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.

Joint Warning: "Semiconductor Supply Chain at Risk"
Signs of Retraction Emerge, Suggesting a 'Graceful Exit' Strategy
Rising Consumer Prices and Decreased Spending—U.S. May Bear the Brunt

South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan have publicly opposed the United States' recent imposition of semiconductor tariffs, expressing concerns over potential disruptions to the global chip supply chain and adverse effects on their economies.

"A Unified Voice: Negative Impact on Global Semiconductor Industry"

On the 21st May (local time), the Federal Register reported that the U.S. Department of Commerce has initiated an investigation into semiconductor-related products under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. As of the 7th, a total of 206 written comments had been submitted. Section 232 grants the U.S. President the authority to take measures such as imposing tariffs if the import of certain goods is deemed a threat to national security. The law also mandates the collection of opinions from stakeholders and foreign governments during the investigation process.

The South Korean government, in its submitted comments, emphasized the mutually complementary relationship between the two countries. The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy stated, “To ensure U.S. leadership in artificial intelligence (AI), avoiding bottlenecks in the semiconductor supply chain is essential.” It particularly highlighted that Korea’s high-bandwidth memory (HBM) and advanced DRAM technologies are “critical to the expansion of U.S. AI infrastructure.”

The Korean government also stressed that Korean semiconductor firms are planning to invest $43 billion (approximately 60 trillion KRW) in the United States, warning that “imposing tariffs on semiconductors will ultimately increase chip manufacturing costs within the U.S.” Beyond the government, organizations such as the Korea Semiconductor Industry Association (KSIA), the Korea Display Industry Association (KDIA), and SK Hynix also submitted written comments to the Department of Commerce expressing serious concerns about the proposed tariffs.

Other countries involved in the semiconductor supply chain with the U.S. voiced similar objections. Taiwan argued that if tariffs were imposed on Taiwan-made semiconductors and related products, “the production costs for U.S. companies will rise, innovation and market competitiveness will decline, and Taiwanese firms’ willingness to invest in the U.S. will inevitably weaken.” It added that such measures would negatively affect U.S. defense technology, AI, and other advanced technology industries, with potentially harmful consequences for the U.S. economy and national security strategies.

The Japanese government also voiced opposition, stating that “no country can internalize the entire semiconductor value chain.” While reaffirming its commitment to cooperation in strengthening the U.S. semiconductor supply chain, Japan urged Washington to reconsider tariffs on semiconductor equipment, materials, and derivative products. It also warned that the downstream effects of tariffs could boomerang back onto U.S. chip designers and end-users, causing unintended domestic harm.

Meanwhile, China, which is locked in a broadening trade dispute with the U.S., sharply criticized the move. The Chinese government stated, “Since 2017, the U.S. has increasingly expanded the definition of ‘national security’ to justify protectionist measures.” The European Union (EU) echoed similar concerns, warning that the proposed tariffs could jeopardize the global semiconductor supply chain, which has been carefully built over many years.

Even within the U.S., dissenting views are mounting. The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) cautioned that blanket tariffs could raise costs for domestic semiconductor manufacturing and R&D efforts. It proposed that if tariffs are imposed, mitigating measures such as tariff rate quotas (TRQs) should be introduced to minimize the potential damage.

A "Graceful Retreat" in the Works? U.S. May Be Preparing to Roll Back Semiconductor Tariffs

While the U.S. government outwardly maintains its stance on imposing semiconductor tariffs, signs are emerging that it is quietly laying the groundwork for a potential reversal. At a ceremony marking the 100th day of the Trump administration’s second term, the White House highlighted Taiwan’s TSMC and its investment in U.S. semiconductor factories as a key achievement, underscoring its commitment to continued cooperation. A senior U.S. Commerce Department official remarked that the groundbreaking of TSMC’s third Arizona plant was proof of America's success in attracting investment, adding that “We will accelerate investments in domestic production of semiconductors and other products to fulfill our promise of ushering in a golden era of American manufacturing.”

Industry insiders interpret this as a sign that the U.S. government recognizes the contributions of foreign firms like TSMC in expanding investment and creating jobs. It is also seen as an implicit acknowledgment of concerns surrounding tariffs, and perhaps even a prelude to their softening or reversal. Though the Trump administration continues to project a tough political stance, many in the sector believe that officials are quietly exploring an exit strategy behind the scenes.

That South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan have all voiced concerns simultaneously lends further weight to this interpretation. Analysts suggest that these coordinated appeals may be a form of diplomatic signaling designed to offer the U.S. a dignified path to voluntary withdrawal. Indeed, the Trump administration has a track record of first escalating political pressure and diplomatic friction, only to later grant tariff exemptions for specific countries or products. Recent tariff negotiations with the UK and China followed this same pattern.

At the end of last month, Chinese financial media outlet Caixin, citing government officials, reported that additional tariffs of up to 125% on eight categories of U.S.-origin semiconductor products had been lifted. Subsequently, in early May, the U.S. and China held talks in Switzerland and agreed to lower tariffs by 115 percentage points on certain items, while committing to 90 more days of further negotiations. CNN described the move as a kind of truce, noting that it reflects an acknowledgment by both countries that tariffs on irreplaceable strategic goods must be at least partially rolled back. The report also stated that such actions would directly benefit major tech companies in both countries that had been hit hardest by the duties.

Given these developments, many in the semiconductor industry believe a similar “graceful withdrawal” scenario could play out with semiconductor tariffs. This could involve invoking national security exemptions for select product categories or leveraging World Trade Organization (WTO) mechanisms under the pretext of supply chain stability. Such a carefully calibrated rollback would allow the Trump administration to preserve its hardline messaging abroad while quietly adjusting its actual policy. Ultimately, the prevailing view among industry and diplomatic circles is that the key question is no longer if Washington will retract its semiconductor tariff push, but rather how it plans to do so.

Corporate Profitability Declines as Industry Ecosystem Nears Breaking Point

Experts warn that if the U.S. government continues to pursue its semiconductor tariff policy, the consequences for its own domestic industries could be severe and far-reaching. Among the most immediate and direct effects would be a rise in semiconductor prices. As import costs climb, the manufacturing expenses for consumer electronics, automobiles, servers, and AI chips are expected to increase accordingly. These cost hikes would ultimately be passed on to consumers, fueling inflation. There is growing concern that such excessive tariffs could further stoke inflation in the U.S., potentially triggering a negative cycle of reduced consumer spending and overall economic contraction.

Profitability pressures are also becoming more visible for companies in the semiconductor equipment and materials sector. This is exemplified by the recent performance of ASML, the world’s leading semiconductor equipment manufacturer. In the first quarter of this year, ASML recorded approximately USD 4.35 billion in new orders, falling well short of Bloomberg’s market consensus of around USD 5.46 billion. Other companies with high exposure to the Chinese market, such as Lam Research, KLA, and NVIDIA, have also reported earnings that failed to meet investor expectations.

This turbulence is now rippling across the broader semiconductor supply chain. With production equipment shortages, delays in key component deliveries, and spiking procurement costs, the entire industry is mired in heightened uncertainty. While the U.S. seeks to onshore its semiconductor supply chain, experts argue that achieving self-sufficiency in the short term is virtually impossible. Given the globalized nature of the modern semiconductor ecosystem, which has moved away from single-nation dependencies, unilateral tariff measures are seen as ineffective and disruptive. The industry consensus remains clear: complex global supply systems cannot be controlled by isolated protectionist measures alone.

U.S. Treasury Yields Rising Across Both Short- and Long-Term Bonds
Trump’s Tax Cuts and U.S. Credit Rating Downgrade Among Key Factors
ECB: 'Sell-off in U.S. Treasuries Unusual Amid Market Stress'

U.S. Treasury yields are skyrocketing. A series of negative developments—including tax cut policies from the Trump administration and a downgrade of the U.S. sovereign credit rating—have amplified market concerns over America’s growing fiscal deficit. Once regarded as the quintessential "safe asset," U.S. Treasuries are now being shunned by investors even amid economic downturn fears, with capital increasingly flowing into alternative investment destinations such as the Eurozone.

U.S. Treasuries Being Shunned

On the 21st (local time), the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued USD 16 billion in new 20-year bonds. Although this was a routine auction to secure government funding, growing uncertainty around U.S. economic policy drew greater-than-usual investor attention.

The average yield on the newly issued bonds was 5.047%, well above the 4.613% average of the past six auctions—and even 0.011 percentage points higher than the market rate just prior to the auction. Following the auction, the yield on 20-year bonds spiked to 5.103%, the highest level this year. The yield on 30-year bonds also rose to 5.09%, while the 10-year yield surpassed 4.6%, and the 2-year rose above 4%.

Such yield increases are generally seen as negative signals in capital markets. Higher bond yields raise borrowing costs for households and businesses, heightening the risk of an economic slowdown. Indeed, all three major U.S. stock indices posted their worst daily performance in a month on the news. The Dow Jones fell 1.91%, the S&P 500 dropped 1.61%, and the Nasdaq Composite declined 1.41%.

Mounting Concerns Over U.S. Fiscal Deficits

Markets attribute the sell-off in U.S. Treasuries partly to new tax legislation being pushed by the Trump administration. President Trump is pressuring Republican hardliners to pass a tax cut bill, which includes extensions to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) from his first term, as well as exemptions on tips and overtime wages. Dubbed the “One Beautiful Bill” (or "mega bill"), it is currently progressing through the House under Speaker Mike Johnson.

According to the U.S. Joint Committee on Taxation, the bill could increase the federal deficit by more than USD 2.5 trillion over the next decade.

The downgrade of the U.S. credit rating may also be affecting bond demand. On November 16, Moody’s downgraded the U.S. sovereign credit rating from Aaa to Aa1, citing ballooning federal debt and chronic deficits. Data from the U.S. Treasury and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that federal debt now exceeds USD 36.2 trillion—up 59% from USD 22.7 trillion in 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic. The debt-to-GDP ratio rose from 107% in 2019 to 123% last year.

Future projections are equally grim. Moody’s warned that “continued fiscal deficits and rising interest rates will accelerate government borrowing,” adding that “none of the budget plans currently under debate in Congress seem capable of meaningfully correcting the fiscal imbalance.” The agency also dismissed Trump’s tariff policies as ineffective for improving the nation’s fiscal health, especially since tariffs account for less than 2% of total U.S. tax revenue.

A Shift in Market Behavior?

These mounting risks have fundamentally shaken investor confidence in U.S. Treasuries. Traditionally viewed as riskless assets with minimal default risk, U.S. government bonds are a go-to refuge in times of uncertainty. It’s typical for Treasury prices to rise (and yields to fall) during economic downturns, as investors flee to safety.

One market analyst noted, “In times of recession, Treasury prices usually rise, causing yields to fall. The current rise in yields suggests a shift in perception—investors no longer see Treasuries as unquestionably safe.”

Global financial institutions have voiced concern. In its Financial Stability Review published on the 21st, the European Central Bank (ECB) pointed out, “Last month’s market sell-off was notable for breaking traditional asset correlations. Capital has flowed into Eurozone bonds, while U.S. Treasuries have faced sell-offs—an unusual pattern during times of market stress.”

The ECB added, “Investors appear to be demanding a higher risk premium for U.S. assets due to policy uncertainty. The decline in the perceived value of U.S. safe-haven assets reflects a broader reassessment of U.S. investment risks.” The ECB also linked the continued strength of the euro this year to declining confidence in U.S. policies. Despite higher U.S. interest rates and a widening yield gap between the U.S. and the Eurozone, the euro has appreciated, rising from near parity following Trump’s election to about USD USD 1.15 recently.

Reviving the ‘Star Wars Project’
A Next-Generation Defense System That Intercepts in Space
Experts Warn: "It Could Cost Trillions of Dollars"

In a dramatic pivot to space-age defense strategy, U.S. President Donald Trump has announced a sweeping plan to deploy an advanced missile defense system—known as the Golden Dome—before the end of his current term. Modeled loosely on Israel’s Iron Dome but designed for an exponentially broader scope, the Golden Dome aims to intercept missiles launched from anywhere on Earth—and even from outer space—using an integrated system of satellites, artificial intelligence, and space-based interceptors. The initiative signals not only the militarization of space but also the revival of Reagan-era ambitions to make the United States invulnerable to foreign missile threats.

Trump’s announcement has ignited widespread debate. Supporters hail it as a bold reimagining of national defense in a multipolar era of rising threats from China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Critics, however, point to the astronomical costs, technical uncertainty, and potential conflicts of interest surrounding the project, especially with major contracts expected to go to Elon Musk’s SpaceX. Still, Trump has framed the Golden Dome as an American imperative—one that finishes what Ronald Reagan started.

USD 175 Billion to Fortify the Homeland Against Global Threats

On May 20 (local time), in a formal address from the Oval Office, Trump declared that the Golden Dome design had been completed. Beside him stood Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, signaling full military backing for the project. “It must be fully operational before the end of my term,” Trump emphasized, adding that the Golden Dome would represent the next frontier of American deterrence, capable of detecting and intercepting missiles in all phases of flight—from land, sea, or space.

According to the president, the total construction cost will reach USD 175 billion, with USD 25 billion already embedded in the legislative framework of the “Big and Beautiful Omnibus Bill,” currently awaiting congressional approval. That bill reflects Trump’s broader budget and tax priorities and, if passed, would serve as a launchpad—both politically and financially—for Golden Dome implementation.

The administration sees the system as critical to countering evolving missile technologies from hostile states. China and Russia have both made significant advances in hypersonic missile development, while North Korea continues to test long-range ballistic missiles that could potentially target the U.S. mainland. Trump’s team believes the Golden Dome will redefine American missile defense, offering a near-impenetrable shield for the homeland at a time when global threats are diversifying and accelerating.

A Space-Based Shield to Intercept Even Orbital Missile Launches

While Israel’s Iron Dome has become a symbol of missile defense excellence, especially against short-range threats from Iran-backed groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, Trump’s Golden Dome envisions a more ambitious architecture. In January, the president signed an executive order to establish the system domestically. Unlike traditional radar-based platforms, the Golden Dome will rely on space-based sensors mounted on hundreds of satellites to track even the most elusive missile launches.

These sensors will identify and follow threats in real time, communicating with interceptors stationed not only on land and sea but also in orbit. The goal is to strike missiles during their boost phase, when they are most vulnerable. This conceptual framework closely resembles the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)—Reagan’s Cold War-era plan to deploy satellites and laser systems to shoot down Soviet ICBMs. Although SDI, nicknamed the “Star Wars” project, was ultimately canceled in 1993 due to feasibility and cost concerns, Trump has positioned the Golden Dome as a direct successor.

“We will truly complete the task President Reagan began 40 years ago—to end the threat of missile attacks on the U.S. homeland once and for all,” Trump declared. To realize that goal, the Golden Dome will incorporate cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) for autonomous threat detection and targeting. Trump also emphasized that interceptors in space would enable the U.S. to destroy even orbital missile threats—a response to the growing militarization of low-Earth orbit and the possibility of space-launched weapons.

The project also builds upon Trump’s earlier establishment of the U.S. Space Force, which he formed during his first term. While initially ridiculed by some critics, the Space Force has now become a crucial organizational backbone for Trump’s space-based defense ambitions. Golden Dome would serve as a force multiplier—turning Earth’s orbit into a strategic theater of deterrence.

Technical Challenges, Sky-High Costs, and Controversy Over Contracts

Despite the administration’s bold rhetoric, technical and financial experts remain skeptical about the feasibility of launching such a sophisticated system within Trump’s current term—or even the decade ahead. Developing technology to intercept missiles in space, particularly during the midcourse or boost phase, involves unprecedented complexity. Systems would require not only highly sensitive tracking but also high-energy lasers or directed microwaves to neutralize targets moving at thousands of miles per hour.

Even Israel’s Iron Dome, as effective as it is, has primarily intercepted slow, short-range, unguided projectiles. In contrast, Golden Dome must detect and destroy advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and potentially hypersonic glide vehicles, which maneuver unpredictably and travel at Mach 5 or higher. These requirements elevate both the engineering challenge and the associated cost.

Although Trump has priced the system at USD 175 billion, independent analysts suggest a much higher figure. Defense experts estimate the cost could range from several hundred billion to multiple trillions of dollars. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that building and maintaining a space-based missile interception infrastructure would demand USD 542 billion over the next 20 years—a number that could increase further with technology upgrades and maintenance.

There is also the question of procurement and transparency. A significant portion of the Golden Dome project is expected to be awarded to SpaceX, the private aerospace company founded by Elon Musk, one of Trump’s closest business allies. This has already raised concerns about conflicts of interest and the lack of competitive bidding in what may become the most expensive defense contract in American history.

Finally, some critics point to history as a cautionary tale. Even after 32 years since the cancellation of SDI, many of the same technological roadblocks remain. Directed-energy weapons and mid-flight interception from space still elude reliable implementation. The race to realize the Golden Dome may thus depend not only on funding and political will, but on whether science can catch up with strategy.

Warren Buffett, the “Oracle of Omaha,” Slams U.S. Government Policy
Warning of Currency War and Decline in Dollar Hegemony
End of the Strong Dollar Era — Down 8% Since the Beginning of the Year

Warren Buffett, the legendary investor now on the verge of retirement, delivered a scathing critique of U.S. government policy, stating that “the dollar is going to hell.” His warning: the protectionist stance of the U.S. will ultimately lead to a currency war, accelerating the dollar’s decline. Supporting his concern, the dollar has fallen more than 8% this year, and experts suggest this isn't a temporary correction but a structural shift.

Policymakers Must Avoid Shortsighted Approaches

On the 21st May (local time), International media reported that Warren Buffett, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, officially announced his retirement during the company’s 60th annual shareholder meeting on May 3 at the CHI Health Center in Omaha, Nebraska. During the meeting, he sharply criticized the Trump administration’s policies, referring to the U.S. dollar as a currency that is “going to hell.” Buffett warned that misguided policies under Trump had damaged the value of the dollar and that its depreciation would likely continue.

He particularly took aim at Trump’s protectionist trade policies, arguing that the administration's aggressive stance toward China had distorted global supply chains. Buffett pointed out that American consumers and businesses are now bearing the cost through higher prices on goods and raw materials, stating that “behind the pretense of protecting domestic industries lies political calculation.” He further noted that such strategies contradict the fundamental principles of free trade. Buffett warned that the shortsightedness of policymakers could erode the country’s long-term competitiveness.

Negative Outlook Becoming Reality as Big Players Reduce Dollar Exposure

Buffett’s grim outlook appears to be materializing. On May 16, international credit rating agency Moody’s downgraded the U.S. sovereign credit rating from its top-tier Aaa to Aa1. This downgrade triggered U.S. Treasury yields to surpass 5%. With mounting concerns over the growing fiscal deficit and increasingly pessimistic forecasts, investor anxiety has risen, shaking trust in the broader U.S. financial system.

Korean financial experts agree that U.S. tariff policy is contributing to dollar weakness. Byun Jung-kyu, head of the Treasury Division at Mizuho Bank, stated, “Market volatility always exists, but the current tariffs under the Trump administration are historically unprecedented in both scale and impact.” He predicted that the unprecedented reciprocal tariffs and retaliations would significantly reshape the global economic order, extending beyond foreign exchange markets.

Cho Beom-joon, head of Hana Bank’s Treasury Markets Group, referenced the first U.S.-China trade war under Trump’s initial term, noting that the dollar-won exchange rate surged from 1,100 to 1,200 at the time, similar to the current trend. He added, “What’s unusual now is that U.S. Treasury prices are plummeting alongside the dollar,” describing it as a highly abnormal phenomenon that reflects a serious erosion of global investor confidence in the U.S. economy.

The markets are paying close attention. Major Wall Street investment banks have suggested that the dollar’s decline is not a temporary event but a sign of a structural shift. They argue that tariffs provoke retaliation from trade partners, prompting currency interventions and policy shifts. Notably, both European nations and emerging economies are reportedly moving to diversify their foreign reserve strategies away from a dollar-centric approach.

One global investment bank representative said, “Even within the U.S., there’s a trend of reducing dollar holdings in favor of assets like gold, euros, and yuan.” He emphasized, “This isn’t just a tactical move—it’s a strategic shift based on expectations of long-term dollar depreciation.” He added, “Buffett’s warning is not just theoretical—it reflects a reality that markets are already reacting to.”

Dollar Entering a Long-Term Correction Phase

The dollar has shown a steady downward trend since the beginning of the year. According to Barclays, as of the end of April, the Dollar Index (DXY) had dropped 8.3% compared to early January. Experts interpret this not as a technical correction but as a sign of structural change. Barclays points to a combination of factors—Fed rate freezes, widening trade deficits, political uncertainty, and global asset diversification—as drivers behind the dollar’s weakening.

Other investment banks share the view that the dollar is now entering a long-term correction phase. In a recent report, Goldman Sachs wrote, “Although the dollar has seen sharp moves this year, we believe it has further to fall,” adding that European currencies are likely to be the main beneficiaries of the trend. Whereas previous strong-dollar cycles were driven by U.S. rate hikes and demand for safe assets, the current trend is fueled by expectations of rate cuts and declining confidence in U.S. bonds, the report explained.

However, some voices caution that the gloomy outlook may be overstated. They argue that the recent dollar movements are simply a return to normal after an “abnormal” strong-dollar phase since the 2020s, driven by U.S. monetary policy and global instability. Capital Economics stated, “The U.S. economy remains fundamentally strong,” and dismissed extreme scenarios like a total dollar collapse as overly alarmist.

Trump Shifts Responsibility for Foreign Aid onto the International Community
USAID Budget Cuts Trigger Global Disruption
Experts Warn: Foreign Aid Reduction Will Weaken U.S. Influence

In a stark departure from decades of U.S. leadership in global humanitarian efforts, President Donald Trump has dramatically scaled back American foreign aid, urging other nations to shoulder more of the burden. This policy shift—championed under his “America First” doctrine—not only disrupts the flow of crucial funding to struggling nations, but also raises alarms among diplomats and development experts who warn of its broader implications. While Trump frames the move as a necessary correction to international imbalance, critics argue that the consequences are far-reaching: unraveling critical aid projects, undermining global stability, and eroding America's carefully cultivated soft power.

Trump Shifts the Burden of Global Responsibility

President Trump’s position on foreign aid was made clear on January 21 during a White House summit with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. When asked about the repercussions of American aid cuts on Africa, Trump responded candidly: “It’s destructive,” before asserting, “I hope more countries will start spending.” He lamented the lack of support from other nations, stating, “The U.S. is always being asked to fund global problems. No one else helps.” He took particular aim at Europe, criticizing it for “not helping” and instead “suing American companies.”

These remarks came amid the Trump administration’s sweeping reductions to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The U.S. State Department disclosed plans to eliminate 5,800 of USAID’s 6,200 multi-year contracts—amounting to $54 billion in cuts. Additionally, 4,100 of 9,100 State Department grants were scrapped, saving another $4.4 billion. The targets included key health, education, and development programs that had long defined the U.S.’s role as the world’s leading donor.

Historically, the United States has accounted for at least 38% of the United Nations' global humanitarian contributions. In 2023 alone, the U.S. allocated nearly $61 billion to foreign aid. Given this longstanding role, the Trump administration’s abrupt withdrawal leaves a gaping vacuum, with reverberations expected to extend across the developing world.

From Lifelines to Dead Ends: Aid Cuts Trigger Global Fallout

The consequences of these cuts have been swift and severe. Across continents, communities that once depended on U.S. assistance for survival are now scrambling to adapt to vanishing support. The Mae Tao Clinic, situated near Thailand’s northwestern border, is one of many facilities in crisis. For years, the clinic offered free medical care to Myanmar refugees, backed by USAID funding that covered 20% of its annual budget. Today, it struggles to procure incubators for premature infants and to train essential healthcare workers.

In Mali, a nation already burdened by widespread illiteracy, the literacy and vocational training initiative Shifin ni Tagne has been discontinued. Over five years, this program reached some 20,000 people, delivering vital instruction in local languages and job skills in a country where the illiteracy rate remains around 70%.

Meanwhile, Sudan faces a humanitarian catastrophe. Since civil war broke out in April 2023, over 150,000 people have been killed, and more than 24 million Sudanese now require urgent assistance. The cessation of U.S. aid has not only worsened the country’s financial situation but also disrupted the delivery of basic necessities such as food, medicine, and shelter. Relief workers warn of a worsening crisis as remaining support systems falter under the strain.

Further east, aid-dependent programs are grinding to a halt. In Indonesia, USAID-funded HIV and tuberculosis prevention efforts have been suspended. In the Philippines, educational support systems are weakening due to funding shortfalls. In Vietnam’s Quang Tri Province—a region still scarred by unexploded ordnance from the Vietnam War—mine clearance operations have been put on hold. Laos, too, is affected. An estimated 80 million unexploded bombs remain buried in its soil, yet demining projects there have been postponed due to the withdrawal of U.S. support.

These disruptions are not isolated incidents but part of a broader unraveling of U.S. involvement in global humanitarian and development work. The void they leave behind is already being felt by the world’s most vulnerable populations.

America’s Soft Power Erodes as China Steps In

While the cuts have devastated foreign aid recipients, their geopolitical implications are just as profound. Experts warn that the U.S. is relinquishing its global leadership role to strategic rivals. In a March report titled “Implications of the Trump Administration’s Second-Term Foreign Aid Suspension on International Development Cooperation,” the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP) predicted that China would likely step in to fill the aid gap left by the U.S. The report highlights that, with USAID retreating from Asia and other critical regions, Beijing is well-positioned to advance its influence through expanded development assistance.

This prediction is already coming true. On February 5, just days after the U.S. suspended its aid programs, the Cambodia Mine Action Centre (CMAC) announced that China would provide $4.4 million in support over the coming year. Cambodia remains one of the world’s most mine-affected nations due to conflicts between the 1970s and 1990s. China’s swift pledge illustrates its readiness to seize diplomatic opportunities as the U.S. pulls back.

Experts stress that this isn’t just a financial matter—it’s a battle for global trust and ideological influence. Foreign aid, after all, is a vehicle through which nations export their values, build alliances, and strengthen international partnerships. One foreign policy analyst put it plainly: “Foreign aid is more than just financial assistance—it is a means of promoting a country’s values and systems.” He added that while Trump’s approach may save money in the short term, it diminishes America’s soft power, weakens its global standing, and undermines relationships with like-minded democracies.

As the Trump administration doubles down on its aid reductions, observers fear that global leadership in development will shift further toward nations like China and Russia. If the United States continues to retreat from its traditional role, it could forfeit the very influence that made it a central pillar of the postwar international order.