Nippon Steel continued to state its intention to acquire U.S. Steel, emphasizing the strategic importance of the deal amid rising trade uncertainty and continued U.S. tariffs under President Donald Trump.
“Turning [U.S. Steel] into our wholly owned subsidiary is the starting point of negotiations,” said Nippon Steel President and COO Tadashi Imai during the company’s earnings briefing Friday, according to Nikkei Asia. “We are discussing various proposals.”
The statement follows renewed concerns in Washington about foreign ownership of critical industrial assets. April 8, President Trump ordered a new national security review of Nippon Steel’s proposed $14 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel, reviving a high-profile deal that had been blocked earlier this year by former President Joe Biden.
The United Steelworkers (USW) continues to oppose the deal, most recently citing the Commerce Department’s recent percent preliminary determination on non-oriented electrical steel (NOES) Nippon dumped into the U.S. market, setting margins at 204.79 percent.
Lawmakers have recently pressed the U.S. Department of the Treasury to scrutinize such deals closely, citing national security risks.
The Japanese steelmaker’s bid for U.S. Steel, first proposed in late 2023, remains under regulatory review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) with a determination expected in the coming weeks.
Sen. Jim Banks (R-IN) and Rep. Frank Mirvan (D-IN) issued a bipartisan warning to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, urging caution in the review of any foreign investment proposals involving the American steel industry.
In a joint letter to Treasury officials, the lawmakers wrote, “A strong, domestically owned and operated American steel industry is vital to our national security. If American steel production does not remain robust in peacetime, we risk unreliable supplies of critical steel products to the military in wartime.”
The letter comes amid increased scrutiny of foreign direct investment in critical U.S. industries, with particular concern about the national security implications of foreign ownership in sectors vital to defense supply chains.
Banks and Mrvan emphasized that defense and industrial production are inseparable: “A strong American defense industrial base is impossible without a strong U.S. manufacturing base, and considering the sectors in isolation is outmoded and myopic.”
The lawmakers rejected arguments that the Defense Department’s relatively small steel consumption lessens the need for domestic production, stating, “We disagree with those who have suggested that the strength of the U.S. steel industry is unimportant to supplying the military’s needs.”
They warned that foreign control of steel plants could compromise national interests: “We should not entrust companies that have repeatedly circumvented our trade laws and have dumped large volumes of steel onto our shores with sustaining U.S. steel production capacity.”
Temporary measures—such as placing U.S. citizens on boards or requiring short-term operational guarantees—are “insufficient,” they argued, to ensure long-term industrial resilience.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here