Connect with us

News

Joe Biden set to voice concerns over Nippon Steel takeover of US Steel

Published

on

Joe Biden set to voice concerns over Nippon Steel takeover of US Steel

Joe Biden plans to intervene in Nippon Steel’s proposed purchase of US Steel, a move that could threaten the deal and anger Japan, one of Washington’s closest allies.

Biden will issue a statement expressing serious concern about the Japanese group’s proposed $14.9bn acquisition of the Pennsylvania-headquartered steelmaker before Prime Minister Fumio Kishida arrives for a state visit in Washington on April 10, according to six people familiar with the decision.

US officials and lawyers have drafted the statement and the White House has privately informed the Japanese government of the president’s decision, according to people familiar with the matter. US Steel’s shares fell more than 12 per cent after the Financial Times published details of Biden’s intentions.

The expression of concern will be interpreted as opposition to the takeover and marks the culmination of months of White House debate about how to respond to a deal that has sparked a bipartisan backlash in Washington against the sale of a US manufacturing icon to a foreign group.

Although US law gives the administration the power to block certain foreign acquisitions on national security grounds, Biden will not say outright that the deal should be blocked, according to people familiar with the matter.

Advertisement

Instead, they say he will issue similar comments to remarks made in December by White House national economic adviser Lael Brainard, who said the president believed the deal deserved “serious scrutiny”.

Pennsylvania is a crucial electoral swing state in this year’s presidential election between Biden and Donald Trump. Both men have courted union votes in the state and Trump has already lashed out against Nippon Steel‘s “horrible” deal to buy the Pittsburgh-based American producer.

The United Steelworkers union, also based in Pittsburgh, has opposed the takeover.

Nippon Steel announced the controversial acquisition in December, leading Biden to pick a side between a powerful union and its voters, and a critical American ally. The president has invested heavily in shoring up alliances, particularly with Japan.

The White House asked US ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel to make the problem go away, putting him in a tough position after he had publicly welcomed the deal as “historic”. Emanuel did not respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

One person familiar with the deliberations said it was “embarrassing” for an administration that talks about the importance of allies and particularly the US-Japan alliance to “send a signal of distrust regarding Japanese ownership of US companies” as Kishida prepares to visit.

“The president knows all this, but sadly it looks like election year politics will win out,” the person said.

In a joint statement following publication of the story, Nippon Steel and US Steel said they welcomed the administration’s scrutiny of the deal as an “objective and comprehensive review of this transaction will demonstrate that it strengthens US jobs, competition, and economic and national security”. 

The groups added that Nippon Steel had made clear there would be no job losses, plant closures or transfer of production. They also said they were in ongoing discussions with the United Steelworkers union.

The timing of Biden’s statement is significant because last week Nippon Steel filed its proposal with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (Cfius), the inter-agency panel that vets inbound investments for national security risks, according to two people familiar with the move. The company declined to confirm the Cfius filing.

Advertisement

“It is unprecedented for a president to make a substantive comment on a case that is pending before Cfius,” said Ivan Schlager, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis and one of the most prominent Cfius lawyers in the US.

“While Cfius is ordinarily immune to political pressure this case involves an iconic asset with unique capabilities coupled with an administration who has made protecting manufacturing and middle-class jobs the foundation of its foreign policy.”

The White House declined to comment on whether the president would intervene. The Japanese prime minister’s office also declined to comment.

News of Biden’s planned statement comes as he tours swing states such as Pennsylvania in a bid to shore up votes ahead of the election in November.

United Steelworkers president David McCall said last month that his union had “received personal assurances that Biden has our backs” in relation to the deal. Trump has also vowed to block the deal if he beats Biden in November.

Advertisement

Nippon Steel has hired US lobbying firm Akin Gump, focusing its energy to win the backing of the United Steelworkers.

But citing confidentiality reasons, the Japanese group was not in touch with the union before announcing the deal and it was only in late February that it signed a non-disclosure agreement with the group, which represents 850,000 US manufacturing workers. Experts in Washington said the company had made a serious mistake by not striking a deal with the union before announcing the deal.

Following talks with Nippon Steel last week, the United Steelworkers said the meeting yielded “no progress”. “We remain convinced that the company does not fully understand its obligations to steelworkers, retirees and our communities,” it said in a letter to its members.

Nippon Steel said in response that it would continue its talks with the union. “We provided the USW with specific commitments which we believe address each of the union’s concerns that have been raised,” it said.

A person with knowledge of Nippon Steel’s thinking said the company does not plan to give up its bid for US Steel even if Biden publicly expresses opposition to the takeover.

Advertisement

An executive told analysts in an earnings briefing last month the group did not expect any political intervention once a Cfius review had been launched.

Japan’s business community has been shocked by the strong reaction in Washington to the deal, especially since the US remains the most attractive mergers and acquisitions market for Japanese companies.

Nancy McLernon, head of the Global Business Alliance, a trade group that represents foreign multinationals in the US, said there was a “big risk” in blocking the acquisition on anything other than national security grounds. 

“It would have a material impact on the relationship with a critical ally. It’s worth noting that Japan is the largest foreign investor in the United States, directly employing nearly a million American workers. Blocking the deal under such pretence would certainly make for an awkward state dinner in April.”

Advertisement

News

Here’s What the New Virginia House Map Looks Like

Published

on

Here’s What the New Virginia House Map Looks Like

Virginians approved a new congressional map on Tuesday that would aggressively gerrymander the state in the Democrats’ favor, giving the party as many as four more U.S. House seats.

The new map draws eight safely Democratic districts and two competitive districts that lean Democratic, according to a New York Times analysis of 2024 presidential results. It leaves just one safe Republican seat, compared with the five seats the G.O.P. holds on the current map.

The proposed map was drawn by Democratic state legislators and approved by Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat. It eliminates three Republican-held seats in part by slicing the densely populated suburbs in Arlington and Fairfax Counties and reallocating their overwhelmingly Democratic voters into five congressional districts, some stretching more than a hundred miles into Republican areas.

Perhaps the most extreme new district is the Seventh, which begins at the Potomac River and stretches to the west and south in a manner that resembles a pair of lobster claws. Several well-known Virginia Democrats have already announced their candidacies and begun campaigning in the district.

Reid J. Epstein contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges

Published

on

Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche speaks as FBI Director Kash Patel listens during a news conference at the Justice Department on Tuesday in Washington.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

WASHINGTON — The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted Tuesday on federal fraud charges alleging it improperly raised millions of dollars to pay informants to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan and other extremist groups, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said.

The Justice Department alleges the civil rights group defrauded donors by using their money to fund the very extremism it claimed to be fighting, with payments of at least $3 million between 2014 and 2023 to people affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan, the United Klans of America, the National Socialist Party of America and other extremist groups.

“The SPLC was not dismantling these groups. It was instead manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred,” Blanche said.

Advertisement

The civil rights group faces charges including wire fraud, bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering in the case brought by the Justice Department in Alabama, where the organization is based.

The indictment came shortly after SPLC revealed the existence of a criminal investigation into its program to pay informants to infiltrate extremist groups and gather information on their activities. The group said the program was used to monitor threats of violence and the information was often shared with local and federal law enforcement.

SPLC CEO Bryan Fair said the organization “will vigorously defend ourselves, our staff, and our work.”

Blanche said the money was passed from the center through two different bank accounts before being loaded onto prepaid cards to give to the members of the extremist groups, which also included the National Socialist Movement and the Aryan Nations-affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club. The group never disclosed to donors details of the informant program, he said.

“They’re required to under the laws associated with a nonprofit to have certain transparency and honesty in what they’re telling donors they’re going to spend money on and what their mission statement is and what they’re raising money doing,” he said.

Advertisement

The indictment includes details on at least nine unnamed informants were paid by the SPLC through a secret program that prosecutors say began in the 1980s. Within the SPLC, they were known as field sources or “the Fs,” according to the indictment. One informant was paid more than $1 million between 2014 and 2023 while affiliated with the neo-Nazi National Alliance, the indictment said. Another was the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America.

The SPLC said the program was kept quiet to protect the safety of informants.

“When we began working with informants, we were living in the shadow of the height of the Civil Rights Movement, which had seen bombings at churches, state-sponsored violence against demonstrators, and the murders of activists that went unanswered by the justice system,” Fair said. “There is no question that what we learned from informants saved lives.”

The center has been targeted by Republicans

The SPLC, which is based in Montgomery, Alabama, was founded in 1971 and used civil litigation to fight white supremacist groups. The nonprofit has become a popular target among Republicans who see it as overly leftist and partisan.

The investigation could add to concerns that Trump’s Republican administration is using the Justice Department to go after conservative opponents and his critics. It follows a number of other investigations into Trump foes that have raised questions about whether the law enforcement agency has been turned into a political weapon.

Advertisement

The SPLC has faced intense criticism from conservatives, who have accused it of unfairly maligning right-wing organizations as extremist groups because of their viewpoints. The center regularly condemns Trump’s rhetoric and policies around voting rights, immigration and other issues.

The center came under fresh scrutiny after the assassination last year of conservative activist Charlie Kirk brought renewed attention to its characterization of the group that Kirk founded and led. The center included a section on that group, Turning Point USA, in a report titled “The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024” that described the group as “A Case Study of the Hard Right in 2024.”

FBI Director Kash Patel said last year that the agency was severing its relationship with the center, which had long provided law enforcement with research on hate crime and domestic extremism. Patel said the center had been turned into a “partisan smear machine,” and he accused it of defaming “mainstream Americans” with its “hate map” that documents alleged anti-government and hate groups inside the United States.

House Republicans hosted a hearing centered on the SPLC in December, saying it coordinated efforts with President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration “to target Christian and conservative Americans and deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech and free association.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger Stressed Pragmatism, But Politics Hound Her

Published

on

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger Stressed Pragmatism, But Politics Hound Her

On the night of her resounding win in last fall’s election for Virginia governor, Abigail Spanberger told her supporters that they had sent a message to the world. “Virginia,” she said in the opening lines of her victory speech, “chose pragmatism over partisanship.”

But even then it was clear that the first big issue of her term would be as partisan as it gets: a proposed amendment by her fellow Democrats to allow them to gerrymander the state’s 11 congressional districts.

The push to redraw the Virginia map was another salvo in a barrage of redistricting spurred by President Trump in a bid to keep Republicans in control of the House in this year’s midterm elections.

Virginians vote on Tuesday on whether to adopt the proposed map, and if the “Yes” vote wins, Democrats could end up with as many as 10 seats, up from the six they hold now. The redistricting battles of the last year would end up in something of a draw, with gains for Democrats in California and Virginia offsetting gains for Republicans in Texas, Missouri and North Carolina — unless Florida lawmakers decide in the coming weeks to draw a new, more Republican-friendly map.

Historically, redrawing of congressional maps has been done each decade after the U.S. census. But with Republicans holding such a slim majority in the House, Mr. Trump began by pressing Texas to redraw its maps, touching off the wave of gerrymandering

Advertisement

Virginia Democratic legislators rolled out their redistricting plan last October, setting in motion the state’s lengthy amendment process just as the campaign for governor was entering its final weeks. At the time, Ms. Spanberger expressed support for the plan, though she emphasized that its passage was up to the legislature and then to the voters.

But even if her formal role in the process was relatively minor — Ms. Spanberger signed the bill setting the date for the referendum — the politics of the effort has loomed over the first few months of her term. Her support for the amendment has drawn accusations of hypocrisy from the right and complaints from some on the left that she has not been outspoken enough in her advocacy.

“There’s always going to be somebody who wants me to do something differently,” the governor said in an interview on Saturday at a rally in support of the amendment outside a home in Northern Virginia. “I will always make someone unhappy, and I will always make someone happy.”

Ms. Spanberger, a former C.I.A. officer and three-term congresswoman, won a 15-point victory in 2025 after running on a campaign focused on pocketbook issues. Centrism has been her political brand since she was first elected to the House in 2018, flipping a district that had long leaned to the right.

Now Republicans campaigning against the amendment have made Ms. Spanberger a prime target, deriding her as “Governor Bait-and-Switch” and highlighting an interview in August 2025 in which she said she had “no plans to redistrict Virginia.”

Advertisement

“This was the perfect opportunity for her to show that she is the middle-of-the-road suburban mom that she portrayed herself as,” said Glen Sturtevant, a Republican state senator. He dismissed the notion that this was an effort that had been thrust upon her, pointing out that she had signed the bill setting the date for the referendum. “She is certainly an active participant in this whole process,” he said.

Republicans have eagerly highlighted recent polls suggesting that Ms. Spanberger’s honeymoon is over, though because governors in Virginia cannot serve two consecutive terms, public approval is less of a pressure point than it might be elsewhere. Some of her political adversaries have tied the drop in her ratings to her involvement in the campaign for the amendment.

But a number of factors are at play in those sagging poll numbers. Some on the right are irked by her support of standard Democratic priorities like gun control measures and limits to cooperation with federal immigration agents.

But some of the most vociferous criticism of her from Republicans, up to and including the president, has been for a host of proposed taxes and tax hikes in the legislature — on everything from dog grooming to dry cleaning — that she in fact had nothing do with. Most of those taxes, which were floated by various lawmakers, never even came up for a vote.

But Ms. Spanberger did not publicly hit back against these attacks until recent days, a delay that some Democrats say was costly.

Advertisement

“She let other people define her,” said Scott Surovell, the State Senate majority leader.

Mr. Surovell’s frustration echoed a growing discontent among Democrats about the governor’s recent moves. For all the Republican criticism of her, some operatives and lawmakers said, Ms. Spanberger has not been aggressive enough in pushing for Democratic priorities, redistricting among them.

This criticism broke out into the open in recent days, after the governor made scores of amendments to bills that had passed the General Assembly. Some lawmakers and Democratic allies accused her of unexpectedly diluting long-sought goals like expanded public sector unions and a legal retail marketplace for cannabis.

“Our party base is looking for us to stand up and fight and advocate and deliver,” said Mr. Surovell, who represents a solidly Democratic district in Northern Virginia. “It’s hard to deliver when you’re standing in the middle of the road.”

In the interview, Ms. Spanberger insisted that she supported the purpose of many of the bills but had to make amendments to ensure that her administration could implement them.

Advertisement

And she said she had been explicit in her support of the redistricting effort, appearing in statewide TV ads encouraging people to vote “Yes” even as an anti-amendment campaign has sent out mailers suggesting that the governor opposes the effort.

But she said she had never been in a position to barnstorm the state as Gov. Gavin Newsom did in the months leading up to the redistricting referendum that passed in California. Mr. Newsom is a second-term governor in a much bluer state, she said, while she only recently took office and has been “in the crush of their legislative session,” with hundreds of bills to read and examine in a short period.

“Those who may not be focused on the governing and only on the politics, they’re going to want me to do politics 100 percent of the time,” she said. “And for people who care about the governing and not the politics, they’re going to want me to do governing 100 percent of the time.”

Her preference, as she has often made apparent, is for the governing over the politicking. But she acknowledged that it is all part of the job.

Asked if she lamented that the highest-profile issue of her term so far was such a polarizing matter, rather than the cost-of-living policies she emphasized on the campaign trail, she said: “Any person in elected office wants to talk about the thing they want to talk about all the time, and that’s it. So I won’t say ‘No’ to that question.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending