Trump says US will control US Steel as part of Nippon deal
As part of the deal announced, opens new tab on Friday, Nippon Steel plans to invest $14 billion into U.S. Steel's operations, including up to $4 billion in a new steel mill. Trump said on Friday the merger would create 70,000 jobs.
Pressed for more details of the agreement, Trump said on Sunday: "It will be controlled by the United States, otherwise I wouldn't make the deal."
Speaking to reporters as he left for Washington after a weekend at his New Jersey golf club, Trump said relevant lawmakers had pressed him to make the deal.
"It's an investment and it's a partial ownership, but it will be controlled by the USA," he said.
The merger would create the world's third-largest steel producer by volume, following China's Baowu Steel Group and Luxembourg-based ArcelorMittal (MT.LU), opens new tab, according to World Steel Association data.
While no details were released, investors have expressed confidence that terms will be similar to those agreed in 2023. Investors have said that eventually U.S. Steel will no longer be publicly traded and they will receive a cash payout for their shares.
The deal has been one of the most highly anticipated on Wall Street after it morphed into the political arena with fears that foreign ownership would mean job losses in Pennsylvania, where U.S. Steel is headquartered.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Stop violating the law!': Exasperated judge blasts Trump for blackout over public money
A federal judge gave Donald Trump's administration some simple instructions when it comes to 'violating' the law: Stop doing it. In a ruling on Monday, District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington, D.C. found that the White House Office of Management and Budget illegally took down a public website showing how federal agencies spend taxpayer money. 'There is nothing unconstitutional about Congress requiring the Executive Branch to inform the public of how it is apportioning the public's money,' Sullivan wrote in a 60-page opinion. 'Defendants are therefore required to stop violating the law!' added Sullivan — emphasis his. The administration removed the website in March. OMB director Russell Vought told members of Congress that the office intentionally flouted the law by scraping the database due to the 'sensitive' and 'deliberative' nature of the information on it. A lawsuit from nonprofit watchdog groups Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Protect Democracy accused the administration of removing data to which they are statutorily entitled as part of their efforts to monitor government funding. According to Sullivan, Trump and Vought relied on 'an extravagant and unsupported theory of presidential power' to argue that the government's appropriation of public funds does not need to be publicly disclosed. Instead, they complained about the 'extra work' required of them under law passed by Congress in 2022 and 2023, Sullivan wrote. 'This is a management issue; not a constitutional one,' he said. The judge ordered OMB to restore the database and publicly disclose the information on it, including any apportionment information from the time the database was taken offline. 'The law is clear that the federal government must make its appropriations decisions public,' according to Adina Rosenbaum, Public Citizen Litigation Group attorney and counsel on the case. 'So this case turned on a straightforward point: The administration must follow the law.' Nikhel Sus, deputy chief counsel at CREW, said the decision 'reaffirms Congress's constitutional authority to require public disclosure of how taxpayer dollars are spent.' 'Americans have a right to know how taxpayer money is being spent,' he added. 'Ensuring public access to this information serves as a critical check on the executive branch's abuse and misuse of federal funds.' The Trump administration has repeatedly taken a beating in federal court, with dozens of court orders across the country striking down key elements of his agenda as unconstitutional, or, in one case, confounding a judge who compared his sweeping executive actions to a 'gumbo' giving him 'heartburn.' The president, whose critics have accused him of mounting a constitutional crisis in his defiance of the courts, has resisted court orders nearly one-third of the time. In an analysis of 165 court orders filed against the Trump administration, The Washington Post found the president has been accused of defying decisions in at least 57 cases. The Supreme Court's recent decision stemming from legal challenges striking down his executive order that seeks to redefine birthright citizenship could significantly diminish judicial authority. The high court's decision could effectively prevent judges — who are facing an avalanche of legal questions challenging the constitutionality of the president's agenda — from issuing nationwide injunctions, making it extraordinarily difficult to unwind the president's actions if they are later found to be illegal. Vought, meanwhile, argues that the appropriations process should be 'less bipartisan.' 'There is no voter in the country that went to the polls and said, 'I'm voting for a bipartisan appropriations process,'' he told a Christian Science Monitor event last week. 'That may be the view of something that appropriators want to maintain.' Vought, a former Heritage Foundation policy director and co-author of Project 2025, had recently ushered through legislation to revoke $9 billion in previously approved federal funding to gut global aid programs and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds National Public Radio and PBS.
Daily Mail
12 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump kicks out Wall Street Journal reporter from covering Scotland trip as $10B Epstein lawsuit suffers blow
The White House on Monday removed a Wall Street Journal reporter from the president's trip to Scotland this weekend, after the newspaper reported that the president signed a salacious letter to Jeffrey Epstein for his birthday in 2003. The bombshell report claimed Trump wrote a 'bawdy' 50th birthday card to Epstein, which concluded: 'Happy Birthday - and may every day be another wonderful secret,' and featured a hand-drawn image of a naked woman as well as his signature. The report drew immediate condemnation from the White House as the president decried it as a 'fake' and berated the Journal for publishing the story. The Journal's reporters will no longer be able to travel with the president to Scotland as part of the regular pool rotation. 'Due to the Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the thirteen outlets on board,' Leavitt said to Politico. Every news organization in the entire world wishes to cover President Trump, and the White House has taken significant steps to include as many voices as possible.' The news only adds to criticism of the president from the media, which protest the exclusion of reporters from the press pool. The White House Correspondents' Association condemned the decision as 'deeply troubling.' 'Government retaliation against news outlets based on the content of their reporting should concern all who value free speech and an independent media,' WHCA president Weijia Jiang, a CBS News correspondent, said in a statement. 'We strongly urge the White House to restore the Wall Street Journal to its previous position in the pool and aboard Air Force One for the President's upcoming trip to Scotland,' she added. The president is traveling to Scotland on Friday for a five-day visit to Turnberry and Aberdeen, where he has pristine golf courses. He will also meet with United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer to discuss a trade deal with the United States. Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch, calling the story 'false, malicious, and defamatory.' Trump is requesting a jury trial and is suing 'for damages, punitive damages, court costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, not to be less than $10 billion dollars.' But Trump's lawsuit may face difficulty as it has landed in the courtroom of Darrin Gayles, a judge appointed to the court by former President Barack Obama. The Trump administration removed the Associated Press from the traveling press pool in February because the media group refused to adopt Trump's executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America. The ban was part of a broader shift in press access, with the Trump administration centralizing control over the press pool - previously managed by the White House Correspondents' Association. AP access to restricted White House events remains blocked for now due to an appeals court's ruling, with a final legal outcome still pending.
Reuters
12 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court urged to block Mississippi law restricting children's social media use
July 21 (Reuters) - An internet trade association whose members include Facebook, YouTube and Snapchat asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to block a Mississippi law that imposes age-verification and parental-consent requirements on social media sites. Washington, D.C.-based NetChoice said in its filing that a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel improperly allowed the Mississippi law to take effect even though a judge had found the regulations likely violate, opens new tab constitutional free speech protections. The law requires minors to obtain parental consent to open accounts at certain kinds of digital service providers, and says regulated platforms must make 'commercially reasonable' efforts to verify users' ages. The state can pursue civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation as well as criminal penalties under Mississippi's deceptive trade practices law. NetChoice's emergency filing, opens new tab provides the first opportunity for the Supreme Court to consider a social media age-verification law. 'Just as the government can't force you to provide identification to read a newspaper, the same holds true when that news is available online," Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a statement. The Mississippi attorney general's office in a statement welcomed the 5th Circuit's order permitting the law to take effect and said it looked forward to the appellate court's full consideration of the case. Courts in Florida, Texas and five other states have preliminarily or permanently blocked similar measures, NetChoice said in its filing. Only Mississippi has been allowed to implement its rules. NetChoice, which sued to block the Mississippi law in 2024, said in Monday's Supreme Court filing that its members' social media platforms have already adopted extensive policies to moderate content for minors and provide parental controls. States increasingly have sought ways to mitigate the potentially harmful effects of social media on young people. Some big technology companies are separately battling lawsuits from U.S. states, school districts and individual users alleging social platforms have fueled mental health problems. The companies have denied any wrongdoing. U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden in Gulfport, Mississippi, last year blocked Mississippi from enforcing the restrictions on some NetChoice members. Ozerden issued a second order, opens new tab in June pausing the rules against those members, including Meta and its Instagram and Facebook platforms, Snapchat and YouTube. A Fifth Circuit appeals panel last week issued a one-sentence ruling that paused the lower court order, without explaining its reasoning. The case is NetChoice v. Fitch, U.S. Supreme Court, not yet assigned. For applicant: Scott Keller of Lehotsky Keller Cohn For respondent: No appearance yet Read more: Judge blocks Florida law banning social media accounts for children Court blocks California law on children's online safety Utah law restricting youth social media use blocked by judge Court blocks key part of California law on children's online safety
