Time to Bring iPhone Manufacturing Back to America, Op-Ed
Steve Jobs the champion of the iPhone concept
By : Ya Libnan – Op-Ed series : 'Bring It Home: Rebuilding America's Manufacturing Power'
Key Points
:
Apple — the symbolic heart of American innovation that builds abroad.
President Donald Trump is once again raising the right question: Why isn't Apple — one of the richest and most powerful companies in the world — making its iPhones in the United States?
Apple has long claimed that moving iPhone manufacturing to the U.S. is impractical or too costly. But that argument doesn't hold water. What's really at stake is profit margins — not practicality. And if America is serious about rebuilding its economic backbone, it's time to stop making excuses and start making things again.
Some quoted Apple as saying that it takes around 20 hours to assemble an iPhone — but that number includes automated processes. The real manual labor? It takes
less than one hour
of human hands to put together an iPhone. Even at American wages, that labor would only add
$20 to $40
to the cost of each device.
That's a small price to pay for rebuilding an industry, restoring pride in American craftsmanship, and giving jobs to American workers.
For decades, the U.S. sent its manufacturing overseas, chasing cheap labor and bigger profits. In the process, we lost factories, skills, and the dignity of building things with our own hands. Whole towns were hollowed out. Generations grew up without ever seeing what a thriving local factory looks like.
Apple is a symbol of American innovation. But what good is innovation if it's always built somewhere else? It's time to match great ideas with great American manufacturing — and to bring back the jobs, training, and supply chains that made the U.S. an industrial powerhouse.
This isn't just about Apple — it's about the country's long-term economic strength. A nation that can't make its own goods will always be at the mercy of those who can. The more we outsource, the more we lose our leverage, our independence, and our ability to shape our future.
America should not just be a consumer of high-tech products — it should be the
maker
of them. If we don't control the production, we don't control the future.
Apple benefits enormously from being an American company. It enjoys strong legal protections, tax advantages, and a massive U.S. customer base. Yet it gives very little back in terms of jobs or industrial investment at home. That's not just a missed opportunity — it's a moral failure.
If Apple sells iPhones to American consumers, it should build them with American workers. The company can afford it. The country needs it. And the message it would send — that America can make world-class products again — is priceless.
President Trump is right to push for American-made iPhones. This is about more than one company — it's about rebuilding a national culture of production, pride, and independence.
Let Apple lead by example. Let America remember how to build. It's time to turn 'Designed in California' into
'Designed and Made in the USA.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
L'Orient-Le Jour
10 hours ago
- L'Orient-Le Jour
Lebanon was working on disarmament plan before US proposal, Nassar says
Justice Minister Adel Nassar stated Friday that "the Lebanese government was already working on a plan to withdraw Hezbollah's weapons even before the presentation of the American proposal," stating that "any weapon outside the framework of official authorities is contrary to the Constitution and laws, and this is not a matter of debate or opinion." His remarks, in an interview with the Amman-based Al-Ghad TV channel reported by the state-run National News Agency (NNA), came as Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem said Friday in very forceful terms that the party would not give up its weapons as long as Israel continued its attacks. Qassem also warned the Lebanese government of a confrontation if it persisted in the decision made on Aug. 5 to set a timetable for disarmament, in accordance with an American proposal that also calls for the withdrawal of Israel from territories its army occupies in Lebanon. This proposal was relayed by envoy Tom Barrack, who visited Beirut several times at the start of the summer to promote it. Not 'suicide' In response to Hezbollah's position that handing over its weapons would be "suicide," a statement made earlier this week by the head of the party's parliamentary bloc, Mohammad Raad, Nassar argued that "the real suicide lies in the choice of unilateral adventurism that has led to military confrontations, causing martyrs and destruction." This was a direct criticism of Hezbollah's decision on Oct. 8, 2023, to open a front in southern Lebanon in support of Gaza. The opening of this front led to over a year of confrontations, which escalated into near-total war in the last three months before the imperfect cease-fire was reached at the end of last November. "The choice of the state is the guarantor for everyone, and the conditions in the Middle East are evolving, which requires vigilance from all," the minister added. "Hezbollah cannot consider handing over its weapons as suicide, especially since it signed on to the decisions of the ministerial statement," drafted in the wake of the Nawaf Salam government's orientation earlier in the year, Nassar added. "A lawmaker who is a partner in the government cannot tell it 'do what you want'; partners are expected to help build the state, not block it," he said, while stressing that he "does not believe any political party in Lebanon wants to provoke a confrontation with the Lebanese Army." Nassar stated that "the Lebanese Army has begun extensively recovering Hezbollah's weapons south of the Litani and has started inventorying weapons north of the Litani." He added that "all political components, including Hezbollah, will eventually respect the project of state-building, and that Lebanon will not be pushed toward new adventures or internal conflict."
L'Orient-Le Jour
10 hours ago
- L'Orient-Le Jour
French-American meeting in Paris to support Lebanon and its army
Iran has drawn its red line in Lebanon: supporting Hezbollah and all its allies, refusing to surrender weapons, while emphasizing a clear watchword — "dialogue and consensus" — to handle this issue. This was the message conveyed during the official meetings of the Iranian envoy on Wednesday in Beirut. But in the political meetings held with forces and groups allied with Tehran, Ali Larijani stated that Iran had not emerged defeated from the war with Israel, that it was working to develop its capabilities and technologies and would seek to provide all the required support in its own way. The question many are asking remains about the modalities of this support, particularly after the fall of the Assad regime and the tightening of pressure on Hezbollah, both militarily and financially. The day after Iran's position was announced, the Lebanese file was on the table for the French and Americans. The fate of UNIFIL France on Thursday hosted a political, diplomatic, and military meeting bringing together French officials, notably Anne-Claire Legendre, who is in charge of the Middle East file, and heads of the French army, alongside American military commanders from the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) and the U.S. envoy for Syria and Lebanon, Tom Barrack, L'Orient-Le Jour learned from diplomatic sources. In practice, the meeting addressed all regional issues, but focused in particular on the Lebanese file, without dissociating it from Syria, given the international perception that Lebanon remains linked to Syria due to their interconnected stakes and the fact that Damascus constitutes both a point of connection with Lebanon and a cut-off point with Hezbollah and its supply routes. The meeting had several goals, the main one being to examine the process of renewing the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). France, which is in charge of preparing the written proposal, is trying to convince the United States to extend UNIFIL's mission, maintain its budget and troop numbers, and broaden its prerogatives and field of action. In Washington, some favor a reduction of the budget and the troop numbers, as well as a shortening of the mandate, while others support a final one-year renewal after which UNIFIL would withdraw from Lebanon. Follow-up of government action Another concern was boosting the work of the cease-fire monitoring committee and holding more frequent meetings to ensure the agreement's implementation, as well as the implementation of the plan by Barrack and adopted by the Lebanese government. Washington appeared ready to grant Paris a greater role in this area. The debate also focuses on Israel's condition: in case of a withdrawal from southern Lebanon, French and American forces, or a multinational force, should be deployed at certain strategic points and hills, with Israel refusing the entry of the Lebanese Army or UNIFIL. The third goal is to accompany the Lebanese government's decision to monopolize weapons in the hands of the state and withdraw those from Hezbollah, by monitoring the implementation plan that the Lebanese Army must establish by the end of the month, as well as how to implement it. Discussions also concern the support Washington could give — including pressure on Israel to stop its strikes and violations — to facilitate the government's work. The expected support for the army must be financial, military and logistical, with ongoing discussions among several capitals to increase their contributions. Barrack's visit The fourth objective deals with American and French coordination on Syria, with Barrack showing keen interest in the success of the new Syrian administration. Washington is relying on Syria to cut all Hezbollah supply lines. France has a historic interest in Syria: it has obtained several investments in the country and hosts meetings between Ahmad al-Sharaa's government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to reach an agreement, and also sponsored a Syrian-Israeli meeting to find a security arrangement in southern Syria. On Monday, Barrack, accompanied by former U.S. envoy Morgan Ortagus, will be back in Beirut. The Lebanese are waiting to see whether this visit will bring political aid to the country or new demands, especially as some voices in Washington and Israel believe that no topic should be discussed until the Lebanese Army begins implementing its plan for the withdrawal of weapons. This plan, still under development, was the focus of discussions during the tour by the army's commander, Rodolphe Haykal, to visit President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. He presented them with the overall military situation, the achievements of the troops so far, its needs to achieve its objectives and how to support it politically by strengthening and providing all necessary human, military, financial, and informational means, as well as the conditions allowing it to continue its deployment to extend the state's sovereignty over the entire territory.
L'Orient-Le Jour
10 hours ago
- L'Orient-Le Jour
'Veiled threat of civil war': Salam joins charge against Naim Qassem's remarks
Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem's statements on Friday morning, in which he said that Hezbollah would refuse to surrender its weapons to the Lebanese state and that his party was ready for a confrontation if one were imposed on it, sparked numerous vitriolic reactions within the Lebanese political class. "The remarks of Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem contain an implicit threat of civil war. However, no one in Lebanon today wants a civil war, and any form of threat or mention of one is completely unacceptable," Prime Minister Nawaf Salam posted on X, quoting an interview he gave earlier in the day to As-Sharq Al-Awsat. "We warn against any irresponsible behavior that could encourage discord and division." Former Presidents "To claim that the Lebanese government is implementing an American-Israeli project is baseless. Our decisions are purely Lebanese, taken within our Council of Ministers, and no one can impose them on us," the prime minister said. "The Taif Agreement is our fundamental pact and explicitly stipulates: 'the extension of the authority of the Lebanese state throughout its territory by its own forces.' No party in Lebanon is authorized to bear arms outside the framework of the state." This was a direct response to Qassem, who stated that the weapons of the "resistance" drew their legitimacy from the Taif Agreement, which ended the 1975-1990 Civil War. "No one asked for Hezbollah's weapons to be handed over to the Israeli enemy, as some claim, but rather to the Lebanese army, whose patriotism we refuse to question," Salam added. Former presidents Amine Gemayel and Michel Sleiman, along with former Prime Ministers Najib Mikati, Fouad Siniora and Tammam Salam, held a meeting via Zoom. Following the meeting, they also responded to the Hezbollah leader's speech, condemning the Israeli actions that continue their daily strikes, primarily in southern Lebanon. In their statement, they expressed their "concern" over the remarks of the secretary-general, "who affirmed his rejection of the position and decisions of the Lebanese government, of the policy of concentrating weapons in the hands of legitimate military and security forces, and of his refusal to hand over weapons to the state." They also said that "the escalation of Naim Qassem and his political conditions risk complicating the situation and placing obstacles in the path of restoring the full authority of the state." Sunnis, Christians and Druze Tripoli MP Ashraf Rifi was one of the first to react in the morning, warning Hezbollah against "resorting to threats of civil war," in a statement made following the speech by Hezbollah's secretary-general. "Sheikh Naim Qassem's party brought occupation, humanitarian catastrophe, and economic collapse to Lebanon. Today, after its defeat, it threatens the Lebanese state and people, portrays itself as a victim, and accuses the majority of treason," he said, according to a statement published by the state-run National News Agency (NNA). "Enough shirking responsibility. The only solution is: the state, the state, and the state. We warn you: stop threatening civil war." "It would be a catastrophe for everyone, and especially for you, after having alienated all the Lebanese communities and having harmed them," he added before inviting the party to abandon its allegiance to Iran, which he claimed was "collapsing today both internally and in all the areas where it has intervened." Justice Minister Adel Nassar, whose speech on al-Ghad TV was also relayed by NNA, criticized "the threat of some to destroy Lebanon to defend their weapons puts an end to the argument that weapons are intended for the defense of the country." In his interview, the minister also targeted the head of Hezbollah's parliamentary bloc, Mohammad Raad, who gave a similar speech in substance to that of Qassem during an interview with al-Manar a week ago. "The war in Lebanon is not an individual game ... Its decision is not taken in the name of a community, but with the signature of the entire nation," Industry Minister Joe Issa Khoury wrote on X. In a lengthy message on the same platform addressed to Qassem, Kataeb leader Samy Gemayel listed several articles of the Lebanese Penal Code that punish remarks similar to those made by the Hezbollah leader. Gemayel cited, in particular, Article 329, which punishes "any act aimed at preventing a Lebanese from exercising his rights," and Article 314, which states that "acts aimed at sowing panic, committed by means likely to create a public danger, such as explosives, flammable materials, toxic or destructive substances, microbial or pathogenic agents," are considered terrorist acts. His cousin and MP from the same party, Nadim Gemayel, directly addressed the Hezbollah leader: "There is no life for Lebanon as long as your weapons are outside the authority of the state." Ghayath Yazbeck, a Lebanese Forces MP in Batroun, also spoke out on X: "Sheikh Naim fights Israel with his words and destroys Lebanon with his actions, after the war paralyzed his party, rendering it inoperative and transforming its action into a mere sound phenomenon," he posted. "Do not threaten us, sheikh, with Karbalaization (referring to the death of Imam Hussein in Karbala in a sentence from the Hezbollah leader's speech); we are already immersed in a general massacre, and the deadly nihilism into which you have plunged Lebanon has no relation to the sacred and sublime spirit of Karbala. Spare the martyred environment and spare Lebanon." MP Rajji al-Saad, from the Progressive Socialist Party, also spoke out, saying that Qassem's remarks "constitute a dangerous turning point today, because they reflect a rejection by the state and a determination to maintain Lebanon as a staging ground for Iranian projects."
