Trump says he's doubling the US tariff on steel to 50%
US PRESIDENT DONALD Trump has said that he is doubling the tariff rate on steel to 50%, a dramatic increase that could further push up prices for a metal used to make housing, cars and other goods.
Trump spoke at US Steel's Mon Valley Works–Irvin Plant in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania, to discuss investments by Japan's Nippon Steel.
The price of steel products has increased roughly 16% since Trump became president, according to the government's producer price index.
Trump said US Steel will stay an American company under a deal for Japan-based Nippon to invest in the steelmaker. Few details about the deal have been made public.
'We're here today to celebrate a blockbuster agreement that will ensure this storied American company stays an American company,' Trump said as he opened an event at one of US Steel's warehouses near Pittsburgh.
'You're going to stay an American company, you know that, right?'
Trump said doubling the tariffs on imported steel 'will even further secure the steel industry in the US'. But such a dramatic increase could push prices even higher.
Advertisement
Employees, Trump supporters, local officials and others filled one of the massive warehouses on the grounds of the Irvin finishing plant to hear Trump.
Donald Trump speaks to steel workers in Pennsylvania
Alamy Stock Photo
Alamy Stock Photo
Giant American flags hung from the ceiling and a sign read, 'The Golden Age'.
Steelworkers in orange hard hats and work clothes milled about, and part of the warehouse's cement floor was packed with huge rolled coils of shiny steel sheet produced at the plant and used for appliances, doors and other applications.
Though Trump initially vowed to block the Japanese steelmaker's bid to buy Pittsburgh-based US Steel, he changed course and announced an agreement last week for what he described as 'partial ownership' by Nippon.
It is not clear, though, if the deal his administration helped broker has been finalised or how ownership would be structured.
Trump stressed the deal would maintain American control of the company, which is seen as both a political symbol and an important matter for the country's supply chain, industries like car manufacturing and national security.
Trump, who has been eager to strike deals and announce new investments in the US since retaking the White House, is also trying to satisfy voters, including blue-collar workers, who elected him as he called to protect US manufacturing.
US Steel has not publicly communicated any details of a revamped deal to investors. Nippon Steel issued a statement approving of the proposed 'partnership' but also has not disclosed terms of the arrangement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
What Trump is doing to US universities is not as bad as the McCarthyite witch trials – it's worse
Some have said the current assault on American universities is the worst since the McCarthyite purges of the 1940s and 1950s. It's actually much worse. McCarthyism targeted individuals with 'Communistic' beliefs, which could include anything left of centre. Donald Trump similarly seeks to stamp out dissent. But his attack is McCarthyism on steroids, attempting to destroy universities as institutions. Trump began by threatening to withhold federal funding from universities that refused his demands. The US spends roughly $60 billion a year on university-based research and development, about half the size of the total Irish governmental budget. Because these funds have already been appropriated by the US Congress, withholding them is illegal. Yet Trump is doing it anyway and daring the courts to stop him. In March, Columbia University, fearful of losing $400 million in federal funding, caved to Trump's demands including surrendering control over its Middle Eastern studies programme. In April, Harvard fought back and has had nearly $2 billion pulled. These funds support all manner of research, and their suspension will have devastating effects on scientific progress, the benefits of which would have been felt far beyond the American borders. Just to take one example, say you or a relative develop Alzheimer's disease: these cuts will delay the search for treatments. More recently, Trump escalated his attack on another key source of university revenue: international students, who make up more than 20 per cent of the student body at most American research universities. Across the country, immigration officers have disappeared international students involved in anti-Israel protests. A haunting video showed one woman, Rumeysa Ozturk, walking near campus, pulled into an unmarked car in broad daylight by masked, plainclothes officers. In some cases, the government has provided no information as to the whereabouts of these students or information as to why they were detained. READ MORE [ CCTV footage shows US immigration detaining college student Rumeysa Ozturk Opens in new window ] International students seeking to re-enter the US have been detained at the border; like undocumented migrants, these students with the legal right to study in the country fear going home in case they are not allowed to travel back. Now, Trump has revoked Harvard's certification for enrolling international students , leaving nearly 7,000 in limbo. And last week, the State Department paused appointments for international student visas , which affects any non-citizen wishing to study at any US university. These actions will permanently damage American higher education – not simply Harvard or Columbia, which are just the most prominent examples. All American universities are potentially in the firing line. The New York Times reported last week that a Trump administration taskforce had identified 10 universities for particular attention. They include George Washington University; Johns Hopkins University; New York University; Northwestern; the University of California, Berkeley; the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of Minnesota; and the University of Southern California. Many measures may be blocked in the courts; indeed, a judge has already prevented him from blocking Harvard's enrolment of international students. Regardless, the measures have created so much uncertainty that no international student can feel good about studying in the US. Who would want to bet their future education on the chance that American courts will restrain Trump? And even if a Democrat wins the White House in 2028, any student considering a multiyear degree in the US will have to factor in the possibility of a future republican victory. [ Judge blocks Trump administration's ban on international student enrolments at Harvard Opens in new window ] To be sure, universities made themselves vulnerable to attack. By cracking down on pro-Palestinian protests in 2024, many gave Trump an entering wedge. Now 'fighting anti-Semitism' is the flimsy pretext of his current assault. Private universities, in particular, are elitist institutions. The annual cost of a Harvard bachelor's degree is just over $90,000 for next year, though many students – including international students – benefit from need-based financial aid. Because most US universities, including public ones, depend on private gifts to balance their books, they focus on pleasing big donors. They kowtow not just to the rich, but to the ultra-rich. [ Donald Trump's chilling assault on universities mirrors that of the Nazis in 1930s Germany Opens in new window ] Trump retains a lot of political support for anti-elitist attacks on academia among voters without third-level education who have trended republican. The Maga movement loves hierarchies based on wealth, nationality, race, and gender. But it hates the kind of hierarchies that US universities supply: ones based on merit and thereby more open to women and people of colour. Trump's arch nemesis, Barack Obama, demonstrates how a black man could rise to the presidency through academic institutions: Columbia, Harvard Law, and a professorship at the University of Chicago. As imperfect as US universities are, they remain vital institutions of free speech, which is precisely why Trump is attacking them. His attacks have had a chilling effect on college campuses. Some, such as Columbia, have been internally riven over how to respond. Academics and students are demoralised. Many are fighting back, but they are forced to redirect their energy away from studying, teaching, and researching. Three leading scholars of fascism – Marci Shore, Jason Stanley and Timothy Snyder – made headlines by leaving Yale for the University of Toronto. Needless to say, it is a disturbing sign for American democracy when those who know the most about fascism's rise start to flee. Destroying higher education is a strange way of making America great again. US universities have been not just engines of economic growth, they have been tremendous sources of soft power. According to one count, more than 50 current world leaders were educated in the US. Like other aspects of Trump's radical agenda such as his imposition of tariffs, his attack on universities in the name of America First is rapidly accelerating the decline of his country's geopolitical power. But Trump's attack on academia presents Ireland with a unique opportunity . Just think how desirable it is for researchers and students to come here to an English-speaking country that is a functioning democracy. Minister for Education James Lawless recently announced a scheme for attracting disaffected American academics. Yet it is unclear whether it will be of the necessary scale and ambition to truly benefit from the US brain drain. Such a scheme, if successful, would enable Ireland not only to be a refuge for academic freedom and democracy, it would generate long-term economic growth through science and innovation. But the scheme shouldn't be too narrowly focused on the hard sciences. After all, we need artists, humanists, and social scientists – and perhaps some scholars of fascism – to help us understand the madness that is Trump's America. Dr Daniel Geary is Mark Pigott Professor in US History at Trinity College Dublin
The Journal
an hour ago
- The Journal
Three-quarters of Irish universities fall in global rankings - but TCD still best in the country
THREE-QUARTERS OF Irish universities have fallen in global rankings, but Trinity College Dublin is still rated the best in the country. The rankings are based on quality of education, employability, quality of faculty, and research. Ireland's overall slip in the Global 2000, which is released today, is mainly due to research performance amid intensified global competition from well-funded institutions, the Centre for World University Rankings said. University College Dublin (UCD) is the only Irish university that ranked higher on the list than it did last year. Here's how they're all faring: Trinity College Dublin – 259th (250th in 2024) University College Dublin – 299th (301st last year) University College Cork – 545th (542nd) University of Galway – 707th (668th) University of Limerick – 926th (925th) Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland – 1013rd (no change) Dublin City University – 1151st (1134th) Maynooth University – 1323rd (1287th) Advertisement Harvard is the top university in the world for the fourteenth year in a row. However, other US institutions have declined in some areas amid slashed government funding and disputes over academic freedom and free speech. In the top ten, Harvard is followed by two other private US institutions, MIT and Stanford. The UK's Cambridge and Oxford are the world's highest-rated public universities, coming fourth and fifth. The rest of the global top ten are also private American universities: Princeton, Pennsylvania, Columbia, Yale, and Chicago. For the first time, China has surpassed the US as the country with the most universities in the Global 2000. While Oxford and Cambridge maintain their high rankings, the overall outlook for Britain is unfavourable, as 75% of universities have fallen down the list. The top ten universities in Europe this year are: Cambridge (UK, 4th), Oxford (UK, 5th), PSL (France, 19th), UCL (UK, 20th), Imperial College London (UK, 28th), Paris City University (France, 29th), ETH Zurich (Switzerland, 32nd), Paris Saclay (France, 34th), Institut Polytechnique de Paris (France, 35th), and Copenhagen (Denmark, 38th). Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Forget hope. Be a hopeful pessimist instead
Pope Francis was a nice fella, but was he wrong about hope? Diagnosing the problems of the modern world, he argued that what we need more than anything today is belief in a better future. Yet many of the worst actors globally are infused with overconfidence, or excessive optimism. Hope itself appears to have become an impediment to tackling urgent challenges. Action on climate change is weakened by a general hope technology will come to the rescue. European defence against Russia is undermined by a hazy belief Vladimir Putin will metamorphose into a peacemaker. Dealing with Ireland's housing crisis is crippled by a faith in the same old policies. I've lost track of the number of people who said in the wake of Donald Trump's election as US president 'ah, sure, he mightn't be so bad'. And then there's the irrational exuberance surrounding artificial intelligence , with governments now tending to see the glass as half full regarding this potentially cataclysmic technology. Not for nothing is the biography of OpenAI boss Sam Altman called The Optimist. Philosophers have long discussed the paradoxical nature of hope. READ MORE 'Only one thing is more stupid than absolute pessimism and that is absolute optimism,' said Albert Camus. His thinking on the matter was informed by a conundrum that also troubled Pope Francis: Why are people so indifferent to the suffering of others? Francis described indifference as 'the opposite of love', and believed it was a much more common evil in human affairs than hate. Camus, who was active in the French resistance against the Nazis, was also deeply troubled by political apathy and saw it as essentially anti-love. Modern man 'fornicated and read the papers', Camus wrote in a damning assessment of our unmotivated condition. Francis saw hope as the answer to indifference. 'It is often said that 'so long as there is life, there is hope', but the truth, if anything, is the opposite: it is hope that keeps life going, protects it, takes care of it, helps it to grow,' he wrote. Camus was more ambivalent about optimism, and argued pessimism could be a more powerful force against inertia, what he called 'man's strongest temptation'. He was particularly wary of ideological hope in 'some great idea' – be it religious or secular – that deflected us from reality. 'We find in his [Camus's] pessimism a clearsightedness that cuts through all the subterfuges and evasions available in his time to the beating core of his activism: that we must do what must be done, for reasons of justice and solidarity – because we owe it to our fellow human beings to prevent their suffering as best we can ... Camus proposes a fierce philosophy of action that is as bold as it is stark, stripped from any confidence of victory,' philosopher Mara Van der Lugt writes in a new book, Hopeful Pessimism. [ Don't dismiss Peig Sayers. Her stoic folk wisdom has plenty to offer today Opens in new window ] Camus's wariness of hope seems well founded when considering the utopian thinking of today's tech moguls. Elon Musk , the world's richest man, dreams of occupying Mars and re-engineering democracy. And to achieve this goal, we need less – not more – concern for the suffering of our fellow human beings. 'The fundamental weakness of western civilisation is empathy. The empathy exploit. They're exploiting a bug in western civilisation, which is the empathy response,' the multi-billionaire whined on the Joe Rogan podcast earlier this year. For utopians like Musk, human solidarity interferes with grand visions. So what is the right approach to hope? One way of resolving the conundrum is by definitions. Hope can be defined as either positive thinking or constructive thinking. One is more passive than the other. Optimism can be defined as a belief in a positive outcome. It has a faith element, and potentially carries higher risks and rewards. Studies show optimists live longer but are also more likely to take risks. 'The evidence suggests that optimism is widespread, stubborn and costly,' the psychologist Daniel Kahneman said. He had in mind particularly the optimism around public projects, and how spending estimates on infrastructure were always pitched towards the most hopeful end of the spectrum. Hello National Children's Hospital . Then there is utopianism, which can be defined as an ideological attachment to progress or some idealised future. [ Could there be good reason to believe in life after death? Opens in new window ] So defined, it's always good to have some hope. Treat optimism with caution and be very wary of utopianism. Van der Lugt resolves the matter in a different way, saying we should strive to become 'hopeful pessimists'. This aims to take the best of what optimism and pessimism both have to offer. It has the advantage of drawing us away from self-centred hope, and towards the responsibilities we have to our fellow human beings and the wider world. 'If anything, the pessimists have taught me this: with eyes full of that darkness there can still be this strange shattering openness, like a door cracked open, for the good to make its entry into life. Since all things are uncertain, so too is the future, and so there is always the possibility of change for better as there is for worse,' writes Van der Lugt. An exclusive focus on hope can lead us towards passivity and indifference. Better that we are hopeful pessimists who, as Van der Lugt puts it, 'strive for change without certainties, without expecting anything from our efforts other than the knowledge that we have done what we are called upon to do as moral agents in a time of change'.
