Key Points
- Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel filed a lawsuit against Biden for blocking their merger, citing constitutional violations.
- The companies allege political interference in the CFIUS national security review process.
- Biden opposed the merger, emphasizing the need to keep U.S. Steel American-owned.
- A separate lawsuit targets Cleveland Cliffs and union leaders for anti-competitive behavior.
Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel have filed lawsuits against U.S. President Joe Biden, alleging constitutional violations and political interference in blocking their $14.9 billion merger through a flawed national security review. The companies seek to overturn the decision and secure a fresh, unbiased review process by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). They argue that Biden’s actions prejudiced the CFIUS review and deprived them of due process.
The merger, which faced political scrutiny ahead of the U.S. presidential election, drew opposition from Biden and his Republican challenger, Donald Trump. Both emphasized keeping U.S. Steel American-owned, despite Nippon Steel’s assurances to relocate its U.S. headquarters to Pittsburgh and honor existing labor agreements. The companies accuse Biden of catering to the United Steelworkers union to gain favor in Pennsylvania, a critical swing state.
Nippon Steel’s Vice Chair, Takahiro Mori, criticized the CFIUS process, claiming a lack of transparency and feedback during negotiations. The lawsuit also targets Attorney General Merrick Garland and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, citing a manipulated review process to align with Biden’s political agenda.
In addition, the companies have filed a separate lawsuit against Cleveland-Cliffs, its CEO Lourenco Goncalves, and union leader David McCall, alleging anti-competitive practices. They claim Cliffs orchestrated a campaign to monopolize the domestic steel market by undermining the merger.
While the White House defended the block as a matter of national security, critics view it as politically motivated. Courts, however, generally grant CFIUS broad discretion in defining security risks. The companies remain determined to challenge the decision and pursue damages for alleged collusion and unlawful practices.