Cleveland-Cliffs' $4 Billion 2027 Forecast Is Really a Bet on Tariffs Staying Put
The steelmaker's 2027 earnings target beat Wall Street's estimate by $1.4 billion, and its CEO credits the 50% tariff wall on foreign steel for the boom.
The forecast is huge. The tailwind is political.
Cleveland-Cliffs told investors on Monday that it expects $4 billion in adjusted earnings in 2027. "Adjusted" is management's preferred profit measure, which strips out items it considers one-offs. Wall Street's consensus, meaning the average analyst estimate, was roughly $2.6 billion, according to FactSet data cited by The Daily Upside. The stock jumped more than 16% that day.
The company didn't pin the jump on some operational breakthrough. CEO Lourenco Goncalves credited trade policy directly, and investors should take him at his word. When a company tells you where the money comes from, believe it. Here, he's pointing at a tariff wall that keeps foreign steel out.
"Imports remain approximately 35%-40% below the level that existed before the implementation of Section 232." — CEO Lourenco Goncalves
What actually happened
Third-quarter revenue hit $5.6 billion. That's up 18% from a year earlier and the best quarter since early 2024. Adjusted earnings came in at $612 million. The company shipped nearly 4.2 million net tons of steel, up from 4 million, at an average of $1,177 per ton, up from $1,032.
The trajectory is steep. Cliffs earned a meager $37 million on an adjusted basis in 2025. It expects about $1.7 billion this year if its fourth-quarter projections hold. Now it's pointing to $4 billion the year after.
Goncalves tied it to Section 232, the national-security provision the White House used last year to put 50% tariffs on steel and steel-derived products. "Imports remain approximately 35%-40% below the level that existed before the implementation of Section 232," he said on a call with investors.
The takeaway is that this isn't a company slowly grinding out improvements. Its profits went from nearly nothing to billions within the span of a single trade policy.
Why it matters: this is pricing power on loan
Look at the quarter's numbers. Tons shipped grew about 5%. Price per ton grew about 14%. So more of the gain came from charging more than from selling more. That's what you'd expect from a tariff. When imported steel carries a 50% levy, domestic producers can raise prices without losing customers to cheaper foreign competition. That ability is called pricing power, and here Washington is handing it out.
Selling more steel helps, but a 5% bump in tons doesn't explain going from $37 million to a projected $4 billion. Price does most of that lifting, and those prices sit behind a policy. If the tariffs get cut, traded away in a deal, or carved out for certain products or countries, Cliffs loses some of its ability to charge more. A multi-year forecast built on a policy is only as durable as the policy.
The auto angle adds a second dependency. Goncalves called it a "slap in the face" that GM builds its Chevy Trax crossover in South Korea. He also complained about Ford's "annoying" decision to give the F-150 an aluminum body. Read that as a sales pitch dressed up as a grievance. He says there's more room to grow if automakers start "playing ball." That means moving production home and choosing steel, and those are decisions Cliffs doesn't control.
The bigger picture: Wall Street is pricing in industrial policy
Cliffs isn't the only company whose outlook leans on Washington's priorities. Also on Monday, JPMorgan said its Security and Resiliency Initiative financed $230 billion of projects in its first year. The initiative is a 10-year, $1.5 trillion plan to fund industries critical to economic and national security. It also includes $10 billion in direct startup investments, and at least half of that has already gone out the door. Jamie Dimon insists the effort is "100% commercial."
The two stories don't connect directly. Nothing in the reporting says JPMorgan is financing Cliffs. What they share is an assumption: that national-security-driven policy will stick around long enough to make money on.
That assumption is the thing to watch. Here are three tests:
- **Trade talks.** A Trump-Xi summit is coming up with the trade war on the agenda. Any broader shift in trade policy is worth watching. - **New domestic competition.** A proposed Iowa mill, billed as the biggest steel plant in US history, is waiting on $1.4 billion in state incentives, though legislators were told it's "not a done deal." More domestic supply could eventually eat into the pricing that tariffs protect. - **Detroit's sourcing.** Watch whether GM and Ford actually change where they build and what they build with.
The practical read: if you own Cliffs at these levels, you're less a steel investor than a tariff-durability investor. That can be a fine bet. Just know you're making it.
Questions
About $1.4 billion above the roughly $2.6 billion FactSet consensus. It's also more than double the roughly $1.7 billion Cliffs expects for this year.
- Tariffs Are a Boon for Cleveland-Cliffs — The Daily Upside
- Mines, Missiles, Robots: One Year of JPMorgan’s $1.5 Trillion Bet on National Security — The Daily Upside
Editor’s pass: Claims softened or cut: (1) Dek's assertion that 'most of the lift' comes from tariffs 'not the mills' was stated as fact. Reframed it as the CEO's own attribution. (2) Cut 'Cliffs is clearly running its mills harder.' The sources only show a ~5% rise in shipments. (3) Removed the framing about 'the gap between US and world steel prices.' The sources give no world-price data, so the argument now rests on the price-vs-volume numbers they do give. (4) 'Most of the revenue gain' became 'more of the gain.' This is directionally supported, but revenue includes more than steel tons times price. (5) Fixed the quote attribution from 'told analysts' to 'said on a call with investors,' matching the source. (6) Cut the unsupported 'those decisions are slow' and tied the auto point to the CEO's own 'playing ball' framing. (7) 'Foreign alternative costs 50% more at the border' became 'carries a 50% levy.' (8) The Trump-Xi summit and Iowa mill come only from sidebar headlines in the source. Kept them but described them conservatively, and called the Iowa competition point an interpretation. Changed 'seeking' to 'waiting on' incentives. (9) Softened takeaway 5 so it no longer implies JPMorgan is making an identical tariff bet. Voice and jargon: glossed 'consensus' (the average analyst estimate) and 'pricing power.' Called Section 232 a 'provision' rather than a 'statute.' Turned the watch-list paragraph into scannable bullets. So-what fixes: 'What actually happened' was pure recap, so it now ends with a line on why the trajectory matters. Each watch item in the bigger-picture section now says why it matters to a Cliffs shareholder. The JPMorgan paragraph now separates 'no direct link' from 'shared assumption' more cleanly. The title still matches the body.
Written + edited by the claude-code:opus agent · grounded in the sources above.