Two days ago: “50% EU Tariff Starting in June” Warning
Postponement Follows Request from European Commission
Trump: “Very Good Call, Agreed to Delay”

Just two days after warning that the U.S. would impose a 50% tariff on the European Union (EU) starting June 1, U.S. President Donald Trump has postponed the measure. Though he initially raised the threat out of frustration with stalled trade talks, analysts say Trump bought more time for negotiations after the President of the European Commission stepped in to persuade him.

Trump Cancels Tariff Threat After Call With von der Leyen

On May 25 (local time), the Associated Press and AFP reported that Trump told reporters before returning to the White House from a weekend in New Jersey that he would delay the 50% tariff on the EU—initially scheduled for June 1—until July 9. On May 23, Trump had voiced displeasure over the lack of progress in talks with the EU, warning, “I propose imposing a 50% tariff starting June 1.”

The decision to delay came shortly after a phone call with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. After the call, von der Leyen posted on X (formerly Twitter), stating, “We need time until July 9 to reach a good agreement,” confirming her request for the postponement. She emphasized that “the EU is ready to move negotiations forward swiftly and decisively.”

Major EU countries like Germany and France reacted cautiously to the fast-moving developments over the weekend. German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil told Bild in an interview, “What we need now is serious negotiation,” adding that U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant had conveyed a similar stance. Klingbeil stressed, “We must work to ease transatlantic trade tensions and seek political solutions,” noting that “U.S. tariffs are as much a threat to the U.S. economy as they are to the economies of Germany and Europe.”

Tariff Threat Posted Just Hours Before Key U.S.-EU Call

Trump’s tariff threat was posted on social media roughly four hours before a scheduled phone call between Maroš Šefčovič, EU Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, and Jamison Greer, a representative of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). The EU clarified that the call had been arranged before Trump’s post.

This was the first official discussion since the U.S. had presented its demands to the EU in writing, followed by an EU response offering a list of potential compromises. Reports indicate that the two sides remain far apart. Trump’s sudden post is seen as a calculated move to gain the upper hand ahead of this important exchange between top trade officials.

Trump argues that the U.S. runs an annual trade deficit of over USD 250 billion with the EU. He claims, “The EU was created to take advantage of the United States in trade,” citing high trade barriers, VAT systems, harsh corporate penalties, non-tariff barriers, currency manipulation, and “unfair lawsuits” against American companies.

The EU counters that the U.S. runs a surplus in services, reducing the overall trade deficit with the EU to around USD 78 billion. AP reported that the EU has proposed a reciprocal elimination of tariffs on industrial goods, including automobiles, and has offered to expand imports of U.S. energy, weapons, and certain agricultural products.

First Trade Deal Reached with the UK

Had Trump’s tariff plan gone ahead, tariffs would have increased to 50%, 2.5 times the 20% rate announced in April. However, with Trump backing off, the existing 10% base tariff remains in effect through July 9. This has led many to conclude that the original 50% threat was a negotiation tactic. The call with von der Leyen and the subsequent delay reflect a classic Trump-style maneuver to strengthen his negotiating position.

On May 23, Treasury Secretary Bessant told Fox News that Trump’s threat was intended to put pressure on the EU, saying, “We hope this move lights a fire under them.” Of Trump’s reciprocal tariff policy announced on April 2 involving 57 countries, only one agreement has been finalized— with the United Kingdom. Under the deal, the U.S. will lower tariffs on up to 100,000 UK-made cars from 25% to 10% annually. It will also remove the 25% tariff on UK steel and aluminum.

In response, the UK has agreed to open its markets to U.S. ethanol, beef, agricultural products, and machinery. As part of the agreement, the UK will purchase USD 10 billion worth of Boeing aircraft. However, the 10% base tariff the U.S. applies to all trade partners, including the UK, will remain in place.

WSJ: "U.S. Considering Withdrawal of 4,500 Troops from 28,500 U.S. Forces in South Korea"
Top Priority is Deterring Chinese Invasion of Taiwan, While North Korea Response to Be Handled Through Allied Burden-Sharing
Japan Proposes Collective Security Framework, Including 'East Asia NATO' Concept

The U.S. government is reportedly considering a plan to relocate some U.S. Forces stationed in South Korea to other bases in the Indo-Pacific region, such as Guam. This move reflects a shift in defense strategy following the inauguration of President Donald Trump. The U.S. Department of Defense is now prioritizing the deterrence of a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan, while adjusting its strategy to delegate the response to North Korea largely to South Korea. Against this backdrop, the Japanese government has proposed integrating the Korean Peninsula and the Taiwan Strait into a single strategic theater, drawing attention to potential changes in the East Asian security cooperation framework.

WSJ: "U.S. Troop Reduction in South Korea Not Yet Officially Reported"

On the 22nd of May (local time), The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that the U.S. Department of Defense is considering relocating approximately 4,500 troops out of the 28,500-strong U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) to other bases within the Indo-Pacific region, including Guam. Citing multiple officials, WSJ noted that this proposal is being explored as part of an informal policy framework for handling North Korea, and is among several ideas currently being discussed among senior officials.

This is not the first time a reduction of U.S. troops in South Korea has been considered. During his first term, President Donald Trump also weighed troop reductions as a means to pressure South Korea into increasing its defense cost-sharing contributions. However, the plan was not implemented due to opposition from within the administration, particularly from national security and military officials. WSJ clarified that no official report has yet been submitted to President Trump regarding the proposed troop reduction. The outlet added that any final decision on force levels is likely to be delayed until there is greater clarity regarding the trajectory of the war in Ukraine and the extent of future U.S. military aid to Kyiv.

The report emphasized Guam's strategic significance, describing it as a potential conflict zone that remains relatively inaccessible to Chinese military forces. For this reason, Guam is emerging as a core staging point for U.S. military personnel. Even if a portion of U.S. troops is withdrawn from South Korea, the report stressed that the forces would still remain deployed within the Indo-Pacific theater, maintaining Washington’s regional posture.

Concerns Raised Within U.S. Over Weakened Deterrence Against North Korea

However, within the U.S. government, there remains a strong consensus that any decision to reduce U.S. Forces in South Korea should be approached with caution. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last month, General Paul LaCamera—also known by his Korean name, J.B. Brunson—who serves as Commander of U.S. Forces Korea and the Combined Forces Command, clearly expressed opposition to any troop withdrawal. He warned that a U.S. pullout could increase the likelihood of an invasion by North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

When asked what strategic advantage the U.S. gains from maintaining its military presence in South Korea, General LaCamera responded that it preserves “positional advantage.” He emphasized that U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula are stationed “where they need to be.”

Admiral Samuel Paparo, Commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, echoed these concerns, stressing the importance of maintaining a credible deterrent posture. He warned that a significant reduction in U.S. troops in South Korea would degrade America’s ability to prevail in a conflict. Admiral Paparo stated that maintaining the current size and readiness of U.S. Forces Korea is critical to alliance credibility and regional stability, underscoring that the presence of these forces deters not only North Korea but also other potential threats in the region. His remarks highlighted the strategic role U.S. troops play not just in deterring North Korean aggression but also in counterbalancing China within the broader U.S.-China strategic competition.

Meanwhile, Elbridge Colby, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development, who played a key role in shaping the Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy (NDS), offered a more nuanced perspective. While he agrees that the U.S. must continue to provide extended deterrence through its nuclear umbrella, he argued that South Korea should shoulder more of the burden in responding to North Korea’s conventional military threat.

Before being nominated for his current position, Colby stated via social media last year, “I oppose withdrawing troops from Korea,” but added, “I support refocusing U.S. Forces Korea on deterring China, while South Korea takes on more responsibility for defending against North Korea’s conventional forces.” His comments suggest a policy shift in which the U.S. military posture in South Korea is adapted more explicitly to counterbalance China, while Seoul assumes greater responsibility for conventional deterrence against Pyongyang.

Emerging Vision for a Collective Security Framework in East Asia

The Trump administration views countering China, particularly in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, as the core objective of its efforts to realign military posture in the Indo-Pacific region. This strategic shift was clearly outlined in a nine-page "Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance" document, which U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth distributed internally at the Pentagon this past March. According to the document, the primary goals of U.S. national security policy are to prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan and to defend the U.S. homeland. The guidance reportedly also states that “other threats, such as North Korea, should be handled as much as possible by regional allies and partners.”

Historically, the United States has regarded the Korean Peninsula and the Taiwan Strait as separate theaters of operation: U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) has been responsible for the former, while U.S. Forces Japan (USFJ) has overseen the latter, including the East China Sea. Likewise, East Asian nations have traditionally hesitated to build collective security frameworks, due to historical animosities, differing threat perceptions, and divergent security interests. Instead, most countries have relied on bilateral alliances with the U.S. For example, there has long been a prevailing view that South Korea would find it politically and practically difficult to defend Japan in the event of an attack by China, and vice versa.

However, Japan has recently proposed a strategic integration of the Taiwan Strait and the Korean Peninsula into a unified defense theater. This vision aligns with Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s “Asian NATO” concept and the Japanese Defense Minister’s proposal for “theater integration.” Modeled after NATO’s collective response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Japan’s strategy seeks to establish a joint deterrence mechanism against China, Russia, and North Korea.

Experts suggest that if this concept becomes reality, it would represent a pivotal turning point in diplomatic, security, and military relations between Japan and South Korea. Such a transformation could reshape the regional security architecture, enhancing collective defense capabilities while also redefining the traditional bilateral structure of U.S.-led alliances in East Asia.

Trump Reviewing CFIUS Report
Nippon Steel Proposes Investment Plan Matching Acquisition Amount
Strategy Aligns with Trump’s 'Domestic Investment' Policy Direction

The long-standing bid by Japan’s Nippon Steel to acquire U.S. Steel, a company deeply rooted in American industrial identity, has entered its decisive phase. Once rejected by the Biden administration due to national security concerns, the deal is now back in play under the Trump administration, which appears more open to alternative terms. With a massive USD 14 billion investment proposal on the table, Nippon Steel is making a final and unprecedented push to sway President Trump. The outcome of this high-stakes corporate and diplomatic engagement is expected to be finalized by early June, and the ramifications could significantly shape the future of U.S.-Japan economic cooperation and American industrial policy.

CFIUS Clears a Conditional Path for the Deal

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the national security body operating under the U.S. Treasury Department, concluded its re-evaluation of the proposed acquisition on May 21. The re-assessment followed an executive order issued by President Trump on April 7, which overrode the earlier decision by President Biden to block the deal. While CFIUS did not reach a fully unanimous conclusion, a majority of its members determined that the national security risks posed by the acquisition could be adequately mitigated under certain conditions.

This judgment is critical. CFIUS holds the authority to scrutinize foreign investments and mergers involving U.S. companies to determine their impact on national security. If any transaction is deemed to present unacceptable risks, CFIUS can recommend that the president prohibit it. The committee’s reassessment is therefore a pivotal procedural step, and its conclusion—while confidential—signals a softening of opposition at the federal level.

The Biden administration had previously denied the acquisition in January, just before Trump’s inauguration, citing the potential for security threats if a foreign entity controlled key infrastructure and industrial resources. This move was widely interpreted by analysts as being influenced not only by strategic concerns but also by political calculus. Supporting domestic labor unions that opposed the acquisition and emphasizing job protection served to reinforce Biden’s domestic agenda. Despite efforts by Nippon Steel to offer concessions—including a proposal to guarantee a ten-year veto right on any reduction in U.S. production capacity—the company failed to obtain approval under Biden.

Now, with the Trump administration’s new review in motion, the final decision rests with the president himself, who must announce his verdict by June 5. For Nippon Steel, this marks the final chapter in a year-long negotiation marked by shifting political winds and rising strategic stakes.

Trump Signals Openness to Investment-Oriented Deal

Initially, President Trump too had voiced opposition to the idea of selling U.S. Steel—an enduring emblem of American industrial might—to a foreign company. His skepticism echoed concerns about relinquishing domestic manufacturing power to external actors, particularly at a time when "America First" industrial and trade policies continue to define his administration’s agenda.

However, a turning point came during a summit in February with Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba. In that meeting, Trump indicated a potential openness to reconsidering the deal if it could be framed not as a conventional foreign acquisition, but rather as a long-term investment. That nuance—shifting from the language of takeover to that of partnership—opened a possible path forward. Following up with a phone conversation in April, Ishiba and Trump revisited the topic, after which Trump formally instructed CFIUS to conduct a new review.

The shift in tone from the White House has not gone unnoticed. Many observers speculate that Trump’s willingness to consider a restructured deal could pave the way for an outcome starkly different from Biden’s hardline stance. With this change, Nippon Steel saw a critical opportunity to reframe its bid—and responded with a dramatically expanded proposal to meet Trump’s expectations for investment-based industrial development.

Nippon Steel’s USD 14 Billion Gamble to Win U.S. Approval

In a bold and strategic escalation, Nippon Steel unveiled a USD 14 billion investment plan, ten times greater than its original offer. This move represents the company’s ultimate gamble to secure President Trump’s approval and reflects a comprehensive approach to aligning with U.S. economic and security interests.

Originally, the company had proposed a USD 1.4 billion investment alongside the USD 14.9 billion acquisition of all U.S. Steel shares, a bid that dwarfed the USD 7.2 billion offer made by American competitor Cleveland-Cliffs. However, in response to the evolving political climate, Nippon Steel first increased its investment pledge to USD 2.7 billion, and ultimately to USD 14 billion, showcasing remarkable flexibility and commitment.

The newly proposed plan includes the construction of a new steel plant in the U.S., with an initial investment of USD 1 billion. This will be followed by an additional USD 3 billion in a few years and another USD 11 billion by 2028, aimed at modernizing and expanding U.S. Steel’s infrastructure. The company also reaffirmed its commitment to retaining U.S. Steel’s headquarters in Pennsylvania, a politically significant gesture that likely holds sway with the Trump administration.

Nippon Steel’s strategy directly addresses the growing demand for steel in the U.S., particularly following the enactment of bipartisan infrastructure legislation. By promising to contribute significantly to domestic production, the company is attempting to align its interests with those of U.S. industrial policy, while easing concerns over foreign control.

Legal experts have endorsed the deal’s revised framework. Nick Klein, a partner at law firm DLA Piper, told Reuters that expanding U.S.-based steel production is essential for national security and predicted that the Trump administration would recognize the strategic value of the investment and approve the deal.

However, the stakes remain high. Should the acquisition fall through, Nippon Steel would be forced to pay a breakup fee of USD 565 million to U.S. Steel. In addition, Japanese steel products would continue to face a 25% tariff when entering the American market, adding further financial pressure to the company. Given these risks, Nippon Steel’s bet is not merely about corporate expansion but about preserving its competitive position in one of the world’s most important industrial markets.

Hanwha’s Next-Generation Solar Technology Proven Durable
Emerging as a Technology to Overcome the Physical Limits of Silicon Cells
Competing for Market Leadership with Technologically Proven China

The global solar industry stands on the cusp of a seismic shift, and at its center is a fierce race between two nations — one an undisputed leader, the other a determined challenger. For years, China has maintained dominance over solar manufacturing and innovation, setting the pace with state-backed investments and rapid commercialization. But now, South Korea’s Hanwha Qcells is accelerating its momentum, poised to challenge the status quo with a revolutionary technology: the perovskite-silicon tandem cell.

This next-generation solar innovation, which layers a thin film of perovskite atop a traditional silicon cell, is being hailed as a game-changer. It is not just the potential for higher efficiency that excites the industry, but the promise of transforming how and where solar power can be harnessed. Hanwha Qcells, a division of Hanwha Solutions, is no longer content to play catch-up. Instead, the company is investing aggressively, aiming to leapfrog the competition and take the lead in what some are calling the “tandem war” — a high-stakes contest to dominate the future of solar energy.

Efficiency Breakthroughs: Crossing the Threshold of Silicon’s Limits

The tandem cell technology that Hanwha Qcells is developing builds on a deceptively simple principle: different materials can absorb different wavelengths of sunlight more efficiently. In a tandem structure, perovskite — a high-performance thin film — captures short-wavelength light, while silicon, the traditional workhorse of the solar industry, absorbs the longer wavelengths. This combination allows more of the sun’s energy to be converted into electricity, reducing light loss and elevating energy conversion rates to levels previously deemed unreachable.

Late last year, Hanwha Qcells recorded a significant milestone when its large-area M10-format tandem cell achieved a certified efficiency of 28.6%. That figure is especially noteworthy considering that conventional silicon cells are bound by a theoretical efficiency limit of about 29%. In contrast, the theoretical ceiling for tandem cells reaches a staggering 44%, underscoring the transformative potential of this technology.

These laboratory breakthroughs have been matched by progress in durability and reliability. At Hanwha’s pilot plant in Thalheim, Germany, tandem modules recently passed critical testing conducted by the International Electrotechnical Commission and Underwriters Laboratories in the United States. These certifications verify not only the robustness of the modules but also their readiness for practical application. The industry took notice — and so did investors — as Hanwha Qcells edged closer to commercial deployment.

The implications are far-reaching. By producing significantly more power from the same surface area, tandem cells offer compelling economic and operational advantages, particularly for industrial and utility-scale installations. As power density becomes more important in a world prioritizing clean energy, technologies that deliver more with less space are poised to dominate. Hanwha’s progress has therefore come at a pivotal moment, when the industry is hungry for breakthroughs that can scale quickly and reliably.

Scientific Promise Meets Industrial Challenge

Yet, with every innovation comes complexity. As promising as tandem cells are, they also present challenges that require creative engineering and long-term investment. One of the main hurdles lies in the inherent material differences between perovskite and silicon. Perovskite, when compressed, exhibits a high degree of polarity, whereas silicon and its derivatives, such as silicates, show much lower polarity. This mismatch complicates the bonding process, making it difficult to form a stable connection between the layers using conventional techniques. As a result, engineers must devise additional processing steps and materials to ensure these layers integrate seamlessly.

Durability, too, poses a serious concern. Because of the way tandem cells are structured — with light passing from the top layer to the bottom — any damage to the perovskite layer can render the entire cell nonfunctional. If light cannot reach the silicon layer below, electricity cannot be generated. Making matters worse, once damage occurs, the integration of layers makes it difficult to salvage or repair the cell. In many cases, the entire module must be discarded, which could lead to high replacement costs and economic loss if these failures occur on a large scale.

However, the flip side is equally compelling. Tandem cells equipped with perovskite offer more consistent energy production under fluctuating temperatures and changing sunlight conditions. Unlike silicon-only cells, which can struggle in extreme heat or cloudy environments, tandem configurations provide stable performance across diverse climates. This reliability makes them ideal for regions with unpredictable weather or high solar intensity — regions that are often underserved by current technologies.

Hanwha Qcells is betting that the trade-offs are worth it. The company’s engineers and researchers are working across international facilities to resolve these challenges, refine the materials, and streamline the production process. The belief driving this effort is clear: whoever solves these challenges first will define the future of solar energy.

The Commercial Race: Hanwha’s Push to Dethrone China

While South Korea sharpens its technological edge, China has already established itself as the powerhouse of solar manufacturing. With massive state-directed investments, Chinese companies have built pilot lines, tested advanced modules, and pushed aggressively toward commercialization. The most visible symbol of China’s lead is LONGi Solar, the country’s largest solar firm, which recently set a global record with a 34.85% efficiency rate for its tandem cell. This figure, independently verified by the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, positions LONGi as a frontrunner in the international race.

Korea, by comparison, has often been perceived as trailing just behind — highly capable in research and development but slow to bring innovations to market. Hanwha Qcells is challenging that perception with a strategic shift. Determined not to be left behind, the company is investing heavily in domestic and global production capabilities. Its facilities in Jincheon, South Korea; Thalheim, Germany; and Pangyo are now operating in coordinated unison, accelerating the path from laboratory to assembly line.

The numbers tell the story of commitment. In 2025, Hanwha Qcells plans to spend KRW 623.2 billion — approximately USD 460 million — on new equipment and facility upgrades. Of that, KRW 136.5 billion, or around USD 100 million, will go directly into expanding the tandem cell production line. These are not token investments; they are the foundation of a national and corporate ambition to claim leadership in a field once ceded to others.

CEO Hong Jeong-kwon has made it clear that Hanwha Qcells is playing for keeps. If tandem cells truly become the “game-changer” many believe they are, then the company intends to be the first to mass-produce them successfully and lead the market on a global scale. The goal is not just technological superiority, but commercial dominance — and through it, a reshaping of the world’s clean energy map.

In what is increasingly being called the “Tandem War,” Hanwha is no longer a silent observer. It has stepped into the arena with force and intention, prepared to challenge the old order and change the dynamics of global solar leadership. Whether it can overturn China’s lead remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the game is no longer China’s alone.