President Trump approves the sale of U.S. steel.

The Marion County Election Board investigates Diego Morales.

Plus, the VA secretary visits Indy.

And more from the television studios at WFYI.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending May 30th, 2025.

Indian Weekend Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by the Indy Chamber, working to unite business and community to maintain a strong economy and quality of life.

This week, President Donald Trump approved the $14.9 billion sale of U.S. steel to a Japanese company.

Despite promising before last year's election to block it.

Indiana Public Broadcasting's Timoria Cunningham reports the union, representing thousands of steelworkers in Indiana, continues to raise concerns about the deal and how it could impact workers.

Nippon Steel says the merger will ensure steelmaking jobs remain in the U.S., including at Gary Works, which is U.S. Steel's largest facility employing around 4000 workers.

However, the United Steelworkers union disagrees.

In a statement, the union says the merger bid from Nippon Steel will reduce the number of steel jobs in the U.S. and also says it will reduce the company's domestic still making capacity.

U.S. international President David McCall says Nippon has dumped steel in the American steel markets for decades, something he says has cost them thousands of good jobs.

In a statement, U.S. steel says the company will grow through the partnership with Nippon Steel and their investments.

The union did not respond to a request for an interview.

Is this deal good for Indiana steel workers?

It's the first question for our Indiana Week in Review panel.

Democrat Ann DeLaney.

Republican, Mike O'Brien.

Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana Lawmakers.

And Leslie Bonilla Muñiz reporter for the Indiana Capitol Chronicle.

I'm Indiana Public Broadcasting Statehouse bureau chief Brandon Smith.

Mike O'Brien.

President Trump had promised to block this deal.

Is his reversal the right move?

It's a different deal.

So the deal that he was opposing last year was a $2.7 billion acquisition.

they're selling this is more of a partnership, but.

It's still going to be owned outright.

there's going to be a lack of U.S. steel ownership of it, but there are elements of it that that protect it.

First, Congress has to approve it.

and there are reports that the board has to be majority American.

The CEO has to be an American, the American CEO.

so there were some giveaways.

if you want to call them that, you know, that that make this different than the deal last year, the reaction from the steelworkers.

You know, call me cynical, but having watched this before.

I feel like they open the negotiation.

We don't like this.

What can we do to get you on board?

I bet the answer is more money.

So no, it's a.

And then there was there were questions about the long term viability of U.S. steel.

this could mean a new investment in a new facility.

And, I think that's a greenfield.

I was what possible location for that.

So it's all upside, especially when you're looking down the barrel of, you know, U.S. steel saying we're closing something.

Yeah.

And it's, you know, you know, the coin flip on whether or not it was Gary.

Yeah.

I mean, Eddie Meltons been, behind this idea for a while.

And Eddie Melton, the, the mayor of Gary.

Not exactly anti-union.

so is this one kind of hard to pin down?

Is it good?

Is it bad?

Is it?

We'll find out eventually.

Well, that's that's the issue.

There are too many unanswered questions.

You know, Taco Trump scores again here.

I mean, flip flops when he needed the steelworkers votes in Pennsylvania.

He was against it.

Okay.

Now all of a sudden he's for it.

There aren't enough changes here to make a difference.

And I don't know, change.

I don't know.

I don't know whether U.S. steel.

I don't know whether Nippon Nippon is going to own that or not.

They've said they're only investing if they have sole ownership.

So it that's a big question from a national security perspective and all of these kinds of questions.

You know, if they wanted to have, approval across the board, they would have spelled out what that investment is going to be and where it's going to be.

They haven't done that.

They would spell out protection for the jobs.

They haven't done that.

So there are a lot of unanswered questions.

I understand the mayor's, you know, encouragement on this and it it could work out.

But it seems to me there are a lot of details.

We have a golden share.

We don't even know what that means in terms of if.

We go to war with Japan, the first thing we'll take back is U.S. steel.

You know, U.S. steel.

I'm listed steel on the market for years and years and years and years.

So I'm not looking to for them for guidance.

Mike did point out the fact that this does require congressional approval.

I mean, is a lot of these unanswered questions that and just kind of raised.

Do you feel like more of those are going to need to be answered before Congress gives it?

Okay.

I mean, I certainly think a lot of the lawmakers there would would prefer to have those details, even if they're kept private.

I'm sure that they would want to have those details before they vote.

or one would hope.

I mean, because we've seen it more back to the deal as it was before, you know, last year that President Trump initially opposed.

There were some Democrats, I think, John Fetterman, notably in the US Senate.

He's still a Democrat.

barely.

but he had he was saying that he he would never approve something like this, and he would hold it up.

Come hell or high water.

Do you think the deal has changed enough that folks in Congress will be won over, who might have been on the fence or even opposed?

Well, there certainly is more money on the table if you're an investor.

This, I think you say this is a good deal, right?

we'll start there.

If you're the mayor of Gary and this assures, if in fact it does, that your plant will stay open in some way, shape or form, then it's a good thing.

Better to have that than another empty plant, dotting the skyline of Gary.

Enough of that already.

but there are so many unanswered questions, and it does seem unnerving that when you have something that has apparently been worked out, you know, over a period of months, you know, every, every nuance.

And yet the white House can't offer any detail.

the companies involved are seemingly unable to offer detail.

It does suggest that, you know, things are you're willing to brag about the this deal being struck, but if you were proud of every aspect of it, you probably want to, put that out there.

But I don't think, as a practical matter, congressional, approval necessarily is, unlikely at this point.

We haven't seen much resistance to whatever the administration wants.

The.

Yeah, I mean, just came out against this.

I'll repeat what I just said.

It doesn't seem that there has been much opposition last year.

Yeah.

Let's see if that changes.

We'll see if it changes now.

I'm sure it will.

All right.

Time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we put an unscientific online poll question.

And this week's question is, is the sale of U.S. Steel to a Japanese company good for Indiana steelworkers A yes or B no?

Last week we asked you whether the federal government should cut Snap benefits to help pay for tax cuts.

Just 10% of you say yes, 90% say no.

If you'd like to take part in the poll, go to wfyi.org/iwir and look for the poll.

The Marion County Election Board is investigating whether the state's top election official violated the law.

WFYIs Dillon Pierce McCoy says the investigation is focused on a campaign video Secretary of State Diego Morales released this month.

Indiana Secretary of State Diego Morales released a five minute campaign video earlier this month announcing his plans to run for reelection next year.

Marion County officials said the ad features footage of the Republican taken during an official visit to the Marion County Election Service Center last year.

They believe using the footage could be a violation of law, because government employees may not use public property to carry out campaign related activities.

Jennifer Ping is vice chair of the Marion County Election Board.

And I think it's important to have an understanding of what actually happened in occurred.

A spokesperson for the Indiana Secretary of State's office said the footage was posted on the office's official social media platforms, and it was subject to public use.

Ana DeLaney, is this.

It seems to me.

Is this just a politically motivated attack on Diego Morales?

No, I mean, the law is clear on this, and it merely taking a video produced a taxpayer expense and putting it on your website and then saying, okay, now it's kosher, now I can do that.

Is is ridiculous.

I mean, Morales, frankly, is a disgrace as secretary of state.

He doesn't follow the law.

He doesn't include he doesn't try to increase the number of people voting.

He uses whatever $90,000 car to shepherd himself around.

He travels around the world, and I don't know who's nickel that's on, but I'm willing to bet that it's not.

Is.

And all of these things he's doing and of course, never mind is original campaign where he falsified his, his, his army record and, and, you know, there's some question about where he even lived.

I mean, he is an absolute disgrace.

And this is clear violation of using a taxpayer generated video for political gain.

And he should know better as a top election official not to do it.

Even if it is a violation of Indiana election law.

The fact that it's the Marion County Election Board doing it makes it like, will it be easier for for Republicans to write it off as well?

That's just political.

It's not real to.

The extent anyone's paying attention to this.

you know, he's still got it.

He's got to get through a convention.

You know, I'm gonna remember the we don't even know where he lives.

Lying.

And we're talking about a Biden a year.

yeah.

So he's got to get through a convention.

He's already, Andrew Ireland, a freshman, representative has already kind of put feelers out there.

It sounds like to, to challenge him at convention.

you know, so I think he's, you know, but some of this stuff can add up, especially in that small room.

So I think the public at large doesn't, isn't going to pay is going to notice any of this.

And if he makes it to the convention, I don't think anyone's going to I don't think it's going to cost him the election either.

or things like this, because they're so they're just.

So the well.

Let me, let me ask.

But but to that point, I agree this on its own.

I don't think it's probably going to move the needle now.

But with Diego at the convention, if he does have a serious challenge, it's not just this, Ann kind of went through some of them.

Some of them won't matter to Republicans, but some of them clearly do.

There was legislation this session about buying cars from state officials because of stuff that Diego Morales had done.

So is the sum total of all, at least in some cases.

The little things that that have come up with Diego Morales going to be a problem for him?

Well, certainly there have been a lot of those things.

And you were merciful.

There were other things, probably about an employment record or terminations from that office that could be added to the mix as well.

Yeah.

The brother in law.

The brother.

In.

God.

All right, all right.

So and now this is going to this is it's a sliding scale.

Ten, maybe 20 years ago, these things would have been much more damaging politically.

Now, sadly.

And this is not an Indiana problem.

It's a it's an American problem.

We seem to collectively think everything is just correct.

What happens.

Yeah.

I mean, and we've been so inundated with violations of the core tenants and the norms, let's call them that.

If not an actual statutory or constitutional provisions.

Let's go.

We're talking about Donald Trump here.

I think that's a good example.

Clearly that where you just everybody just I and sadly because you can't run a democracy this way hate to tell people we're if we all just write this off is meaningless and everybody does it and everybody gets it.

As long as I get a little piece on the back end is, you know, my nibbles.

when that's not a foundation on which you can really run a state, a country or any other, kind of jurisdiction, it seems to me not when you have a democracy.

I mean, I still think it makes him a liability.

All of these things adding up.

I'm sure that the Republican Party and, you know, state lawmakers, others within state government would prefer not to be spending their time, you know, doing damage control every time something like this comes out about him.

Yeah.

So that I think there's an opportunity for people like, you know, the freshman lawmaker that you mentioned to scoot on in and present themselves as a better candidate.

I think it is up to the delegates, though, and how much they're paying attention to, stuff like this because, I mean.

Yeah, because ideologically, I don't think Andrew Ireland, I don't know him very well, but I'm watching the bills that he's done and his votes.

I don't think ideologically he's going to be really dissimilar at all from Diego Morales.

But he doesn't have any sort of baggage to come along with the fact that I'm aware.

Of the environmental matter.

you know, we'll see what happens with, you know, whatever's happening at the national level, obviously dictate, because these races are so nationalized now, all of them.

Right?

They're all everyone's got tied their vote to whatever's happening on the federal.

Level or even if they didn't want to.

That's just.

That's just.

Way that's the way that's that's.

Campaigns are being run.

And so like the sort of the convention crowd in that context, you know, if, you know, we're sitting here a year from now in the Republican, you know, midterm with your traditional midterm, right, but maybe on steroids with everything else that's going on or what people where the economy is, what's the reaction to, you know, we've been on this roller coaster of tariffs, you know, what is the outcome of all that through the environment next year?

Traditionally probably not.

It's not going to be good, which is in the mind historically has been on the mind of people that go to go to convention.

But we.

Want a win at the.

End.

If Indiana Democrats pretty incredible challenge, then they'll go.

Then they're going to need to look.

I'm not sure it's even rank and file voters, or even convention voters who by definition are more active party, members of the party apparatus.

But your point is, is a good one.

and I think the people the perception I just talked about has been created of government is not one I share.

I still think the vast majority of elected officials, their hearts and in the right place, and they do care about morals.

But to me, public service is one of the most honorable professions you can do.

You can engage a couple of Republicans at the state.

Both parties.

But we don't have any at the state level.

All right.

I'm saying generally they're good, that is.

But I think most yeah.

This is the bright spot for some of the frustration.

Yeah.

They're good I got good news and I've got bad news.

So but the problem here is it's the it's the people who are being painted with the broad brush where the opposition comes from.

Those government officials who say, I don't want to be viewed in the same light, that because I'm not that way, I don't I'm not out to profit personally.

All right.

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins says change is coming to the VA, but insists patient care won't be compromised.

Collins visited the Root of VA medical Center in Indianapolis this week.

Collins says the goal the Trump administration laid out was a 15% cut to the VA, prompted, he says, by years of spending that didn't deliver adequate results.

Our wait times were still up, our backlogs were up.

It's time to ask new questions.

But veterans groups have voiced fears about how the cuts will impact care.

Collins says frontline health care staff and benefits advisors will not be part of any cuts.

We have duplicative HR systems, we have duplicative payroll systems, we have duplicative contract system, none of which affect the actual care.

Collins says the agency will look at modernizing the Indianapolis Medical Center.

But he notes many VA hospitals are aging and addressing that is a budget issue Congress must confront.

Leslie, is it understandable that veterans are worried about the impact of VA cuts on their care?

I think so, I mean, if the goal is 15% and the examples of things given are, you know, payroll systems, HR systems, those usually aren't like a significant percentage of expenses at these places.

And so if that's what you're looking at, I don't really know if you're going to be able to get anywhere near that goal, which he's been clear.

That's just a goal.

It's not it's not a hard yeah.

Yeah.

But I think, there's not that much to turn to before you start looking at the real expenses like staff hours or even staff themselves.

So I mean, I think it's a valid concern.

You know, listening to Secretary Collins yesterday, he says absolutely all the right things.

which can matter.

I mean, it's in terms of if that's where his head is really at.

But looking at the way the cuts have been made in other parts of government under Donald Trump's administration this time around, is it is it more reason for veterans to be uneasy at this point?

I think yes.

How could you not be?

because again, good point.

There's been you talk about oh, we'll just streamline, we'll be more efficient, we'll cut waste walk up front.

Keep in mind, when you look at health care delivery in the in the Veterans Administration, that was one of the most scrutinized and problematic areas of federal government.

I'm talking now, say, between 5 and 10 years ago, or maybe even before that, where there was so much scrutiny and so much consternation on the part of veterans who weren't getting the kind of care they wanted, for whom facilities weren't conveniently located, or for whom, access to these facilities required long waits.

And it was very bipartisan.

It was.

Yeah.

And and.

Money was invested.

And a lot of investments were made and a lot of attempts to solve this seemingly intractable problem.

So one would assume if there were this kind of like DoD, these people, knowing what they're doing here, that would have been routed out, by now, one would think.

So if you really now they back could back away from the target number.

That's possible.

And he said he repeated it yesterday.

He said 15% is the goal.

But if we don't get there, if we look at everything we go, we've made it more efficient.

We've made it work better and we haven't hit 15%.

We're not going to keep cutting just to hit that number.

One of the things he was asked about, though, too, is router.

Bush is 60 plus years old, but the average age of VA hospitals in this country, of which there are, I think in the 170 range, is about 60 years.

So in terms of improving the system is a huge part of the problem that the whole system is, is aging.

It's aging.

Right.

So it's it gets more expensive the older it gets.

Right.

And so if you're trying to it's sounds counterintuitive to say, well, we got to invest money to save money, but that's what they need to do because we have heard for years that the wait times are forever.

The veterans are dying without getting the care they they, they deserve.

so let's just take it.

Let's take it on its face that maybe he doesn't want maybe the administration doesn't want to, you know, get veterans benefits.

The same is the same.

It's because that doesn't seem popular now.

and they do want to improve what has been a long time problem.

And I appreciate your faith in the federal government that we addressed this ten years ago and therefore.

Not necessarily looking at it.

It's not out of altruism.

It's just this the fright of dealing with, well, you don't want to screw over veterans.

I think that does one to that, you know, Secretary Collins asked about, you know, the aging infrastructure said that's a, you know, question for for Congress.

And they was talking to, you know, the members of Congress there.

but Congress right now is in the mood to spend less money as opposed to more money.

But is this one area where Congress might be more easily persuadable to invest?

Well, they're already they're already exploding the deficit by $2.3 trillion over the next ten years because of the Bush and Bush, because of the Trump tax cuts.

So I don't know that they have the resources to do what's necessary to do to provide the quality care we want to do for veterans, as long as that those tax cuts have to happen, which is, of course, if you listen to the big beautiful bill rhetoric, they have to happen.

There aren't going to be the resources to do what's necessary to feed children to to provide Medicaid to people or to provide for veterans.

It's just not going to be there.

All right.

Governor Mike Braun says a new law raises the bar on dealing fentanyl to ensure Hoosiers are better protected against the drug.

Braun highlighted legislation this week that reduces the amount of the drug someone has to possess in order to trigger harsher criminal penalties.

According to the CDC.

Fentanyl is the primary driver of two out of every three overdose deaths in the country.

And that's why governor Mike Braun says, addressing the scourge of fentanyl is a focus of his administration.

Criminals should know there will be consequences for their actions under the new law.

If someone intends to deliver a drug with less than one gram of fentanyl, it's now a level four felony, which can mean up to 12 years in prison.

More than a gram means higher penalties.

Republican Senator Aaron Freeman, the bill's author, wanted the initial penalty to be even higher.

In my view, fentanyl is different from most every other drug.

I mean, this isn't a drug.

It's a product that will kill you in microscopic amounts.

Freeman says he believes the new law is focused on people peddling fentanyl, and not just people with addictions who are sharing the drug.

Jon Schwantes, when the state rewrote its entire criminal code a little more than a decade ago, the watchword was proportionality.

But realistically, is fentanyl require it, which wasn't really much of a thing in the illicit drug trade.

More than a decade ago.

Does fentanyl require a different sort of response in the states criminal penalties?

Well, it's a huge problem.

I think statistically it accounts for well over 50% of drug overdose deaths.

Nationwide, it's about 70%.

So there's a problem.

And you're right.

The old statute.

I mean, those who might be somewhat reluctant to impose harsher penalties would say, look what's happened as a society to us, as a society, when we have targeted certain drugs and we end up filling prisons with certain segments of the population, nobody wants to go down that path again.

But something does have to happen, to keep people alive.

one good step and we can applaud members of both parties.

And the General Assembly was decriminalizing fentanyl fentanyl test strips.

In this past session, I think it passed the Senate unanimously.

It passed, with the exception of two votes, I believe, in the House and was signed by the governor.

That's also the kind of thing.

Now, one gram might be an interesting cut off because I quickly looked at the federal one kilogram, I think, is that the, is the trafficking cut off?

You know, at least maybe not an.

Extra distinction, though, with this, that the the criminal penalties they changed were for dealing and not just for possession and, and and when you talk, I mean, a lot of times the concern is, well, are we really getting actual dealers or we get getting people who were sharing the drugs were addicts themselves.

But in this case, you need to not just it's not just the amount of the drug you're carrying in order to prove the statute.

It's also there has to be some other evidence to prove the warrant intending to to do so.

So is this cutting to the heart of the problem?

A little?

I think the test strips cut to the heart of the problem more than anything else.

I mean, if people are dumb enough and I mean dumb enough to use fentanyl, this statute is not going to do anything.

And a lot of people don't know they're using which parents?

The test strips.

Yeah.

Well, that's why the test strips.

So the other right approach to do.

But if they're dumb enough to use it or to deal in it, I don't think that this is going to persuade them otherwise.

There are some, lawmakers, not not many, but there are some lawmakers who who largely oppose bills that raise criminal penalties because they think we set the system.

We've got it right.

We don't need to keep tinkering again, which is what got us in the problem in the first place.

But this bill passed almost year in, I think, one no vote across the 150 lawmakers.

Does this sort of reflect how serious the fentanyl crisis is in this state and in the country?

But the I think the penalties toll proportional to the cortisol level for the.

Yeah, but they change the amount.

Right.

Right.

So they and there's a friction between Aaron Freeman specifically and in the House on proportionality.

And in the House he.

Would very much, very much like to raise a lot of the.

Absolutely would.

But there's that friction.

There's that friction there.

So I but I do think but I'm kind of what Aaron Freeman frankly, I mean this is also I mean, it's not just the people using it.

It's the it's the first responders walking in the room not knowing it.

So, I mean, this is this is different in a way that if you're in the same room with it as it kills you, it's not that you shot it in your veins and you touched it and he didn't know you were touching it.

So I think I think it it's different for that reason.

Yeah.

In terms of Aaron Freeman, he, he wants to keep pushing.

But so far the House has really opposed a lot of that.

Do you think that continues.

I mean the test strips thing for example whenever there's like house-senate divide on something, it takes years to go through and it takes multiple versions.

And so I think that that's just the regular process.

We'll probably see that happen.

maybe one other thing to note is the sentence aggravates, signing.

Well, they're only signed into law the other day.

Also, for for dealing is not aggravated and getting treatment successfully completing a substance use disorder treatment is a mitigating.

Yeah.

The federal government's dealing with this too.

In the House in March, I think the U.S. House passed, again, bipartisan fashion, a bill that would granted, these are mostly state prosecutions, but there is a trigger for federal, prosecution as well.

And it's I don't think it's I think it's still, tied up in the Senate, but I not likelihood I think we'd see movement there as well.

So a two pronged approach, state and federal.

that's Indiana Week in review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Ann DeLaney.

Republican Mike O'Brien.

Jon Schwantes of Indiana Lawmakers.

and Leslie Bonilla Muñiz of the Indiana Capitol Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Week on reviews, podcast and episodes at wfyi.org/iwir or on the PBS app.

I'm Brandon Smith of Indiana Public Broadcasting.

Join us next time, because a lot can happen in an Indiana week.

The views expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting Stations.

Additional support is provided by the Indy Chamber, working to unite business and community to maintain a strong economy and quality of life.