The ongoing battle between the United Steelworkers union and Japan’s Nippon Steel Corp. has escalated as the two sides prepare for a pivotal decision from the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States regarding Nippon Steel’s proposed acquisition of U.S. Steel. The decision, which is expected to come in late December, will examine the national security implications of the buyout. This review has become a central issue, not just for the companies involved, but also for U.S. labor unions and government bodies that monitor foreign investments in critical industries. The heated debate over the acquisition reveals much about the complex intersection of national security, corporate strategy, and workers’ rights.
Nippon Steel, Japan's largest steel manufacturer, has made clear its intentions to take over U.S. Steel, one of the oldest and most prominent steel companies in the United States. However, the USW has firmly opposed the deal, arguing that such a move could endanger U.S. jobs and undermine national security. At the heart of the USW’s concerns is the claim that Nippon Steel would ship half-finished steel products from Japan to the U.S., where they would be completed at U.S. Steel facilities. The union argues that this would lead to significant job losses, as workers at U.S. Steel could be displaced or have their jobs outsourced. The union also raises alarms about the potential weakening of U.S. production capacity in critical industries.
In a press conference held on November 7, Takahiro Mori, the vice chairman of Nippon Steel, expressed confidence that the company’s takeover bid would be approved by CFIUS before the U.S. presidential transition in January. His optimism comes amid increasing pressure from the U.S. political sphere, especially from then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, who vowed to block the acquisition if he were elected. Trump’s statements during the campaign underscored the broader political sensitivity surrounding foreign investments in U.S. industries, especially when they are seen as vital to the country’s economic and military infrastructure.
A week later, on November 14, the USW issued a statement under the leadership of President David McCall, accusing Nippon Steel of spreading false promises about the impact of the takeover. The USW maintained that allowing a foreign company to control U.S. Steel could jeopardize national security by shifting manufacturing away from American hands. The union called for CFIUS and the U.S. president to reject the acquisition, emphasizing that the takeover could weaken U.S. steel production capacity and put thousands of American jobs at risk. The union’s aggressive stance signals its deep concern over the broader implications of foreign ownership in key industries.
In response to these claims, Nippon Steel sought to clarify its position, releasing a letter on November 18 from Takahiro Mori himself. The letter countered the union’s allegations, stating that no half-finished products would be shipped from Japan to the U.S. for completion. Mori reassured U.S. Steel workers that their jobs, benefits, and pensions would be fully protected under the proposed acquisition. The letter also highlighted Nippon Steel’s commitment to strengthening U.S. national security by enhancing the operational capabilities of U.S. Steel and contributing to the stability of the U.S. steel industry. Despite this, Mori’s efforts to engage directly with McCall and resolve the dispute did not appear to yield a response as of November 19, leaving the situation tense and unresolved.
The USW’s resistance to the deal underscores the broader concerns of labor unions, which fear the erosion of workers' rights and job security in the face of foreign takeovers. Historically, unions have been skeptical of such acquisitions, seeing them as potential vehicles for cost-cutting measures that disproportionately affect American workers. In this case, the USW argues that a foreign entity like Nippon Steel, with no direct allegiance to American labor, could make decisions that prioritize profits over the well-being of U.S. workers.
Meanwhile, the CFIUS is facing its own challenge as it reviews the national security risks posed by the potential acquisition. The committee’s review is centered around assessing whether the deal could impact critical industries or infrastructure, particularly those related to defense and the U.S. economy. This review process has been complicated by the upcoming U.S. presidential election, with CFIUS opting to extend the decision deadline to avoid it becoming entangled in the political debate. The delay gives both Nippon Steel and the USW more time to make their respective cases but also intensifies the stakes for both sides.
While the USW’s opposition to the deal remains firm, the final decision on whether to approve Nippon Steel’s acquisition will depend largely on the findings of the CFIUS review and any additional investigations by the U.S. Justice Department into potential anti-trust violations. The union’s statement that a lack of understanding with Nippon Steel would not directly affect CFIUS or Justice Department decisions reflects the reality that, ultimately, the U.S. government will base its decision on legal and national security considerations, rather than union concerns alone. Still, the ongoing dispute highlights the complex dynamics between foreign investment, national security, and labor interests, setting the stage for what promises to be a significant moment in U.S. corporate and economic policy.
