on the palace door. None of this is to say that Western powers were always on the side of the angels. During the Cold War, Western governments made lofty speeches about democracy and human rights while funding coups and arming politically convenient rebels. The CIA played a role in overthrowing popularly legitimate governments, such as those of Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, and Salvador Allende in Chile. Even after the Cold War, Western governments have cozied up to plenty of friendly dictatorships, in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Equatorial Guinea. And yet, particularly in the last 30 years, Western pressure and foreign aid have been significant forces for global democratization. Dictators and despots knew that the world was paying attention, which gave them pause before they turned their guns on their own people. Foreign aid became tied to the verdicts of election monitors, which drastically expanded operations after the end of the Cold War. With funding from the United States and other Western governments, opposition parties, journalists, and civil-society organizations received training on how to bolster democracy. And when political transitions toward democracy took place, as in Tunisia after the Arab Spring, billions of dollars in support flowed in. Partly because of these shifting international norms, the expansion of political freedom was so abrupt after the end of the Cold War that many believed democracy, having won the ideological battle against rival models of governance such as fascism and communism, had become an inexorable force. But the democracy boom under Bill Clinton gave way to failed wars under George W. Bush and inaction under Barack Obama. Bush, who justified wars in Afghanistan and Iraq partly under the guise of a democracy-and-freedom agenda, inadvertently discredited the notion of values-based 'nation building.' A widespread perception among American adversaries took root that democracy promotion was just a code word for 'regime change carried out by American troops.' This gave dictators political cover to boot out international NGOs hoping to bolster democracy and human rights, branding them as mere precursors for a heavy-handed invasion. Obama, picking up the pieces of that failed foreign policy, downplayed the grand vision of a more democratic world as a guiding principle of American diplomacy, even as countries across the globe began to pivot toward authoritarian rule. Now the world is steadily becoming less democratic. According to data from Freedom House, the world has become more authoritarian every year since 2006. Trump's second term may provide the most potent autocratic accelerant yet. In his first term, Trump routinely praised dictators, including in a memorable moment when he boasted about exchanging 'beautiful letters' with North Korea's tyrant. President Joe Biden, with his much-touted Summit for Democracy, tried to recenter democracy as a core principle of the State Department, but that effort was overtaken by successive geopolitical emergencies in Ukraine and Gaza. Now, with his return to power, Trump has gone further than before to fully uproot democracy promotion from American foreign policy. The list of dismantled initiatives is long. In the first months of the second Trump administration, Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency not only slashed America's foreign-aid machinery, effectively destroying USAID, but also targeted the National Endowment for Democracy: a bipartisan grant-making organization established under Ronald Reagan to strengthen democratic values abroad. The Trump administration has effectively kneecapped Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, outlets that have aimed to provide news and information to those living under oppressive regimes. Once viewed as bulwarks against authoritarian censorship, these platforms are now overseen by Trump acolyte Kari Lake. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently announced an overhaul of the State Department that effectively eliminates programs that work toward peace building and democracy. As an extra gift to the world's despots, on July 16, Rubio signaled that America will no longer stand in the way of election rigging: Washington will condemn autocrats who use sham election-style events to stay in power only if a major American foreign-policy interest is at stake, the secretary made clear, and from now on, American comments on foreign elections will be 'brief, focused on congratulating the winning candidate and, when appropriate, noting shared foreign policy interests.' The world's worst dictators can rest assured that the next American diplomat to come knocking on their palace doors is more likely to be looking for property rights than human rights. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, which always have had a free pass, might not notice the difference. But brutal regimes in less-noticed parts of the world have now gotten the memo that the Trump White House is indifferent to democracy and human rights, and they are acting accordingly. Cambodia has cracked down on journalists while courting American military officials. Tanzania's leader recently arrested his main rival and charged him with treason. Indonesia's president has begun changing laws, militarizing the country, and undermining the principle of civilian rule. Nigeria's president made a power grab that critics say was blatantly illegal. And El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, who had faced international criticisms for egregious human-rights abuses, isn't just absolved from American pressure—he's become a much-celebrated friend of the White House, lauded because of his gulags. Already, in regions such as Southeast Asia, brave pro-democracy reformers find themselves newly vulnerable and isolated. In Myanmar, pro-democracy forces fighting the country's military dictatorship long benefitted from American aid. The DOGE cuts put an end to that—and gave the repressive junta an enormous boost. In Thailand, a human-rights organization that once sheltered dissidents fleeing Cambodia and Laos has been forced to close its safehouses, allowing those regimes to more easily hunt down and even kill their opponents. These funding streams had accounted for a tiny proportion of the U.S. government's budget, but their elimination sends a strong signal to the world's autocrats: that virtually no one will now interfere with their designs. Admittedly, the United States is less powerful than it once was, and other countries have always had their own domestic agendas, regardless of what Washington has said or done. But that a growing number of the world's despots no longer have to weigh economic costs or diplomatic consequences for crushing their opponents has already made a difference. Thomas Carothers and Oliver Stuenkel of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace highlighted the fact that shortly after Musk referred to USAID as a 'criminal organization,' autocrats in Hungary, Serbia, and Slovakia began targeting pro-democracy NGOs that had received money from the agency. President Reagan once celebrated the United States as a 'shining city on a hill,' a 'beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.' That is apparently no longer the aspiration of the American government, which now sends its foreign pilgrims to a dehumanizing prison in El Salvador, arrests judges, and suggests that following the country's Constitution may be optional. For democracy to flourish, citizens must yearn for it—and demand it of their governments. At the moment, few can be looking with admiration to the United States as a model. Already in 2024, according to a 34-country survey conducted by Pew Research, the most common perception of American democracy was that the United States 'used to be a good example, but has not been in recent years.' The first months of the second Trump administration can hardly have improved that impression. Nonetheless, democracy—which provides citizens with a meaningful say over how their lives are governed—still has mass appeal across the globe. Brave, principled activists continue to stand up to despots, even though they do so at much greater peril today than even just a few months ago. In Serbia, for example, pro-democracy, anti-corruption protests have persisted for months. Students and workers are demanding immediate reforms and calling on Vučić to resign. In years past, precisely this kind of movement would have provoked White House press releases, diplomatic visits, and barbed statements from the Oval Office. In April, at long last, came a high-profile visit to Serbia from someone closely linked to the Trump administration. But instead of offering support for the pro-democracy demonstrators, this American emissary condemned the protests and implied that they were the sinister work of American left-wingers and USAID. That visitor was none other than Donald Trump Jr., who had arrived in Belgrade to fawn over Vučić in an exclusive interview for his Triggered with Don Jr. podcast, in the months before the newest Trump Tower opens for presales.
