logo
What Trump's Apple Threat Means for India's Tariff Negotiations

What Trump's Apple Threat Means for India's Tariff Negotiations

New York Times22-05-2025

Even after President Trump hit it with a 26 percent tariff, India had reason to be hopeful about trade negotiations with the United States.
China was facing even higher import taxes. So were smaller Asian countries whose exports compete with India, like Vietnam and Bangladesh. That positioned India to use the trade war to advance its goal of luring the business that was expected to flee its giant neighbor. Plus, India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, had a cozy relationship with Mr. Trump.
Things are looking tougher for India now, and for its American business partners. Mr. Trump has changed up his tactics with China, backing off his highest tariffs. That wrong-footed India, which now faces tariffs not much lower than China's.
Then he threw a wrench into India's relationship with Apple, the single most striking example of an American company that reoriented its production away from Chinese suppliers.
A few years ago, nearly every iPhone was assembled in China. By the end of this year, an estimated 25 percent or more will be made in India. Last week, Mr. Trump revealed that he does not see that as progress: He said Apple's production should skip India and move to the United States instead.
India is working to secure a reduction in the 26 percent tariff, which Mr. Trump paused until early July to give the countries time to talk. Officials in New Delhi are not entirely sure what to make of Mr. Trump's remarks about Apple. But they have complicated an already complex negotiation before the tariff reprieve ends.
Indian officials were in Washington this week, trying to hash out a deal. Piyush Goyal, the commerce minister, had already hopped back and forth from New Delhi twice since Mr. Trump was re-elected.
On Tuesday, after wrapping up a meeting with his American counterpart, Howard Lutnick, Mr. Goyal posted on social media that he was 'expediting the first tranche of India-U.S. Bilateral Trade Agreement.' With the word 'tranche,' he dropped a clue that India sees any agreement playing out as a series.
But there is no certainty about the path for the talks, as the past 10 days have made frustratingly clear in New Delhi.
Before he added Apple to the chaotic dynamic, Mr. Trump conflated India's trade negotiations with its recent conflict with its nuclear-armed neighbor Pakistan. Indian diplomats were frustrated when the American president claimed the credit for brokering a cease-fire and then offered to step into their dangerous dispute over the region of Kashmir.
India's government was made even more unhappy when Mr. Trump then inserted trade into his account of the peacemaking. 'I said, 'Come on, we're going to do a lot of trade with you guys,'' he said on May 12. 'People have never really used trade the way I used it.' A senior Indian official denied that trade had even been discussed.
Then, on May 15, Mr. Trump demanded that Apple stop its yearslong efforts to reduce its reliance on China and make iPhones in India.
'I told Tim Cook: 'We're not interested in you building in India. They can take care of themselves; you up your production'' in the United States, he said, referring to Apple's chief executive.
The demand is a slap in the face for India, a close U.S. partner that for many American companies has been an increasingly viable location to lessen their dependence on China. Ever since the Covid-19 pandemic, global businesses that depend on China have been looking for ways to pare the risk of relying too much on one big country. India assured its American friends that it could take up the slack.
No country can match China for its extensive and efficient factories, and Apple's roots there are deep. So it is a point of pride for many in Indian government and business that Apple has shifted some of its iPhone assembly. The idea that Apple could redirect its manufacturing capacity from China straight to the United States — bypassing India — caused a collective double take.
Apple did not respond to a request to comment.
'Everyone wants manufacturing at home,' said Prachir Singh, an analyst in India for Counterpoint Research, which covers technology companies. But that's much easier said than done.
'If you talk about iPhones, there are more than 1,000 components. It took almost a decade for Apple to set up such a supply chain in China,' Mr. Singh said. 'And it took more than five years to reach some capacity here.'
Several factors went into making parts of India competitive with China's manufacturing marvel.
In the southern state of Tamil Nadu, at the heart of Apple's supply chain in India, the local government has helped companies like Foxconn, the Taiwanese giant that has made iPhones in China for years, by building workers' dormitories and providing other China-style infrastructure. India's national government has been subsidizing the manufacture of high-tech goods since 2020.
Labor costs are low across India. Local trade unions in Tamil Nadu estimate that the average monthly salary was equivalent to $233. Wages even for jobs that require engineering degrees are competitive enough with costs in China.
Finally, companies like Foxconn have helped local businesses upgrade the value chain in India, by building more of the iPhone's components in India. That creates what factory managers call an ecosystem: dense clusters of talent and supply that are starting to give India the kind of industrial edge that China showed more than 20 years ago.
Two people in contact with the Indian trade negotiators, requesting anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said they did not believe that India was at risk of losing Apple's business. They added that it was unthinkable to them that the United States would be ready to compete with India's advantages in manufacturing.
Instead, they said, it must be a bargaining tactic.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Feds seek to ditch settlement over alleged redlining with North Jersey bank
Feds seek to ditch settlement over alleged redlining with North Jersey bank

Yahoo

time9 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Feds seek to ditch settlement over alleged redlining with North Jersey bank

The Trump administration is asking a judge to drop a 2022 settlement the Justice Department had reached with North Jersey-based Lakeland Bank — which was later absorbed by Provident Bank — over allegations of redlining against Black and Hispanic customers. While Provident Bank said it will continue to provide low-cost mortgages to underserved communities, the motion by the U.S. Justice Department to abandon the settlement has drawn the ire of community advocates and legal experts, who say it would make it easier for banks to engage in redlining. 'It goes without saying it's a good thing when financial institutions are complying with those consent orders, but when you take away the teeth — the actual enforcement — who's to say that they will continue to comply,' said Leila Amirhamzeh, director of community reinvestment for New Jersey Citizen Action, a consumer advocacy four-page motion by the Justice Department, filed May 28 in U.S. District Court, seeks to terminate the consent order the Biden administration negotiated with what was then Lakeland Bank. In the initial complaint, the Justice Department said Lakeland violated the federal Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act by deliberately avoiding banking with Black and Hispanic customers, particularly in and around Newark. The discrimination in question allegedly took place between 2015 and 2021, according to the Biden administration. To settle the complaint, Lakeland agreed to pay $12 million to subsidize mortgages, home improvement loans and home refinancing loans for Black and Hispanic residents and open two branches in underserved neighborhoods. Lakeland also had to provide $150,000 a year for advertising, outreach and consumer finance education in the Newark area. Newark Mayor and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ras Baraka wanted one of those new branches to be in his city, and the Greater Toms River Chamber of Commerce also wanted a branch in its area. According to the Provident Bank website, there are currently four locations in Newark and three in Toms River. After acquiring Lakeland, Provident took ownership of the settlement and the mandate to open two branches in underserved areas of New Jersey. The Justice Department in its motion to terminate the order said Lakeland reached substantial commitment to comply with the consent agreement and it is committed to continuing its disbursement of the loan subsidy. Provident spokesperson Keith Buscio told and the USA TODAY Network New Jersey that the bank remains committed to the loan subsidy initiative. He said Provident is not a party to the litigation and referred other questions to the Justice Department. The Justice Department could not immediately be reached for comment. Baraka's office in Newark said it is planning to hold a press conference about the motion by the Justice Department on June 5. Court filings show two attorneys who helped file the initial complaint against Lakeland, Michael Campion and Susan Millenky, withdrew as counsel from the case. Campion was appointed in 2022 to lead the U.S. Attorney's Office's Civil Rights Division that was created to enforce federal civil rights laws in New Jersey. The Fair Housing Act was passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 to prohibit landlords and mortgage lenders from discriminating based on race, religion, national origin or sex. Nearly 60 years later, racial wealth disparity remains vast. In New Jersey, the median household wealth of white families is $322,500, compared with $17,700 for Black families and $26,100 for Hispanic families, the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice said. In New Jersey, 77.3% of white residents owned a home in 2020. By comparison, 42.8% of Black residents and 32.7% of Hispanic residents were homeowners, according to the Urban Institute, a research group. Critics said the Justice Department's motion to drop the Lakeland settlement is a step by the Trump administration's bid to reverse diversity, equity and inclusion programs. David Troutt, a professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark, said the motion by the Justice Department to terminate the consent decree is part of a larger campaign by the department to rescind investigations and agreements involving anti-Black racism, while beginning investigations into what it deems 'illegal DEI.' 'The Trump administration's withdrawal from a federal consent decree without justification is an extraordinary act of endorsing racist practices and housing market manipulation,' Troutt said. 'For the very government that successfully enforced those borrowers' civil rights to now repudiate them sends a message unlike any we've seen since the federal government first endorsed redlining in the 1930s,' Troutt said. Lakeland isn't the only New Jersey bank that faced scrutiny under the Biden administration. Toms River-based OceanFirst Financial Corp. agreed to pay $14 million to subsidize mortgages, helping settle a lawsuit that alleged the bank violated federal discrimination laws. Since then, it has improved the rating given by federal bank regulators who oversee investments in underserved communities to 'outstanding.' The Justice Department hasn't filed a motion seeking to terminate the consent order with OceanFirst. But two attorneys who represented the U.S. in the initial complaint, Millenky and Nathan Shulock, have filed motions to withdraw from the case, according to the court docket. A combined 22 Provident and Lakeland branches closed in 2024 following the $1.3 billion merger creating a 'super community bank.' Each branch that closed was within roughly three miles of a nearby branch. Activists and opponents warned that the merger would mean fewer banking services would be available for underserved communities, such as people of color, the elderly and disabled. New Jersey Citizen Action applauded Provident for its continued commitment to the terms of the consent order. But the group said the Justice Department should continue to enforce it. 'When you actually terminate these consent orders, there's no deterrence, and it's basically telling financial institutions that the Department of Justice is going to be taking a hands-off approach to fair lending issues, to redlining,' New Jersey Citizen Action's Amirhamzeh said. Daniel Munoz covers business, consumer affairs, labor and the economy for and The Record. Email: munozd@ Twitter:@danielmunoz100 and Facebook Michael L. Diamond is a business reporter for the Asbury Park Press. He has been writing about the New Jersey economy and health care industry since 1999. He can be reached at mdiamond@ This article originally appeared on Feds seek to drop Lakeland Bank settlement over alleged redlining

Trump formally asks Congress to claw back approved spending targeted by DOGE
Trump formally asks Congress to claw back approved spending targeted by DOGE

Los Angeles Times

time9 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Trump formally asks Congress to claw back approved spending targeted by DOGE

WASHINGTON — The White House on Tuesday officially asked Congress to claw back $9.4 billion in already approved spending, taking funding away from programs targeted by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. It's a process known as 'rescission,' which requires President Donald Trump to get approval from Congress to return money that had previously been appropriated. Trump's aides say the funding cuts target programs that promote liberal ideologies. The request, if it passes the House and Senate, would formally enshrine many of the spending cuts and freezes sought by DOGE. It comes at a time when Musk is extremely unhappy with the tax cut and spending plan making its way through Congress, calling it on Tuesday a 'disgusting abomination' for increasing the federal deficit. White House budget director Russ Vought said more rescission packages and other efforts to cut spending could follow if the current effort succeeds. ' Here's what to know about the rescissions request: The request to Congress is unlikely to meaningfully change the troublesome increase in the U.S. national debt. Tax revenues have been insufficient to cover the growing costs of Social Security, Medicare and other programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the government is on track to spend roughly $7 trillion this year, with the rescission request equaling just 0.1% of that total. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at Tuesday's briefing that Vought would continue to cut spending, hinting that there could be additional efforts to return funds. 'He has tools at his disposal to produce even more savings,' Leavitt said. Vought said he can send up additional rescissions at the end of the fiscal year in September 'and if Congress does not act on it, that funding expires.' 'It's one of the reasons why we are not putting all of our expectations in a typical rescissions process,' he added. A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget, speaking on condition of anonymity to preview some of the items that would lose funding, said that $8.3 billion was being cut from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. NPR and PBS would also lose federal funding, as would the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, also known as PEPFAR. The spokesperson listed specific programs that the Trump administration considered wasteful, including $750,000 to reduce xenophobia in Venezuela, $67,000 for feeding insect powder to children in Madagascar and $3 million for circumcision, vasectomies and condoms in Zambia. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., complimented the planned cuts and pledged to pass them. 'This rescissions package reflects many of DOGE's findings and is one of the many legislative tools Republicans are using to restore fiscal sanity,' Johnson said. 'Congress will continue working closely with the White House to codify these recommendations, and the House will bring the package to the floor as quickly as possible.' Members of the House Freedom Caucus, among the chamber's most conservative lawmakers, said they would like to see additional rescission packages from the administration. 'We will support as many more rescissions packages the White House can send us in the coming weeks and months,' the group said in a press release. Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, gave the package a less optimistic greeting. 'Despite this fast track, the Senate Appropriations Committee will carefully review the rescissions package and examine the potential consequences of these rescissions on global health, national security, emergency communications in rural communities, and public radio and television stations,' the Maine lawmaker said in a statement. Boak writes for the Associated Press.

Citigroup reverses firearms policy after pressure from Trump administration on big banks
Citigroup reverses firearms policy after pressure from Trump administration on big banks

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Citigroup reverses firearms policy after pressure from Trump administration on big banks

A month after the 2018 mass school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Citigroup enacted restrictions for its clients that sold firearms — the first major bank on Wall Street to do so. On Tuesday, the bank rolled back that policy. 'We also will no longer have a specific policy as it relates to firearms,' the company said in a statement Tuesday. 'The policy was intended to promote the adoption of best sales practices as prudent risk management and didn't address the manufacturing of firearms.' The decision comes as the Trump administration alleges that Wall Street is biased against conservatives — a right-wing talking point since more than a dozen state auditors accused Bank of America of 'politicized de-banking' in an open letter last year (de-banking is when a bank closes an account for a customer it deems high risk). At the time, Bank of America said it has 'no political litmus test.' On Tuesday, Citi said it was 'following regulatory developments, recent Executive Orders and federal legislation.' In 2018, Citi said it would ban banking services to businesses that sold firearms to those under 21, those who didn't pass a background check, or sold bump stocks (used by the gunman in the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas) or high-capacity magazines. The policy applied to small businesses, commercial and institutional clients, and credit card partners, but did not restrict how individual customers used their cards. Big banks have recently caught the ire of the president as well as the crypto industry. In January at the annual World Economic Forum, President Donald Trump scolded Brian Moynihan, the CEO of Bank of America. 'You've done a fantastic job, but I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives, because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank,' Trump said. 'You and Jamie and everybody… What you're doing is wrong,' referring to JPMorgan Chase head Jamie Dimon. Citigroup also announced on Tuesday that it will update its employee Code of Conduct and its external Global Financial Access Policy 'to clearly state that we do not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation in the same way we are clear that we do not discriminate on the basis of other traits such as race and religion.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store