Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel have filed lawsuits against the Biden-Harris administration, accusing it of unlawfully blocking a nearly $15 billion acquisition deal. The Japanese steel giant’s proposed purchase of the American steelmaker was halted by the administration, citing national security concerns. However, the companies argue that the decision not only jeopardizes U.S. Steel’s future but also harms national security and American workers.
On Monday, the companies filed their case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The lawsuit seeks to overturn the decision by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which claimed the transaction posed risks to national security. Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel vehemently disagree, asserting that the deal would strengthen America’s steel industry rather than weaken it.
“From the outset, we engaged in good faith to demonstrate how this acquisition would enhance U.S. national security,” the companies said in a joint statement. They emphasized the potential to “revitalize communities reliant on American steel, bolster the domestic supply chain, and counter threats from China.”
The statement also highlighted Nippon Steel’s commitment to investing in U.S. Steel facilities, calling itself the only partner both willing and capable of making the necessary modernizations.
In addition to suing the Biden administration, Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel have launched a second lawsuit targeting Cleveland-Cliffs, its CEO Lourenco Goncalves, and United Steelworkers President David McCall. The companies allege illegal coordination to undermine the acquisition, accusing the parties of trying to block the deal and sabotage U.S. Steel’s competitiveness.
U.S. Steel CEO David Burritt warned that blocking the Nippon deal could lead to severe consequences, including mill closures. “If this acquisition doesn’t go through, we may have to shutter steel mills in Pennsylvania’s Monongahela Valley and Gary, Indiana,” Burritt told Fox Business. The proposed acquisition included a $2.7 billion investment by Nippon Steel to modernize these facilities, a move that could have boosted their global competitiveness.
Burritt criticized the administration, accusing it of failing to follow due process. “The government has failed our workers, communities, and our country. They’ve emboldened China and let down one of America’s strongest allies in Asia,” he said. “We did everything right as a company with Nippon, and we’re going to fight to right this wrong.”
The companies’ press release on Monday accused the Biden administration of using undue influence to advance political goals. They claimed that the decision to block the deal was driven more by political motivations than by legitimate security concerns. The lawsuit seeks to challenge what they see as an overreach of government authority in determining the fate of private sector deals.
The administration’s national security argument centers on concerns about foreign ownership of critical U.S. industries. However, Nippon Steel committed to preserving U.S. Steel’s name, brand, and headquarters while guaranteeing no layoffs until at least 2026. The Japanese company’s offer also followed U.S. Steel’s rejection of a $7 billion buyout bid from Cleveland-Cliffs in 2023, adding fuel to the contentious debate.
The blocked deal has reignited discussions about the role of foreign investments in critical industries like steel. While the Biden administration’s stance focuses on national security, critics argue it risks stifling economic growth and innovation. With a new Trump administration pledging to block the deal as well, Nippon and U.S. Steel’s legal battle is likely to be an uphill fight.
Experts say the lawsuits could set a significant precedent for foreign investment policies in the U.S. and the steel industry’s future. Whether the courts side with Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel or uphold the administration’s decision, the outcome will have far-reaching implications for American manufacturing, global trade partnerships, and national security policy.
As the case unfolds, it highlights the tension between economic interests and security concerns—and raises critical questions about how the U.S. balances these priorities in a rapidly evolving global landscape.
