Connect with us

Politics

U.S. Steel and Nippon Sue Biden Over Decision to Block Deal

Published

on

U.S. Steel and Nippon Sue Biden Over Decision to Block Deal

U.S. Steel and Japan’s Nippon Steel sued the United States government on Monday in a last-ditch attempt to revive their attempted merger after President Biden blocked it last week on the basis that the transaction posed a threat to national security.

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Washington, accused Mr. Biden and other senior administration officials of corrupting the review process for political gain and of harming steel workers and the American steel industry by blocking the deal under false national security pretenses.

Mr. Biden moved to block the merger after a government panel charged with reviewing foreign investments failed to reach a decision about whether the deal should proceed. In a statement on Friday, Mr. Biden said that he was acting to ensure that the U.S. maintains a strong domestically owned and operated steel industry. The president had previously vowed to ensure that U.S. Steel remained American-owned.

The companies are asking for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to conduct a new review of the deal.

The companies also filed a separate lawsuit against Cleveland-Cliffs, an American steel company that previously tried to buy U.S. Steel but was rebuffed, along with Lourenco Goncalves, chief executive of Cleveland-Cliffs, and David McCall, international president of the powerful union United Steelworkers. The lawsuit alleged that Cleveland-Cliffs and the head of the union illegally colluded to undermine the proposed deal between U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel.

Advertisement

The legal actions represented a long-shot maneuver by the companies to preserve a deal that was ensnared in election year politics. Presidents have broad authority to determine what constitutes a national security threat, and no transaction blocked under those powers has ever been overturned by the courts.

However, Mr. Biden’s move to terminate Nippon’s $14 billion bid for U.S. Steel raised questions about whether those powers were being abused, given that Japan is a close ally of the United States. In the rare cases where deals have been blocked, they usually involved companies with ties to U.S. adversaries such as China.

“Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel are disappointed to see such a clear and improper exploitation of the country’s national security apparatus in an effort to help win an election and repay political favors,” the companies said in a statement on Monday. “Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel are entitled to a fair process and have been left with no choice but to challenge the decision and the process leading to it in court.”

David Burritt, the chief executive of U.S. Steel, assailed Mr. Biden on Monday, suggesting that the president blocked the deal because he “owed the union boss a favor in exchange for an endorsement.”

“The government failed us,” Mr. Burritt said in an interview on the Fox Business Network on Monday. “They failed because they didn’t follow the process, and we are going to right that wrong.”

Advertisement

The White House defended Mr. Biden’s decision on Monday, pointing to the threats to the U.S. steel industry that the committee highlighted.

“A committee of national security and trade experts determined this acquisition would create risk for American national security,” said Robyn Patterson, a White House spokeswoman. “President Biden will never hesitate to protect the security of this nation, its infrastructure, and the resilience of its supply chains.”

The lawsuit against the Biden administration was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The suit also names Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, who chairs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and Merrick Garland, the attorney general.

The companies argue that because Mr. Biden publicly said last March that he did not want the deal to happen, the national security review conducted by the panel, known as CFIUS, was tainted by politics and “designed to reach a predetermined result.” They also claimed that the panel had failed to engage with the companies when they proposed measures to mitigate any national security concerns.

After a yearlong review process, the interagency committee — ultimately divided on the risks posed by the transaction — left the decision to Mr. Biden, who had said that U.S. Steel should remain American-owned and -operated.

Advertisement

“It is my solemn responsibility as president to ensure that, now and long into the future, America has a strong domestically owned and operated steel industry that can continue to power our national sources of strength at home and abroad,” Mr. Biden said in a statement last Friday morning. “And it is a fulfillment of that responsibility to block foreign ownership of this vital American company.”

The committee was created in the 1970s to screen international mergers and acquisitions for national security concerns. Over the years the definition of national security has broadened, and in many cases the work of the panel has been consumed by political considerations, often with a focus on keeping Chinese investments out of America.

Since 1990, eight other foreign transactions have been blocked by presidents, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The companies are hopeful that a 2012 case involving a Chinese-owned company that tried to buy American wind-farm projects could provide an opening for more scrutiny of how CFIUS handled the steel deal. The Obama administration blocked that deal, but after the company filed a lawsuit an appeals court agreed that the company, Ralls Corporation, had a right to see and rebut certain evidence that was used to block the transaction.

The Obama administration and the company ultimately settled the lawsuit.

Advertisement

The legal challenge by U.S. Steel and Nippon is on different grounds than that case. If successful, this suit would herald sweeping changes to the authority of the U.S. government to vet foreign transactions.

While the Biden administration’s move won praise from the steelworkers union, it drew scorn from many economists and legal experts who warned that the president’s decision would deter foreign investment.

“What’s infuriating is that Biden claimed to stand for the rule of law and for our international alliances,” said John Kabealo, a Washington-based lawyer who specializes in cross-border transactions. “He told voters ad nauseam that Trump was xenophobic and self-dealing, and now he slaps one of our most important allies in the face on the thinnest of pretenses.”

Although President-elect Donald J. Trump has previously said that he would block the Nippon bid, the companies have remained hopeful that he might reconsider that position if given the opportunity to help broker a satisfactory deal.

But on Monday, Mr. Trump made clear that he still does not want U.S. Steel to be sold.

Advertisement

“Why would they want to sell U.S. Steel now when Tariffs will make it a much more profitable and valuable company? Mr. Trump wrote on social media. “Wouldn’t it be nice to have U.S. Steel, once the greatest company in the World, lead the charge toward greatness again?”

Politics

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Published

on

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

new video loaded: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

transcript

transcript

Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

“The yeas are 47. The nays are 53. The motion to discharge is not approved.” “President Trump decided to attack Iran. That decision was profound, deliberate and correct. The president understands the weight of war.” “Why is Donald Trump hellbent on making history repeat itself? Why is he plunging America headfirst into a war that Americans do not want, and which he cannot even explain? The American people deserve a say, and that is what our resolution is about.”

Advertisement
Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

By Shawn Paik

March 5, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

Published

on

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE: Newly obtained financial statements shed light on claims that former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s company made millions from a DHS advertising campaign.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem faced intense questioning during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., specifically called out the agency for contracting a public relations firm headed by McLaughlin’s husband, Benjamin Yoho.

“I have personally reviewed the allegations against Ms. McLaughlin, and I find them to be baseless,” DHS General Counsel James Percival told Fox News Digital. “Nothing illegal or unethical occurred with respect to these contracts. Ms. McLaughlin was not involved in selecting any subcontractors.

“She is, however, a superstar in the public affairs world, so I am not surprised that she married a successful businessman whose services were attractive to these outside firms.”

Advertisement

Newly obtained financial statements address allegations that former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s firm improperly profited from a multimillion-dollar DHS ad campaign. Lawmakers pressed Secretary Kristi Noem over the contracts during a heated Senate hearing. (Jack Gruber/USA Today)

Kennedy alleged that Yoho’s firm, The Strategy Group, “got most of the money” out of what the Louisiana Republican senator says was $220 million in “television advertisements that feature [Noem] prominently.”

“I’m sorry,” Kennedy said. “Safe America Media was a company formed 11 days before you picked them. And that the Strategy Group got most of the money. And the head of that is married to your former spokesperson.”

“It’s just hard for me to believe knowing the president as I do, that you said, ‘Mr. President, here’s some ads I’ve cut, and I’m going to spend $220 million running them,’ that he would have agreed to that,” Kennedy explained. “I don’t think Russ Vought at OMB [Office of Management and Budget] would have agreed to that.”

‘YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!’: PROTESTER DRAGGED FROM KRISTI NOEM’S SENATE HEARING

Advertisement

Senate scrutiny intensified over a DHS advertising campaign after Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., questioned whether a firm linked to McLaughlin’s husband benefited unfairly. DHS officials and the company deny any wrongdoing or multimillion-dollar profits. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The Strategy Group is a conservative advertising agency for which Yoho serves as CEO.

Figures obtained by Fox News Digital show a slightly lesser total advertising expenditure of approximately $185 million, with a total of roughly $146.5 million going to a campaign called “Save America.”

However, of the total that went to “Save America,” roughly $348,000 went to production costs, while the remaining $142 million went to “media buys.”

Sources at DHS say that media buys are the cost of actually buying the ads themselves, whether purchased from social media or for a TV ad.

Advertisement

Kennedy also alleged that the bidding process for the contracts never took place and that Safe America Media’s recent founding was a cause for concern and collusion between McLaughlin and her husband’s business. 

WATCH THE MOST VIRAL MOMENTS AS KRISTI NOEM’S HEARING GOES OFF THE RAILS

Debate over DHS’ “Save America” ad campaign intensified as senators challenged its costs and contractor ties, even as agency officials touted the initiative as a historic success in promoting self-deportation. (Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)

“Yes they did,” Noem responded during the hearing. “They went out to a competitive bid, and career officials at the department chose who would do those advertising commercials.”

The Strategy Group posted to X Tuesday that it never had a contract with the department. While it did receive several hundred thousand dollars for production costs associated with the advertising campaigns, The Strategy Group never made millions.

Advertisement

“The Strategy Group has never had a contract with DHS,” the post said. “We had a subcontract with Safe America [Media] for limited production services. Safe America paid us $226,137.17 total for 5 film shoots, 45 produced video advertisements and 6 produced radio advertisements.

DHS SPOKESWOMAN TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN TO LEAVE TRUMP ADMIN, SOURCE CONFIRMS

Critics raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in a high-dollar DHS advertising effort, but department representatives say McLaughlin recused herself and that subcontracting decisions were made independently. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“If you’re going to try to question our integrity, bring actual evidence — we did,” the post concluded.

Because these ads were purchased using public funds, all contract totals are publicly available. 

Advertisement

Lauren Bis, who took up the role of assistant secretary once McLaughlin left office, told Fox News Digital Tuesday that scrutiny from Republicans and Democrats over the advertising spending was unjustified because the campaigns resulted in “the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history.”

“Sanctuary politicians are attacking this ad campaign because it has been successful in CLOSING our borders and getting more than 2.2 million illegal aliens to LEAVE the U.S.,” Bis said. 

“The DHS domestic and international ad campaign was the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history. The results speak for themselves: 2.2 million illegal aliens self-deported, and we now have the most secure border in American history.”

KRISTI NOEM TO FACE SENATE GRILLING OVER MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTINGS AS DHS SHUTDOWN HITS WEEK 3

The Trump administration reaffirmed that all illegal immigrants are eligible for deportations as they focus on arresting violent criminals first.  (Raquel Natalicchio/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Bis also compared the cost of arresting and deporting an illegal migrant to that of the minimal cost of an illegal migrant self-deporting. The department says the advertising campaign played a key role in marketing self-deportation.

A spokesperson at DHS also told Fox News Digital that contractors decide who they hire, fulfilling the terms of a contract, not the department itself. 

“By law, DHS cannot and does not determine, control or weigh in on who contractors hire or use to fulfill the terms of the contract,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox. “Those decisions are made by the contractor alone. We have only become aware of these companies because of this inquiry and did not hire those companies.”

The spokesperson also noted that McLaughlin “recused herself” from interactions with subcontractors to avoid “any perceived appearance of impropriety.”

“Upon hearing who the subcontractors were for production of the ad, Ms. McLaughlin recused herself from any interaction or engagement with any subcontractors to avoid any perceived appearance of impropriety,” the spokesperson continued. “DHS Office of Public Affairs is the program officer. Ms. McLaughlin oversees the DHS Office of Public Affairs, which is simply the vehicle for this contract.”

Advertisement

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem takes her seat as she arrives to testify during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

McLaughlin told Fox News Digital the criticism of her and her family by senators at the hearing is a matter of public manipulation.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“This is yet another example of politicians intentionally trying to dupe and manipulate the public to try to manufacture division and anger,” McLaughlin told Fox News Digital. “The ad spend and contracts are a matter of public record, and the process was done by the book.

“These politicians would rather smear private citizens and American small businesses than do any basic research.”

Advertisement

Fox News Digital’s Alexandra Koch contributed to this report.

Related Article

DHS defends ad blitz amid Senate scrutiny, says campaign drove 2.2M self-deportations and saved taxpayers $39B
Continue Reading

Politics

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Published

on

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Senate Republicans blocked a war powers resolution Wednesday designed to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran, as the Trump administration accelerates its military campaign in a conflict that has killed hundreds, including at least six American service members.

The motion failed in a vote of 47-53.

In addition to pulling out military resources from the Middle East, the measure — introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — would have required Congress’ explicit approval before future engagement with Iran, a power granted to the legislative branch in the Constitution.

The House, where Republicans also hold an advantage, is scheduled to weigh in on a similar measure Thursday. Even if both Democratic-led measures were to succeed, President Trump was widely expected to veto the legislation.

“We are doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly,” President Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday afternoon. The president, who has come under scrutiny for offering shifting explanations on the war’s endgame, said that if he was asked to scale the American military operation from one to 10, he would rate it a 15.

Advertisement

Democrats dispute that Trump possesses the authority to wage the ongoing operation in Iran without explicit congressional approval.

Acknowledging the measure was unlikely to succeed, they framed the vote as a strategy to force lawmakers to put their support for or opposition to the war on record.

“Today every senator — every single one — will pick a side,” Schumer said. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East, or stand with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and most of his Republican colleagues have maintained that the president carried out a “pre-emptive” and “defensive” strike in Iran, giving him full authority to continue unilateral military operations.

Republicans saw the vote as the “last roadblock” stopping Trump from carrying out his mission against the Islamic Republic.

Advertisement

“I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities and operations that are currently underway there. There are a lot of controversy and questions around the war powers act, but I think the president is acting in the best interest of the nation and our national security interests,” Thune said at a news conference.

Senators largely held to party loyalties, with the exception of Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who broke ranks to support the measure, and Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman, who opposed it.

The vote comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war against Iran is “accelerating,” with American and Israeli forces expanding air operations into Iranian territory. He pointed to evidence released by U.S. Central Command of a submarine strike on an Iranian warship, and also lauded other strikes throughout the region as civilian casualties in Iran surpassed 1,000 on the fourth day of the conflict, according to rights groups.

“We’re going to continue to do well,” Trump said Wednesday. “We have the greatest military in the world by far and that was a tremendous threat to us for many years. Forty-seven years they’ve been killing our people and killing people all over the world, and we have great support.”

Republicans blocked a similar war powers vote in January after the president ordered U.S. special forces to capture and extradite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas on drug trafficking charges.

Advertisement

GOP leaders argued that the outcome of that mission equated to a quick success in the Middle East, despite an uncertain timeline from the Department of Defense.

In the House, lawmakers will vote on a separate war powers effort Thursday. That bill is led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the two lawmakers who authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“Instead of sending billions overseas, we need to invest in jobs, healthcare, and education here,” Khanna said on X.

In addition to that proposal, moderate Democrats in the House have introduced a separate resolution that would give the administration a 30-day window to justify continued hostilities in the Middle East before requiring a formal declaration of war or authorization from Congress.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending