Is Nippon Steel buying US Steel a US national security risk?
The US and Japan have a close alliance, one that grew even stronger in recent years — except for one wrinkle: then-President Joe Biden's decision to block Japan-based Nippon Steel's bid to takeover US Steel. The move delighted the United Steelworkers union but divided his administration, triggering a heated debate about US investment policy, national security, and friendshoring.
The issue reemerged in recent days, as President Donald Trump hosted Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and opened the door to a different deal that would see Nippon invest — but not purchase — the company, after indicating he would oppose the proposed takeover. Meanwhile, Nippon and US Steel are challenging Biden's veto in court.
Todd Tucker, director of the industrial policy and trade program at the Roosevelt Institute, argues that the proposed acquisition risks US national security and that Biden was right to block it:
'Yes, [the deal is a national security risk] when one considers how Congress ordered presidents to consider 'security risks' under the Defense Production Act — which is less about imminent military threats, and more about the long-term maintenance of domestic capacities in strategic industries like steel. When the US is down to just a handful of steel blast furnaces left, it is legitimate to try to seek greater assurances for continuity of operations than if there were dozens or hundreds. In this case, the steelworkers union has long seemed more serious about continuing to invest in primary steel production than the selling or would-be acquiring companies.'
Charlie Dent, former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, argues that a takeover presents no national security risk and that the US steel industry will suffer without it:
'There are no real national security concerns in the Nippon-US Steel deal. Everyone knows Japan is a close ally and blocking the deal, I think, would be utterly shameful. The day before the Biden administration blocked the Nippon-US Steel, that same administration allowed an air-to-air missile defense system to be sold to Japan. They agreed to a foreign military sale, and for good reason, because Japan is a close national security partner and ally. It's absurd to suggest that Japan is a national security threat.
Trump should reverse this decision. I think Donald Trump has an opportunity to save steelmaking jobs in Pennsylvania, because without this deal, I expect those plants — those big integrated plants in western Pennsylvania — to close at some point. And so I think Donald Trump could actually save the day if he permitted this agreement to go through because it would provide for a massive investment of fresh capital and state-of-the-art technology. We would be making steel better in Pennsylvania.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
42 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Australians Equally Distrust Both Trump and Xi, Survey Finds
Australians are equally distrustful of both US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, according to a new survey, complicating Canberra's task of managing ties with its key security ally and biggest trading partner. A new survey released by the Lowy Institute think tank in Sydney showed that 72% of respondents said they didn't trust Trump to act responsibly in global affairs, just edging out the 71% who said they didn't trust China's Xi. When asked whether Trump or Xi would be a better partner for Australia, the two leaders were tied at 45% apiece.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Smithsonian faces an existential crisis. The world is watching.
When the National Portrait Gallery was created by an act of Congress in 1962, the authorizing legislation defined portraiture as 'painted or sculptured likenesses.' And when it referred to the future directors of that museum, which is part of the Smithsonian Institution, it was with exclusively male pronouns. 'His appointment and salary,' the text read, would be fixed by the Smithsonian's Board of Regents. Fourteen years later, Congress amended the original legislation to widen the definition of portraiture to include photographs and 'reproductions thereof made by any means or processes.' As the NPG built its collection and expanded its mission, it was clear that there were many Americans who would never have their images painted or sculpted — mainly Americans who weren't White, male and wealthy — yet were nonetheless essential to the story of America, its history and culture. Kim Sajet, who became the first woman to lead the NPG in 2013, was hired to continue what that amending legislation did in 1976. She expanded the definition of portraiture and widened the scope of people considered worthy of representation in the nation's portrait gallery. Visitors now encounter painted portraits, photographs, ink-jet prints, sculpture, videos, assemblage pieces, paper cutouts and videos. Women, people of color and those who identify as LGBT are more regularly seen in the museum's galleries. Last week, President Donald Trump attempted to fire Sajet, continuing an assault on the leadership of top cultural institutions that has led to the dismissal of Deborah Rutter, the first woman to lead the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts; and Carla Hayden, the first woman to lead the Library of Congress. Trump offered no substantial reason for Sajet's dismissal, using only a variation on his all-purpose denunciation of leaders he doesn't like: She is, he said in a Truth Social posting, 'a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI.' When she was hired, the Smithsonian celebrated Sajet's broad cultural range and diverse roots as a Dutch citizen born in Nigeria, educated in Australia and with deep professional roots in U.S. cultural organizations. Efforts to caricature her tenure as partisan or obsessed with diversity or identity issues can't be squared with her track record of traditional programming and collection building, which included acquiring the oldest photograph of an American president (an 1843 daguerreotype of John Quincy Adams) and exhibitions such as the rock-solid 2023 survey of colonialism, '1898: U.S. Imperial Visions and Revisions.' It's not clear that Trump has the authority to dismiss Sajet, and a Smithsonian spokesman said 'we have no comment at this time' when asked whether she is still the museum's director. Despite receiving federal funds, the Smithsonian is independent of the executive branch, and its museum directors are hired by the Board of Regents. But Trump's effort to oust Sajet presents the Smithsonian with an existential crisis: If the president succeeds in removing a key leader who is not accused of any professional or personal misconduct, he will effectively gain control over the content and mission of the entire Smithsonian. This also presents a critical leadership test for the Smithsonian's secretary, Lonnie G. Bunch III, who is negotiating potentially devastating budget cuts from Congress, including zero funding for the forthcoming National Museum of the American Latino. If Sajet's status as head of the NPG becomes a negotiating chit, then everything the Smithsonian does — including its commitment to telling the truth about history, science and art — will be negotiable. The Smithsonian has a long and sadly craven history of caving to critics, including making changes to exhibitions after pressure from activists and members of Congress. Former Smithsonian secretary G. Wayne Clough censored an NPG exhibition of portraiture featuring LGBT people in 2010, after pressure from conservative Christian activists. Clough forced museum curators to remove a single video, by the gay artist and AIDS activist David Wojnarowicz, which actually made the exhibition more popular when it traveled to Brooklyn and Tacoma, Washington. The precedent for that intrusion on editorial independence had been established at least since 1995, when the National Air and Space Museum censored an exhibition about the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb. The Enola Gay controversy, which centered on some veterans' opposition to an evenhanded curatorial discussion of why the bomb was dropped and whether it was necessary, damaged the institution, but it also helped foster widespread and lasting resistance to censorship and content meddling throughout the organization. But those examples were mere brush fires compared with the destruction that would follow a new precedent, the right of the president of the United States to dictate hiring and content. Trump's ongoing efforts to assert control over the performing arts, museum sector and the larger American historical narrative have been audacious and destructive. Subscriptions sales at the Kennedy Center are down some 36 percent from last year, and community arts and humanities groups around the country are suffering from the loss of small but essential grants from organizations including the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Unlike previous scuffles with Congress, which involved particular exhibitions and were limited to a few controversial subjects, Trump is using his anti-DEI agenda as a master key to exert transformative power over the Smithsonian. If successful, he won't stop with the removal of Sajet, who was hired because Smithsonian leaders and the nation at large were once committed to telling a richer, more inclusive story of the American people. The Smithsonian is currently seeking a new director for the American Art Museum and will need to find one for the National Museum of African American History and Culture, as well. If Sajet is removed, that will be a third major post to fill. What qualified, respected museum leader would take these jobs knowing that Trump has final say over exhibitions, hiring and publications? Throughout the past four months, people tracking the administration's attack on the federal arts and culture infrastructure have periodically wondered, is this the moment of truth? Will the latest executive order or social media post from the president determine the future and independence of the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, the Smithsonian, the National Park Service, the Institute for Museum and Library Services? Is this the tipping point from mere chaos and destruction into genuine authoritarian control? On Monday, the Smithsonian Board of Regents will hold one of its four annual regularly scheduled meetings, and Sajet's future is almost certain to be one of the main subjects under debate. It will be tempting for the regents to attempt some kind of compromise, find some middle road that appeases the president and preserves the Smithsonian from further harm. But there are no good options, only worse ones. A direct confrontation between the Smithsonian and Trump would probably lead to a protracted battle in Congress and perhaps the courts. But compromise measures, such as reassigning Sajet to some other Smithsonian position, might only embolden Trump for further, even more destructive attacks. There is no middle road. Appeasement won't work. The fate of the Smithsonian is now in the hands of Bunch and the regents, and the precedent they set will reverberate throughout every institution in America that, like the Smithsonian, is dedicated to the 'increase and diffusion of knowledge.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump wanted a military spectacle. Instead, he got a history lesson.
The Army's 250th birthday parade was not the grand military spectacle that many anticipated, and for that Americans can breathe a momentary, measured sigh of relief. It was a family-friendly conclusion to a celebratory day, with events on the Mall and fireworks at the end. What had been billed as an overwhelming display of military might turned out to be a linear history lesson, from the early days of revolution to the age of robotic dogs and flying drones. A narrator made sense of it all over loudspeakers and for those watching the live stream on television, with a script that rarely strayed from the Army's disciplined sense of itself as a lethal fighting machine in the service of democracy and the Constitution. The tone was reminiscent of the wall texts and exhibits at the National Museum of the United States Army, which opened on the grounds of Fort Belvoir in November 2020, during one of the most dangerous moments in recent American history. Like Saturday's parade, the museum celebrates the Army's history, but it does so with the temperance and nuance of serious professional historians, and a well-crafted historical and cultural narrative that largely steers clear of propaganda. It opened in the waning days of President Donald Trump's first term, after he lost reelection, and only days after he fired his defense secretary, Mark T. Esper. There was, at the time, considerable anxiety that Trump might attempt to use the Army to sustain his false claims of election fraud. That Army, which has a keen sense of its own aesthetics, had been embroiled in Trump's efforts to politicize it earlier in his first administration. In June 2020, a photograph of members of the D.C. National Guard on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial went viral, during the unsettled days of national protests after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. That picture, of troops seemingly deployed and ready for combat, standing in an orderly phalanx on the steps of the memorial, recalled the horror of the 1970 Kent State shootings, when Ohio National Guard troops fired on unarmed student protesters, killing four of them. It also seemed to presage a new age of domestic militarism, with the U.S. Army loyal not to the Constitution, but to Trump personally. The same anxiety preceded Saturday's parade, especially after a speech earlier in the week by Trump at Fort Bragg, during which uniformed troops booed mentions of former president Joe Biden and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and cheered Trump's partisan MAGA message. But on Saturday, at least, the Army stuck to its familiar themes of service, sacrifice and duty. The result was a display of civics, not power. The president was supposedly inspired to demand a military parade, an exceptionally rare event in recent U.S. history, after seeing a very different display on Bastille Day 2017, on the Champs-Élysées in Paris. Given Trump's admiration for strongman leaders in Russia and China, there was worry that the Army parade might hew to the authoritarian geometry of military spectacles in totalitarian countries, especially the absurdist mix of camp and menace favored by the regime in North Korea. But the soldiers who paraded past the presidential reviewing stand on Constitution Avenue walked with a loose-limbed gait, disciplined but not robotic, with individual soldiers integrated into the collective without losing their identity. Those riding by on tanks, trucks and other combat vehicles waved and smiled, engaging with an enthusiastic crowd. The announcer often sounded as if he were narrating a fashion show for machines rather than a military parade. The Bradley Fighting Vehicle: 'It is fast, it is tough, and it is lethal.' Parades always come with a message, which is why so many people were wary. When the American painter Childe Hassam painted a series of patriotic events, including a Fourth of July parade, before America's entry into World War I, he offered an innocent, exuberant vision of red, white and blue, all but overwhelming the individual marchers, as if flags, banners and bunting were sufficient to win a battle. But he was also positing an image of a unified America, during a period of considerable anxiety over mass immigration from European countries not deemed sufficiently Anglo-Saxon to fit a racist model of the country's emerging imperial identity. The impressionist blending of colors mimics the blurring of origins in the proverbial American melting pot. The last big U.S. military parade in Washington, held in 1991 after the Gulf War, wasn't just a welcome-home for the troops, but also an effort to allay the alienation of many Americans from their armed forces following the debacle in Vietnam. Since at least World War II, the Bastille Day review in Paris has been an even more complicated affair, a Gaullist effort to prioritize visions of orderly state power over leftist memories of modern France's birth in revolution and bloodletting. In Leni Riefenstahl's 1935 Nazi propaganda film, 'Triumph of the Will' — a terrifying compendium of parades and military spectacles — there is a scene in which Adolf Hitler walks through a vast empty space flanked by hundreds of troops. They have been reduced to the fascist ideal, mechanical dots on a relentless grid, remote and so distant from the leader to affirm the vast difference in their status: One man alone has agency, all the rest are part of the machine. Riefenstahl's image reminds us of a basic rule of thumb for analyzing a military parade: Look to the edges. Is the army of and among the people, or does it cut its own space, cleaving the throng, inhabiting its own power separate from civilian society? The U.S. Army has complicated edges; it is professional and thus apart from the civilian world, but it is also voluntary, and thus integrated into the fabric of American society. Heavy security on Saturday kept the people apart from the troops, but individual service members often seemed intent on bridging the distance, with waves and smiles. That offered a sharp contrast with the presence of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles, where the governor insists that they are not wanted or needed, where the edges of their presence are sharp and dangerous, and could be cutting. This year marks not just the 250th anniversary of the Army's birth, but also the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War, which was the all-time nadir of the military's reputation in the United States. The parade on Saturday could have done exceptional damage to a decades-long effort to climb out of that hole. The current president is extraordinarily good at creating situations that force unique message discipline on his critics. Thus, people who are deeply troubled by the unprecedented federal use of the National Guard on the streets of Los Angeles were invited to hate on an unnecessary and costly (up to $45 million estimated) but mostly benign Army celebration in Washington. But the Army proved even better at message discipline, keeping attention on its history, its service and its members. One early warning sign of a shift in the Army's allegiance will be a fraying of how it tells its own story: If it fires its historians — or attempts to coerce their compliance, as seems to be happening in other institutions, including the Smithsonian — there will be even more serious trouble ahead. But on Saturday, it kept that history in the foreground, and even the president looked bored during much of it, which isn't surprising. The Army made it about the country, not the man.
