Media coverage and political tensions color reactions to Nippon Steel's U.S. acquisition

Early in the New Year, two events occurred in the United States — one greatly delighted and the other literally dumbfounded many Japanese.

The former was the Golden Globe Awards and the latter was the presidential order to halt Nippon Steel's acquisition of U.S. Steel. At first glance, these two events seem unrelated, but they share a commonality: both exemplify the adage, “All politics is local.”

The same event is often reported in completely different ways in Japan and the United States. This itself is quite common. What’s concerning is the risk that this kind of phenomenon could lead to unnecessary misunderstandings or emotional friction between Japan and the United States.

Let's start with the Golden Globe Awards ceremony. "Shogun" won four awards in the TV Drama Series category. The Japanese media reported that "Shogun" had won a record 18 Emmys last September and that this time it had “far surpassed that achievement” because the Golden Globe Awards, voted on by film journalists from all over the world, including Europe, America, Asia and Africa, were proof that the series had been recognized globally for its artistry.

But the U.S. media reported it differently. For example, The New York Times barely mentioned "Shogun" in its coverage of the Golden Globes. Even in an article introducing the winners with photos, the Japanese actors were only mentioned by name. It was disappointing that actor Hiroyuki Sanada’s comments, delivered in excellent English during the ceremony, were not even reported. While the coverage differed, you could argue this reflects how Americans see things.

The same could be said of the differing reactions in Japan and the U.S. to Nippon Steel's acquisition of U.S. Steel. Many Japanese would not expect the acquisition of a U.S. company by an allied nation’s firm to cause such a big problem. Media coverage in Japan clearly reflected this.

The Saturday editorial of the Nikkei Shimbun, for example, was highly critical of U.S. President Joe Biden's order to block the acquisition, stating “The claim that there is a risk of harming U.S. national security is unfounded and is unjustified political intervention. We strongly condemn it.”

The liberal Asahi Shimbun was even harsher in its Tuesday editorial, saying, “It is unacceptable for the U.S. government to intervene in a takeover deal decided by private companies in Japan and the U.S. without providing a rational explanation. Not only will this be unbeneficial to the economies of both nations, it could also negatively impact the alliance. The U.S. government should change its self-righteous stance.”

Even the conservative Sankei Shimbun criticized the decision in its Sunday editorial, writing, “How do allies matter to the U.S.? This decision has made us strongly question that,” and calling it “an extremely regrettable decision.”

It is rare to see major Japanese newspapers, regardless of political leaning, unanimously criticize the U.S. government, especially President Biden, in such a unified manner. This phenomenon is extremely unusual.

The Japanese government echoed these sentiments, with Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba urging the U.S. government “to take action to dispel concerns” and “to clearly state why there are concerns about national security.”

However, the U.S. side, particularly the Biden administration, has only explained that the cancellation order was for “national security reasons.” It’s understandable that Biden, despite his foreign policy expertise, could not publicly admit, “The Democratic Party is losing labor union votes to Trump Republicans, and if this deal proceeds, Democrats can’t compete in the 2026 midterm elections.”

The management of U.S. Steel also criticized Biden, saying, “President Biden ignored the rule of law to gain favor with the United Steelworkers union and support his political agenda.” But it’s too late now, as the real reason for the cancellation is simply that “all politics is local.”

Once a problem becomes this tangled, there’s no point in assigning blame, as it will not bridge the gap between the two sides.

This outcome is, in a sense, inevitable, as both Japan and the U.S. are democracies. The timing aside, there is nothing wrong with Nippon Steel’s management decision or response. Similarly, U.S. Steel’s decision to accept the takeover was justified. On the other hand, the concerns raised by U.S. labor unions, such as “we can neither trust the Japanese nor the U.S. Democratic Party government,” were also not entirely unfounded.

Both U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and Biden have sought to leverage the concerns and anger of these workers. This situation exemplifies the “fallacy of composition,” where truths at the individual level do not lead to truth as a whole.

If this issue remains unresolved, the Chinese Communist Party will be the primary beneficiary, but such strategic considerations are often overlooked in this kind of “fallacy of composition.”

As expected, China immediately launched an information warfare campaign. On Monday, the Global Times, a Beijing mouthpiece, reported on its front page that the Japanese company was “disappointed,” that “the U.S. intention is being questioned,” and that “Mr. Biden ignored the advice of some of his close aides.”

Chinese leader Xi Jinping is likely laughing at this situation, but the real problem is the glaring absence of political leaders within Group of Seven nations who possess the strategic vision to prevent this type of “fallacy of composition.”

If the U.S. Steel issue continues to be exacerbated, it might yield short-term benefits for U.S. domestic politics, but it will ultimately hand a windfall to foreign competitors eager to drive a wedge between Japan and the U.S.