Brown: Trump bossing around U.S. Steel could cost jobs down the line

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of commentary online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The words “socialism” and “fascism” sure give people the vapors, but lots of folks can’t seem to recognize them when they walk into the building and lick all the doorknobs.

Socialism advocates for the “collective or government ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods,” according to Merriam-Webster.

Fascism, meanwhile, “exalts nation and often race above the individual” and is “associated with a centralized government headed by a dictatorial leader,” and is “characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition.”

It’s hard not to describe President Donald Trump’s recent actions with Nippon’s purchase of U.S. Steel as one of these two things. And while that’s concerning on its own, such an approach could deny the steel industry, which employs thousands of Minnesotans on the Iron Range, what it really needs: modernization.

The Japanese steelmaker’s acquisition of the storied American industrial powerhouse is not necessarily bad; time will tell. But Trump is now actively ordering the company around using his unprecedented “golden share” in U.S. Steel, veto power he demanded to allow the $14.9 billion merger to go forward.

The Trump administration used its “golden share” to instruct CEO David Burritt to not only keep the Granite City Steelworkers on the payroll, but to continue making steel at the facility. This comes from a Sept. 19 report in the Wall Street Journal.

U.S. Steel reversed course, saying suddenly that it found a plan to keep production at Granite City. Essentially, forget what we said, everything is fine now.

This doesn’t pass the smell test. In fact, it smacks of textbook government interference that members of Trump’s party would never tolerate from any other president.

On one hand, making steel is the point. Good! We all want workers to stay on the job. However, this also means that some of the revenue generated by the sale will be used to overproduce steel heading into an observable economic slowdown. This could badly worsen future layoffs and plant closures.

Really saving the domestic steel industry will require some of the gold in that “golden share” to be spent converting older steel mills and Minnesota taconite mines into more competitive facilities. Promising technology that makes steel more efficiently and cleanly is not only available but under development worldwide.

An industrial policy that modernizes aging infrastructure, however, is much more promising. That’s what we need to see from Trump and the new owners of U.S. Steel. That’s what will preserve and create union jobs for decades, not just a few years.

If I had a golden share, I’d call Burritt and demand that U.S. Steel build a direct-reduced-iron plant on the Iron Range and specialty steel mills along the Great Lakes. But I don’t have a golden share, and wonder if Trump’s magical powers are really that strong.

We should not ignore broader questions over the U.S. government’s unprecedented bargain with U.S. Steel, or other recent deals with computer chipmaker Intel or the Chinese social media company TikTok. Government ownership and/or subjugation of private industry should be a big story, not just the latest outrage.

One hopes that unions, elected officials and company leaders of all partisan stripes might consider the future that lies beyond this chaotic moment. In that future, we can lead the world, or we can lament that we ran our old engines until the blocks seized up and the bosses left with all the money.