The White House’s new board seats
The Trump administration’s blessing of Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel is a potential watershed moment for the role of government in American industry.
While details are still being finalized, the reported conditions — including an American C.E.O., a U.S.-majority board and a “golden share” granting the U.S. government veto power over certain corporate functions and board appointments — are extraordinary for such a transaction. It goes far beyond the scope of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (known as CFIUS), which typically reviews deals for potential national security risks.
Key to this is the golden share. It would effectively allow Washington to inject itself into the fabric of a foreign-owned, yet strategically critical, American enterprise.
This echoes the governance models of nationalized industries in Europe and elsewhere, a stark departure from America’s historically hands-off approach. (Exceptions in the U.S. have included the government-backed rescues of General Motors and Chrysler.)
Beijing, for instance, has taken a stake in China’s tech giants, including Alibaba. The French and Brazilian governments hold significant stakes in national aerospace champions.
Will this become the new blueprint for high-stakes foreign direct investment — or outright acquisitions — in the U.S., particularly in strategic sectors like manufacturing, technology or defense?
Could this be a model for a TikTok deal? “Whatever the rights are that are in this golden share in Nippon-U.S. Steel, it’s worth asking: How would that look in the TikTok context, and would that solve the concern that people have with TikTok?,” Edward Rock, co-director of N.Y.U. Law School’s Institute for Corporate Governance and Finance, told DealBook.
A golden share could grant the government more say in the video app’s operations, such as preventing it from transferring American customers’ data abroad without government approval, he added.
The reciprocity question looms large, too. If the U.S. were to demand a golden share in certain cross-border deals, could other nations impose similar restrictions on American companies investing within their borders? While such demands occur in some other countries, this precedent could formalize and expand the practice.
“What you might see is other countries retaliating, just in the same way they do with tariffs,” said Lawrence Cunningham, the director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware.
Another wild card: Imagine a future in which a highly ideological administration uses its golden share to push for politically driven hiring mandates, board shake-ups, headquarters relocations or production quotas that run counter to the interests of the business or shareholders. It’s not so far-fetched given President Trump’s recent board purge at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
If the government’s authority is open-ended, extending beyond matters of national security and into corporate governance and operational decisions, that would be “both unprecedented and a little bit scary,” said Jill Fisch, a professor of business law at the University of Pennsylvania.
HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING
Christine Lagarde weighed leaving the E.C.B. early, the World Economic Forum’s founder says. Lagarde had discussed stepping down as president of the European Central Bank ahead of schedule to become the forum’s chair, Klaus Schwab, the nonprofit group’s founder, told The Financial Times. Lagarde had pledged to serve out her term at the bank; Schwab stepped down last month amid an investigation into accusations of financial improprieties.
The Trump administration pauses interviews for student visas. The State Department ordered U.S. embassies and consulates to temporarily halt appointments for foreign applicants as it seeks to expand scrutiny of their social media feeds. It casts a new spotlight on international students at American universities, after the administration moved to freeze Harvard’s ability to enroll those from abroad.
SpaceX loses another Starship during testing. The rocket, the largest built, broke apart midflight on Tuesday, though it made more progress than during previous missions. More tests are expected soon. In other Elon Musk news, the billionaire’s Neuralink brain-implant company has raised fresh capital at a $9 billion valuation, more than double its previous level, according to Semafor.
Should law firms have settled with Trump?
Zero for three.
That’s the stat that’s being hotly discussed in Big Law, Washington and on Wall Street after a federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s effort to punish the law firm WilmerHale. It’s the third ruling to block executive orders by President Trump meant to subjugate firms tied to the president’s perceived political opponents.
The losing streak has many in the legal profession grumbling that major firms that did settle with Trump should have stood their ground.
A reminder of the threats: The executive orders sought to strip firms’ lawyers of their security clearances and bar them from entering federal courthouses, threatening their ability to do business.
“This order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional,” Judge Richard Leon of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in a 73-page opinion.
Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush, made clear how strongly he feels:
-
He used more than two dozen exclamation points. An example: “To rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!”
-
He compared Trump’s WilmerHale executive order at length to a gumbo that “gives the Court heartburn.”
-
He described it as imposing “a kitchen sink of severe sanctions on WilmerHale for this protected conduct!” of free speech.
Other judges have also strongly ruled against Trump’s efforts to punish law firms, which include Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block. (A fourth firm, Susman Godfrey, has won a temporary restraining order pending a formal ruling.)
Recriminations are flying within the legal profession, as lawyers who objected to other firms cutting deals with Trump — including Paul Weiss, Skadden, Latham & Watkins and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett — fumed that they should have also fought back.
Some of those firms are finding that their agreement to provide pro bono legal work to causes Trump favors has opened them up to demands for services from the president’s allies. They’ve already suffered internal discord and lost prominent practitioners.
The counterargument: Firms under fire from Trump found themselves under pressure from rivals eager to poach top partners and clients. (Many in Paul Weiss, for example, feared that the star deal maker Scott Barshay might leave and take others with him, though Barshay said he wouldn’t go.)
Even a little uncertainty, proponents of settling said, could prompt an exodus of lawyers and clients.
Leon acknowledged that risk, noting that the executive order against WilmerHale “pressures these clients to abandon WilmerHale or face loss of their contracts.” Of arguments by the administration that any injuries were speculative, the judge wrote, “Please — that dog won’t hunt!”
“I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.”
— Elon Musk, to CBS News. It’s another sign of tension between the tech mogul and President Trump as the Senate deliberates the legislation passed by the House last week, with some fiscal hawks demanding changes.
Big Oil’s conundrum
President Trump has delivered for energy giants in a huge way, with a slew of executive orders meant to bury Biden-era mandates on emission targets and electric-vehicle sales incentives. But Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” policy is slamming the energy majors’ profit outlook and share prices.
That’s driven a wedge between the oil patch and Washington before Wednesday’s annual shareholder meetings for Exxon Mobil and Chevron. In recent regulatory filings, Exxon and Chevron signaled little willingness to significantly bolster domestic drilling, a key lever in Trump’s fight against inflation, Vivienne Walt reports for DealBook.
Frustration in the industry is bubbling. In a survey published in March of about 200 executives conducted by the Dallas Fed, one unnamed respondent said: “The administration’s chaos is a disaster for the commodity markets. ‘Drill, baby, drill’ is nothing short of a myth and populist rallying cry.”
Oil is too cheap, leading most producers to pause expansion plans. “To stimulate new activity, oil prices need to be in the $75-$80 per barrel range,” another industry executive wrote in the survey; Brent crude, the global benchmark, has hovered well below that for months. U.S. rigs in operation have dropped.
That said, Exxon recently reported that lower production costs would allow it to turn a profit even at $35 a barrel.
The trade war hurts, too. Trump’s 25 percent tariff on imported steel — crucial for pipelines and other infrastructure — has affected companies’ 2026 plans for more drilling, according to another Fed survey respondent. Meanwhile, economic volatility and global trade uncertainty are expected to force producers to cut production next year, analysts at S&P Global forecast.
On Tuesday, the Treasury Department granted Chevron a stripped-down permit for its operations in Venezuela, a country in Trump’s cross hairs over immigration. The order essentially prohibits the company from producing oil there.
Investors have other questions:
-
What happens to the industry’s carbon-capture and hydrogen projects, which the Republican spending bill is poised to gut?
-
Exxon and Chevron are in an expensive legal fight for control over a mammoth oil site off Guyana’s coast, which is in arbitration. Where will that end up?
-
Darren Woods, the C.E.O. of Exxon, told investors in December that it planned to add “$20 billion in earnings potential and $30 billion in cash flow potential” over the next five years. Is that feasible?
Crypto capture
The New York Police Department on Tuesday arrested another person in the crypto kidnapping and torture case that has drawn tabloid headlines and shocked industry executives already feeling threatened by a global crime wave.
That violence comes as Bitcoin soared to records in recent days, and a string of companies — and the Trump family — seek to cash in.
Criminals have been preying on crypto traders, executives and their families in increasingly aggressive fashion. A tally of attacks kept by Jameson Lopp, a crypto security specialist, shows that 2025 could be on track to set a record for such incidents.
THE SPEED READ
Deals
-
In I.P.O. news: Shein is said to be weighing a listing in Hong Kong as the Chinese fast-fashion retailer’s London plans falter; and Circle, a top stablecoin issuer, and its backers are seeking to raise as much as $624 million in an offering. (Reuters, Bloomberg)
-
TPG and Blackstone reportedly offered to take Hologic private in a deal that would have valued the women’s health diagnostics specialist at more than $16 billion. (FT)
Politics, policy and regulation
-
President Trump said he would pardon Todd and Julie Chrisley, reality TV stars convicted of tax evasion and fraud. (NYT)
-
Greenland has put Washington and Brussels on notice: Invest in our mining sector, or we will turn elsewhere, including to Chinese backers. (FT)
Best of the rest
-
“Apple’s Satellite Ambitions Threatened by Elon Musk, Internal Resistance” (The Information)
-
Driverless semi trucks have hit the road, just as Republicans’ assault on electric vehicles goes into overdrive. (NYT, Bloomberg Opinion)
We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to [email protected].
Andrew Ross Sorkin is a columnist and the founder of DealBook, the flagship business and policy newsletter at The Times and an annual conference.
Bernhard Warner is a senior editor for DealBook, a newsletter from The Times, covering business trends, the economy and the markets.
Sarah Kessler is the weekend edition editor of the DealBook newsletter and writes features on business.
Michael J. de la Merced has covered global business and finance news for The Times since 2006.
Danielle Kaye is a Times business reporter and a 2024 David Carr Fellow, a program for journalists early in their careers.
The post The Allure (and Complications) of ‘Golden Shares’ appeared first on New York Times.
