NoneTrump vows to block Japanese steelmaker from buying US Steel, pledges tax incentives and tariffsNicaragua: Ortega and wife to assume absolute power after changes approved
Tech review: Earbuds and phones for those on your holiday list
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump is underscoring his intention to block the purchase of U.S. Steel by Japanese steelmaker Nippon Steel Corp. , and he's pledging to use tax incentives and tariffs to strengthen the iconic American steelmaker. Trump had vowed early in the presidential campaign that he would “instantaneously” block the deal, and he reiterated that sentiment in a post on his Truth Social platform on Monday night. “I am totally against the once great and powerful U.S. Steel being bought by a foreign company” and will use tax incentives and tariffs to make U.S. Steel “Strong and Great Again, and it will happen FAST!” he wrote. “As President," he continued, "I will block this deal from happening. Buyer Beware!!!” President Joe Biden , like Trump, also opposes Nippon Steel's purchase of Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel. Biden’s White House in September said that it had yet to see a report from the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States , which was reviewing the transaction for national security concerns. The committee, which is chaired by the treasury secretary and includes other Cabinet members, can recommend that the president block a transaction, and federal law gives the president that power. Ahead of the November election, the proposed merger carried political importance in Pennsylvania, a critical swing state that Trump eventually won. Biden publicly sided with the United Steelworkers, the labor union, in seeking to reject the deal. When he announced his opposition in a March statement, Biden said: “U.S. Steel has been an iconic American steel company for more than a century, and it is vital for it to remain an American steel company that is domestically owned and operated.” Nippon Steel has said it is the only company that can make the necessary investment in U.S. Steel's factories and strengthen the American steel industry. Both Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel on Tuesday released statements in support of the acquisition. "This transaction should be approved on its merits. The benefits are overwhelmingly clear. Our communities, customers, investors, and employees strongly support this transaction, and we will continue to advocate for them and adherence to the rule of law," U.S. Steel said. The deal follows a long stretch of protectionist U.S. tariffs that analysts say has helped reinvigorate domestic steel, including U.S. Steel. U.S. Steel's shareholders have approved the deal, but the United Steelworkers oppose it. In a statement Tuesday, the union said the deal carries “serious long-term implications for U.S. economic and national security.” “It’s clear that President Trump understands the vital role a strong domestic steel industry plays in our national security, as well as the importance of the jobs and communities the industry supports," the union said. Story continues below video The deal has drawn bipartisan opposition in the U.S. Senate, including from the incoming vice president, Republican Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, although the federal government's objections to the deal have drawn criticism that the opposition is political. Some U.S. Steel workers would prefer Nippon Steel acquire the company, given that it appears to have a better financial balance sheet than another potential buyer, Cleveland-Cliffs. U.S. Steel “provided a very, very good life for our families for a lot of years,” said Jack Maskil, a vice president at the Steelworkers local branch in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania. “And we feel that with the Nippon deal that a lot more families for futures to come will be able to share the same.” West Mifflin Mayor Chris Kelly said he met with Nippon Steel executives and found himself satisfied by their commitments. Located southeast of Pittsburgh, West Mifflin is home to U.S. Steel's Mon Valley Works–Irvin Plant. “There’s no question in my mind that it’s the best deal moving forward,” Kelly said at a panel hosted on Tuesday by the conservative think tank Hudson Institute, where Maskil was also speaking. The Biden administration committee vetting the merger is scheduled later this month to decide on the acquisition or possibly extend the ongoing review. William Chou, a deputy director at the Hudson Institute specializing in relations with Japan, said that "President-elect Trump's view on the deal are important." But given the upcoming deadline, “It's up to President Biden to recognize how this deal will advance the interests of future generations of U.S. Steel union steelworkers.” Trump’s statement came two weeks after Nippon Steel’s vice chairman, Takahiro Mori, visited Pittsburgh and Washington to meet with lawmakers, local officials and workers in an ongoing persuasion campaign. That campaign has included Nippon Steel's promises to boost its capital commitments beyond the original deal and, more recently, a pledge that it won’t import steel slabs that would compete with U.S. Steel’s blast furnaces. As part of its proposed $14.9 billion purchase of U.S. Steel, Nippon Steel also pledged to invest at least $1.4 billion in USW-represented facilities, not to conduct layoffs or plant closings during the term of the basic labor agreement, and to protect the best interests of U.S. Steel in trade matters. Boak reported from Washington.
President-elect Donald Trump’s lawyers urge judge to toss his hush money convictionNone
Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday said it will wade into a case over whether California can set its own vehicle emissions standards under a scheme laid out in the Clean Air Act. The case involves a section of the law that preempts states from setting their own emissions standards for new vehicles. But the act exempts any state that had rules in place before March 1966, just after the law was amended to regulate automobile emissions, that are "at least as protective of public health and welfare" as the federal requirements. California was the only state that regulated vehicle emissions before 1966, and therefore is the only state eligible for a waiver. In order to obtain a waiver, California must show that it needs its own emission standards "to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions." The Clean Air Act also allows other states to adopt California's vehicle emissions standards. Since the Clean Air Act was enacted, the EPA has granted California more than 75 waivers for its vehicle emissions program. In 1993, the agency granted a waiver for the state's zero emission vehicle standards. It did so again in 2019 for California's first set of greenhouse-gas emissions standards. In 2012, California put in place the Advanced Clean Car standards, which aimed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and other pollutants by increasing requirements for zero- and low-emission vehicle sales in the state for model years 2015 through 2025. The standards govern all new passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty vehicles. The EPA issued a waiver to California for those regulations in 2013, and car manufacturers started working to comply with the new emissions standards. But the agency revoked the waiver as to the zero-emissions and greenhouse gas requirements during the Trump administration in 2019. In 2022, under President Biden, it was reinstated again. The EPA said at the time that California is "particularly impacted" by climate change, citing wildfires, heat waves, floods and droughts. These climate change impacts are "compelling and extraordinary conditions," the standard for a waiver under the Clean Air Act, the agency said. Several big automakers, including Volvo, Stellantis, Ford, Volkswagen, BMW and Honda, have all agreed to comply with California's more stringent vehicle standards. A group of 17 states, led by Ohio, and fuel companies asked the federal appeals court in Washington to review the EPA's reinstatement of the 2013 waiver. The states argued the waiver provision in the Clean Air Act violates the Constitution by treating California differently from the other states, while the fuel producers said they are harmed by California's requirements because they depress the demand for their product by requiring vehicle manufacturers to sell automobiles that use less or no liquid gas. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with the EPA in April. As to the states, the court found that Congress has been granted the authority to regulate interstate commerce, including vehicle emissions, and it was the legislative body that laid out the Clean Air Act's preemption and waiver scheme. The three-judge panel also said the fuel producers did not have the legal right to sue. "The nature and extent of equality between the states has been a central debate throughout our country's history, from the founding to the admission of new states and beyond," D.C. Circuit said in an unsigned opinion . "But state petitioners point us to no meaningful support for their novel request to apply the equal sovereignty principle as a categorical limit on Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce." Both the companies and the states appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the D.C. Circuit's decision is incompatible with the Constitution because Congress doesn't have the power to elevate a single state above the other 49. The Supreme Court said Friday it would review only whether fuel producers can point to the waiver's effect on automakers to show they have standing to sue. The justices declined to review whether the EPA's waiver for California is unlawful. California and the Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to turn down the case and uphold the Clean Air Act's waiver provision. The dispute is one of several to land before the Supreme Court in recent years involving the Clean Air Act and efforts to tackle air pollution. In June, the Supreme Court blocked the agency's so-called "good neighbor" plan, which aims to curb air pollution and address harmful smog. Two years earlier, in the summer of 2022, the high court found Congress didn't grant the EPA the authority under the Clean Air Act to set emissions caps based on the generation-shifting approach taken through the Clean Power Plan rule. But in cases that have arrived before the Supreme Court in an emergency posture, the justices have declined to intervene. In a trio of disputes, the high court temporarily allowed the EPA to continue enforcing more stringent standards on emissions from coal-fired power plants and new and existing oil and gas facilities .15 SpyLoan Apps Found on Play Store Targeting Millions