Nippon Steel president says suing US government is an option

Nippon Steel's proposed $14.9 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel has been blocked by U.S. President Joe Biden, citing national security concerns after a year-long review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). The decision marks the conclusion of a contentious debate over foreign investment in a critical American industry.

Tadashi Imai, President of Nippon Steel, criticized the U.S. government's handling of the review process, stating it lacked fairness and transparency. He mentioned that the company is considering legal action against the U.S. government as one of its "important options." Imai emphasized that Nippon Steel is "entitled to a proper review" and hinted that the company will soon announce its countermeasures to the decision.

The rejection of the deal leaves U.S. Steel in a precarious financial position. The company had been counting on nearly $3 billion in investment from Nippon Steel to stabilize its operations. Without this capital, U.S. Steel has warned that it may need to idle critical mills, potentially affecting jobs and production.

The proposed acquisition faced strong opposition in the United States, particularly from both Biden and former President Donald Trump. Both leaders argued that U.S. Steel should remain American-owned, emphasizing the importance of protecting domestic industries and appealing to union workers, particularly in Pennsylvania, where the company is headquartered.

The decision also reflects heightened scrutiny of foreign investment in sectors deemed vital to U.S. national security. Steel production is considered a strategic industry, essential for defense and infrastructure.

The move underscores the increasing tension between economic globalization and national security concerns. It highlights how governments are prioritizing domestic control of key industries, particularly in an era of rising geopolitical competition and economic nationalism.

If Nippon Steel proceeds with a lawsuit, it could challenge the limits of the U.S. government's authority to block foreign investments on national security grounds. This case could set a precedent for future foreign acquisitions in the United States.