Trump gets ‘golden share' power in US Steel buyout. U.S. agencies will get it under future presidents
President Donald Trump speaks during a media conference at the end of the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, June 25, 2025. (AP Photo)
HARRISBURG, Pa.--President Donald Trump will control the so-called 'golden share' that's part of the national security agreement under which he allowed Japan-based Nippon Steel to buy out iconic American steelmaker U.S. Steel, according to disclosures with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The provision gives the president the power to appoint a board member and have a say in company decisions that affect domestic steel production and competition with overseas producers.
Under the provision, Trump — or someone he designates — controls that decision-making power while he is president. However, control over those powers reverts to the Treasury Department and the Commerce Department when anyone else is president, according to the filings.
The White House responded in a statement that the share is 'not granted to Trump specifically, but to whoever the president is' when asked why Trump will directly control the decision-making and why it goes to the Treasury and Commerce departments under future presidents.
Still, the wording of the provision is specific to Trump.
It lists what decisions cannot be made 'without, ... at any time when Donald J. Trump is serving as President of the United States of America, the written consent of Donald J. Trump or President Trump's Designee' or 'at any other time, the written consent of the CMAs,' a contractual term for the Treasury and Commerce departments.
Nippon Steel's nearly $15 billion buyout of Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel became final last week, making U.S. Steel a wholly owned subsidiary.
Trump has sought to characterize the acquisition as a 'partnership' between the two companies after he at first vowed to block the deal — as former President Joe Biden did on his way out of the White House — before changing his mind after he became president.
The national security agreement became effective June 13 and is between Nippon Steel, as well as its American subsidiary, and the federal government, represented by the departments of Commerce and Treasury, according to the disclosures.
The complete national security agreement hasn't been published publicly, although aspects of it have been outlined in statements and securities filings made by the companies, U.S. Steel said Wednesday.
The pursuit by Nippon Steel dragged on for a year and-a-half, weighed down by national security concerns, opposition by the United Steelworkers and presidential politics in the premier battleground state of Pennsylvania, where U.S. Steel is headquartered.
The combined company will become the world's fourth-largest steelmaker in an industry dominated by Chinese companies, and bring what analysts say is Nippon Steel's top-notch technology to U.S. Steel's antiquated steelmaking processes, plus a commitment to invest $11 billion to upgrade U.S. Steel facilities.
The potential that the deal could be permanently blocked forced Nippon Steel to sweeten the deal.
That included upping its capital commitments in U.S. Steel facilities and adding the golden share provision, giving Trump the right to appoint an independent director and veto power on specific matters.
Those matters include reductions in Nippon Steel's capital commitments in the national security agreement; changing U.S. Steel's name and headquarters; closing or idling U.S. Steel's plants; transferring production or jobs outside of the U.S.; buying competing businesses in the U.S.; and certain decisions on trade, labor and sourcing outside the U.S.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
an hour ago
- Japan Times
Japan mulls cuts to financial aid for Ph.D. students from abroad
The education ministry is considering limiting the financial support it provides to doctoral students to assist with living expenses so that the funding is only made available to Japanese nationals, according to a draft proposal unveiled by an expert panel on Thursday. The Ph.D. aid program has recently come under fire from some members of parliament, who point out that nearly 40% of those receiving the support are international students despite the fact that the fund aims to foster future human resources in Japan. According to the education ministry, of the 10,564 students who received the aid in fiscal 2024 around 4,125 were international students, including 2,904 from China. The program, known as Support for Pioneering Research Initiated by the Next Generation (SPRING), was started in April 2021 to encourage more people to continue their studies to the doctoral level. The program was launched to tackle a decline in domestic students enrolling in Ph.D. programs due to financial difficulties and concerns over employment prospects, with the goal of fostering the capabilities to drive future innovation. Compared with 10 years ago, for example, the number of Japanese students going into doctoral programs in 2024 was down by 12% while foreign student enrollment increased by 35%. SPRING currently offers students up to ¥2.9 million per year for both research and living expenses, regardless of their nationality. The program has been adopted at 90 universities across the nation, with around 80% of doctoral students at those schools receiving some aid. Under the revised plan, which could go into effect as soon as next April, financial aid that covers living expenses will no longer be offered to international students, given the program's primary goal of encouraging Japanese students to enroll in Ph.D. programs. Financial aid used directly for research, which is, on average, around ¥400,000 per year, would continue to be offered to international students as well. In order to focus support on outstanding students, the amount offered for research would be differentiated depending on the academic and research performance of the student. To attract excellent international students and promote diversity at research institutions, the program is looking to encourage collaboration among universities on globalization efforts. Strengthening measures to help international students find employment after they complete their program of study in Japan is also under consideration. Furthermore, under the revised plan, eligibility for the financial aid used directly for research will be expanded to include working adults with a stable income, to encourage more individuals to explore further studies in the science and technology field. They will not be offered funding for living expenses, but such support will be made available to those who do not receive an income despite being a member of an organization or a company employee. According to the panel, the number of students enrolled in doctoral programs has increased in the past several years, growing from 14,382 in fiscal 2022 to 15,744 in 2024, and recovering close to the levels seen in fiscal 2011. Compared with the previous year, the number of working adults enrolling in Ph.D. programs in 2024 increased by 30, while the number of international students decreased by 118. The expert panel at the education ministry, which was established in April, met for the fourth time Thursday and is expected to submit a midterm report in coming weeks. The panel, which is focused on fostering the next generation of innovators in the science and technology field, is also discussing ways to improve related education in elementary, middle and high schools.
Yomiuri Shimbun
an hour ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Trump DOJ Sues All Federal Judges in Maryland over Deportation Order
The Justice Department sued all 15 federal district court judges in Maryland on Tuesday over an order that pauses any deportations under legal challenge in the state for 48 hours. Legal experts described the move as an unprecedented attack on judicial independence, while government lawyers said it was necessary to preserve President Donald Trump's constitutional authority over immigration. Longtime court watchers said they could not recall another instance in which the Justice Department, which usually represents members of the judicial branch in court, sued the entire roster of judges in a district. Courts across the country have slowed or stopped many of the president's moves this year as they weigh legal challenges to his agenda, including plans for mass deportations and dismissing federal workers. Many of those challenges have played out in Maryland's federal courthouses. Administration officials have responded to adverse rulings by attacking judges – who have been nominated by presidents of both parties, including Trump – or by questioning the federal courts' powers to second-guess executive branch decisions. But the legal complaint filed by lawyers in the Justice Department's civil division marks an escalation from rhetorical attacks to a direct challenge of the courts' authority, experts said. 'It is reckless and irresponsible and yet another direct frontal assault on the federal courts of this country,' said retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig, who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit from 1991 to 2006. The complaint alleges that Chief Judge George L. Russell III of the U.S. District Court in Maryland issued an 'unlawful, antidemocratic' order in May that grants a two-day stay of deportation to any detainee in immigration custody who files a petition for habeas corpus, which is a lawsuit alleging wrongful detention. 'The recent influx of habeas petitions concerning alien detainees … that have been filed after normal court hours and on weekends and holidays has created scheduling difficulties and resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive,' Russell wrote in the standing order, which applies not only to cases on his docket but also those before the 14 other district judges who sit in Maryland. As the legal underpinnings of his order, which has been in place since May 21, Russell cited a federal statute, the All Writs Act, and a Supreme Court precedent from 1966 that gives judges 'limited judicial power to preserve the court's jurisdiction' by using injunctions to block government actions until the court can review them. The Justice Department argued that under other Supreme Court precedents, judges must rule on each case individually, not in blanket fashion. Russell's standing order does 'precisely what the Supreme Court has forbidden,' according to the 22-page legal complaint filed Tuesday. 'A sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law,' Justice Department attorneys wrote. 'Nor does their status within the judicial branch.' A spokesman for Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a post on X on Wednesday, 'This is just the latest action by @AGPamBondi's DOJ to rein in unlawful judicial overreach.' Justice Department officials did not respond to a request for comment. The Justice Department's move drew quick condemnation from Democrats, including Maryland Gov. Wes Moore. 'After blatantly violating judicial orders, and directing personal attacks on individual judges, the White House is turning our Constitution on its head by suing judges themselves,' Moore said in a statement Wednesday. 'Make no mistake: this unprecedented action is a transparent effort to intimidate judges and usurp the power of the courts.' Luttig said the Trump administration created the chaotic circumstances that led Russell to put the standing order in place by rushing to deport waves of migrants without hearings. The Supreme Court ruled in April that one such group of deportees was 'entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.' Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, described the Justice Department lawsuit as an extraordinary escalation in the ongoing battle Trump is waging with the courts. But he added that government lawyers also made some legally sound points. Courts are required to provide advance notice and a period to collect feedback on any significant changes to their rules, 'and one claim is that they didn't follow those rules,' Tobias said. But he said the Maryland judges were trying to find a way to resolve cases fairly amid a breakneck schedule of deportations. 'I think they're trying to claw back their jurisdiction,' Tobias said. 'There's a performative aspect to all this stuff. It's mind-boggling. … The American people don't need to be manipulated, and certainly the federal courts don't need that.' The Maryland judges have ruled on a range of major cases this year, putting key Trump initiatives on hold while finding various violations of the law in the administration's barrage of executive orders and agency moves on immigration, firing federal workers, stopping medical care for transgender youths and other issues. Judge Paula Xinis presided over the case of Kilmar Abrego García, the Maryland man whom White House officials delayed returning to the U.S. after he was wrongfully removed to El Salvador earlier this year. Judge James K. Bredar is handling a lawsuit filed by Democratic attorneys general alleging the Trump administration broke the law when it terminated probationary federal employees without warning local government officials in impacted states. Judge Stephanie Gallagher has been managing a case involving the rights of unaccompanied minors who were sent to El Salvador when Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act against alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Judge Brendan A. Hurson ruled that Trump's executive orders on gender were illegally denying medical care to transgender youths. Unlike other judicial districts with a mix of Democratic and Republican nominees serving on the bench, 13 of the 15 federal judges sitting in Maryland were nominated by presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama or Joe Biden, all Democrats. Two judges were nominated by Republicans, one by Trump and the other by President George W. Bush. Representatives for Russell and the other 14 judges declined to comment on the lawsuit Wednesday, as did a spokesperson for the Judicial Conference of the United States, which may have to decide who would represent the judges named as defendants. In legal filings, Justice Department attorneys requested that the 4th Circuit appeals court randomly select a judge from another district to hear the lawsuit in Maryland. All the judges in Maryland would have a conflict of interest, they argued, because they were named defendants in the case. Luttig, a former 4th Circuit judge who was nominated by Republican President George H.W. Bush, called that a 'cynical' ploy the court should reject. Luttig, who testified in 2022 to the congressional committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol that Trump and his supporters presented a 'clear and present danger to U.S. democracy,' described Tuesday's filings in similar terms. 'The president and his attorney general will continue their ruthless attack on the federal Judiciary and the Rule of Law until the Supreme Court of the United States at least attempts to stop them, because they are winning their war,' Luttig said. 'Until now, the Supreme Court has acquiesced in the president's war, while the devastating toll on the Federal Courts and the Rule of Law has mounted by the day.'
Yomiuri Shimbun
an hour ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Trump Administration Is Preparing to Challenge Budget Law, U.S. Officials Say
The Trump administration is preparing to test a 1974 budget law by refusing to spend congressionally mandated funds, senior federal officials say – an escalation that could change the balance of power between Congress and the White House. In both internal communications and interviews, more than two dozen current and former employees across multiple agencies said the administration appears to be readying to push the boundaries of the law meant to prevent the president from unilaterally overturning spending decisions made by Congress. Key White House aides have long argued that the law is an unconstitutional limit on presidential power and suggested that they will seek court rulings to overturn it, which could allow the White House to determine which spending to carry out. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has issued two rulings that funds have been illegally withheld already, and congressional Democrats have said a far wider scope of funding freezes has broken the budget law. Although the White House denies that any funds have been 'impounded' so far, officials at a half-dozen agencies expressed alarm to The Washington Post over how the disbursement of funds has slowed, stopped or been delayed – often, they say, with little clear legal justification. The scale of canceled or withheld funds remains opaque. Deadlines in the coming weeks will clarify how much the administration wants to test the law, enacted in 1974 after President Richard M. Nixon's Watergate scandal. White House officials are planning to 'defer' roughly 200 separate accounts across the federal government, according to two people familiar with the matter, who, like many others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. These delays, which would affect billions of dollars at a wide range of U.S. agencies, probably would be illegal if they prevent the funds from being spent before this fiscal year ends on Sept. 30, the people said. Interviews with federal workers show that a wide spectrum of government spending has already been stalled. Major scientific research grants have been terminated without public notice in recent weeks. At one federal agency, staff were told – via a directive that took effect on a Sunday – that almost all contracts over $250,000 no longer could be signed. At the General Services Administration, which manages federal real estate, the Trump administration is trying to cut costs by rejecting many agencies' requests for facilities repairs paid for by those agencies. In some instances, officials say it's unclear whether the budget law has been violated already or is merely on track to be breached – but the rejections have provoked internal alarm about their legality either way. The administration still could disburse money for many stalled programs before the end of the fiscal year. Rachel Cauley, a spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget, said in a statement that while they have not happened thus far, 'impoundments remain an option at the president's disposal.' Though billionaire Elon Musk's U.S. DOGE Service drew significant attention for its speedy cuts, Russell Vought, President Donald Trump's budget director, is expected to be key to the coming fight over spending. Vought has spearheaded the administration's campaign to assert sweeping executive power over spending, arguing that the Impoundment Control Act, the law at issue now, is unconstitutional. The Trump administration has justified its cost-cutting measures by pointing out that the United States is $36 trillion in debt, although the type of funding that officials have targeted represents a small fraction of the overall budget. 'We are seeing multiple major, major violations of the budget law,' said G. William Hoagland, who served as a GOP aide to the Senate Budget Committee and is now at the Washington-based Bipartisan Policy Center. 'I think this is on its way to becoming a really big issue. This is going to blow up more than the administration can imagine.' Health officials say funding has been 'vaporized' The frozen spending is most visible in the research community, where science and health funding has ground to a halt with little public explanation. In one example, the U.S. DOGE Service has failed to post dozens of planned funding opportunities since it took control of a key federal grants website in April, according to two people familiar with the process. Agencies were previously able to post notices of funding opportunities (NOFOs) directly to but DOGE now requires them to submit through a centralized mailbox it controls. The new process has created a bottleneck for agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that seek to award grants. The Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, is waiting for the federal government to post at least 30 planned funding opportunities that encompass tens of millions of dollars in congressionally appropriated funds for health and elder care initiatives – including $8 million for Holocaust survivor support and $6 million for Alzheimer's caregiver assistance – risking their expiration within the fiscal year. The backlog has alarmed career officials who warn that it could amount to illegal impoundment of funds. Major funding agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, have been mired in dysfunction that has slowed the routine work of awarding new grants and sending billions in funding, appropriated by Congress, to researchers and projects across the country. In a federal lawsuit filed last month in Rhode Island, 20 states sued HHS, seeking an injunction 'to prevent the unconstitutional dismantling of this vital department.' The states alleged that a reduction in force that laid off 10,000 employees in April was 'terminating the people necessary for [HHS] to meet its own mandates, and paralyzing it by means of a confusing reorganization.' The suit called the job cuts 'an unlawful effort to undercut the will of Congress who ordered the agencies and programs to run.' Since Trump's inauguration, the National Science Foundation has awarded about half as many grants as it did in the same period in 2024, according to a Post analysis of the NSF database. The agency has terminated about 1,700 grants in the past few weeks and slowed new funding to a trickle, according to public records, internal data obtained by The Post and an employee familiar with the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. So far this year, the agency has received only $6.5 billion of the congressionally appropriated $9 billion that it is supposed to spend on research, according to the employee and the records. No money at all has gone into a 'facilities' spending account that is supposed to contain $230 million for fiscal 2025, the employee said and the records show. Because of the halt in funding, new research in areas including environmental science and neuroscience is not getting underway, the employee said. The agency is also mostly not giving out awards this year, the employee said. The Office of the Director will not 'release money into our accounts to do anything,' the employee said. 'Essentially, money has been vaporized.' At NIH, the agency will end the fiscal year on Sept. 30 with unspent funds unless it starts awarding new grants much faster, according to Jeremy Berg, a former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, who has been closely tracking spending. Berg recently shared his analysis with NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, urging him to 'do your job … to make sure that these appropriated funds are committed through approved processes by the end of the fiscal year in September.' Bhattacharya replied, 'Contrary to the assertion you make in the letter, my job is to make sure that the NIH spends the money that the American people have entrusted us with on projects that advance the health and longevity of the American people.' He said he was preventing funds from being spent on 'ideological boondoggles' and dangerous research. Spokespeople for NIH and NSF declined to comment. Agency officials warn of illegal fund cancellations At the Army Corps of Engineers, a different kind of freeze has emerged. In June, employees were told that, effective immediately, they could no longer award most 'noncommercial' contracts above $250,000 – thanks to an April executive order titled 'Ensuring Commercial, Cost-Effective Solutions in Federal Contracts.' The result, staff say, is halted surveys, delayed sediment analysis and stalled construction. 'It feels like temporary impoundment,' one Corps employee said. (An impoundment is the unilateral cancellation of government funds.) In March, that same employee escalated concerns internally, asking whether repeated contract halts might count as impoundment. In a subsequent meeting, government attorneys told the employee that it was ultimately 'up to the courts' to determine whether the situation constituted a violation – but that civil servants following guidance would not be liable. If uncomfortable, they advised, the employee could ask to have the task reassigned. A spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers said that it was following guidance related to an executive order on procurement and that it is 'committed to continuing to deliver its mission for the American people in accordance with the administration's policies and priorities.' Meanwhile, the GSA is also refusing or interminably slow-walking requests from agencies to repair their facilities, three employees there said. Only requests for work projects that directly service one of three goals – Trump's return-to-office plans, 'safety/emergency' or 'national security' – are being allowed to go forward, the three people said. The restrictions have been in place for at least a few weeks, the employees said. The new rules are being enforced by the Office of Management and Budget, one of the employees said. What the new OMB policy means in practice, one of the employees said, is that basic jobs are stalled, with unclear legal justification. 'If an agency has funding in their budget to renovate an office because it's old, or buy new furniture or something, OMB is telling GSA not to accept the money,' the employee said. 'This is likely a violation of the law, if those funds were appropriated by Congress.' A spokesperson for GSA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Targeting the enforcer For government officials who believe the administration is illegally withholding or canceling funds, the main recourse is to report violations to the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. The GAO – an arm of Congress – has already opened more than three dozen inquiries into potential White House violations of federal budget law. But that avenue is also under threat. On Monday, House Republicans unveiled a new spending proposal for next year that would cut the GAO's budget and bar it from suing the federal government over canceled appropriations, effectively removing one of the few independent bodies capable of enforcing budget law if it's enacted. The Trump administration has asked Congress for approval to cancel roughly $9 billion in spending – including funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. The House has signed off, but if the request doesn't pass the Senate, officials have signaled they may use a novel legal tactic to let the funds expire at the end of the fiscal year. Still, scholars on both the right and left say the administration could persuade the Supreme Court to side with it, further expanding presidential authority over federal spending. 'I've spent a fair amount of time talking with government employees, and it's just utter chaos,' said Richard Pierce, an administrative law professor at George Washington University. As for how the courts will rule, he added: 'I'm not willing to predict a result. I can see it going either way.' To some experts, however, the stakes are clear. 'The administration appears to be preparing to run the clock out,' said Hoagland of the Bipartisan Policy Center. 'To me, it's clearly a violation of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. It's fundamental to the way the government is supposed to operate.'
