'Made in the USA' wording vanishes from Trump Mobile's smartphone listing
The listing for the Trump-branded smartphone still promises to Make America Great Again — but not that it'll be made in the USA.
Since its June 16th announcement, Trump Mobile has changed some of its descriptions, including the once gigantic "MADE IN THE USA" banner. Now, the site says the phone will be "brought to life right here in the USA" and "proudly American."
That's an important distinction. The Federal Trade Commission has strict rules for what it considers "qualified" or "unqualified" claims for companies advertising a product as "Made in the USA." The FTC says that in order to reach that threshold, "all or virtually all" component sourcing and labor must be domestic.
The Verge earlier reported on the product listing change.
Trump Mobile spokesperson Chris Walker told USA Today that the T1 phone would still be made in the US. Trump Mobile did not immediately respond to a request for further comment from Business Insider about the reason behind the change to the product listing.
The Trump Organization sparked skepticism from many in the tech community with its initial announcement that its flagship, gold-colored smartphone called the T1, would be made in the USA for just $499 with the specs advertised.
Apple and other major brands have kept smartphone operations abroad because expected labor costs and a relative lack of manufacturing capacity would further inflate already expensive phones. (One analyst previously told Business Insider that if Apple were to manufacture an iPhone in the US, he'd estimate the cost to rise to $3,500).
The "Made in the USA" language isn't the only detail to vanish from the T1 phone's product page. There's no longer a mention that it will have 12 GB of RAM. Other changes include going from a 6.78-inch AMOLED screen to 6.25 inches.
For its phone network, Trump Mobile's website says it's working with Liberty Mobile Wireless, a small Florida-based network, to help establish network capacity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
16 minutes ago
- CNBC
Ron Insana: Trump would imperil more than just the Fed's independence by naming a ‘shadow chair'
The saying, "No, no, a thousand times no" remains a relevant cry as a news report suggests President Donald Trump may preemptively name a new Federal Reserve chairman nearly a year before Jerome Powell 's term expires. The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that the president has already narrowed his choices down to several candidates to replace Powell, who he has referred to as a " dummy " or " stupid " for not having already cut interest rates as the president wants him to do. Naming a new Fed chief this early, effectively creating a so-called "shadow" chair who can criticize the existing central bank leader, would have long-lasting consequences for the prized independence of the Fed. Packing the Fed, just as several presidents have tried to pack the Supreme Court, reduces the central bank to just another politicized arm of the executive branch. By statute, this was never intended to occur. The Fed's dual mandates and its impartiality If a president were to pressure the Fed to bend to their will, it would lead to legitimate questions about the central bank's ability to meet its statutory dual mandates of maximum sustainable employment and stable prices. Since the end of the era of Richard Nixon– a president who, in secret, tried to pressure then-Fed chief Arthur Burns to soften up on policy ahead of the 1972 election – his successors have all supported an independent Fed so that the central bank can keep the economy on an even keel. No doubt, all presidents – and most people – would love to see lower rates bring down the cost of borrowing, but at what price? Is the president willing to tolerate resurgent inflation? Are the American people, who elected President Trump to bring down prices, willing to risk the Fed's independence only to end up in the place where they started in 2024 – when they were upset and unsettled by the high cost of living? Time will tell. The erosion of trust in Treasurys and the U.S. dollar More important is whether a politicized central bank that cuts rates irrespective of economic conditions will be trusted by domestic and foreign bond market investors to maintain the safety and security of U.S. Treasury bonds, as well as the purchasing power and reserve currency status of the U.S. dollar. The answer is a resounding no, as the dollar is broadly weaker against foreign currencies, reflecting a clear protest to the Fed challenge being presented by the president. Several names have been floated as a possible early replacement for Powell. They include Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent – who raised the idea of a shadow Fed chair last year – National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett and former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh. The Journal also suggested that former World Bank President David Malpass could be in the running. While I'll leave my out my opinions about their respective qualifications, the issue is not about who will be the new leader of the Fed. This is about the process and the policy of subverting a sitting Fed chair – and that's what bothers me most. This should bother all Americans who value the absolute and relative stability of the U.S. economy, when compared to the rest of the world. We know that whether in Turkey, Venezuela or any other nation that has a dependent central bank, the results are always less than optimal. Currency debasement, inflation and unpredictable economic cycles dominate those countries while nations with independent central banks, be they New Zealand or the U.S., enjoy relative stability and prosperity. While I have long maintained that the U.S. economy is the envy of the world, my feelings would abruptly change if the Fed were to become a politicized tool influenced by executive expediency rather than economic necessity. If the day comes that a preemptive nominee emerges from the shadows, I would run for cover. The safety and soundness of the dollar and U.S. bonds would be suspect with a very long shadow cast over the nation's creditworthiness. Again, I say, "No, no, a thousand times no." —Ron Insana is a CNBC contributor.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trumps drop 'Made in the USA' label for new phone and a debate ensues: How to define 'made'?
NEW YORK (AP) — When the Trump family unveiled a new phone before a giant American flag at its headquarters earlier this month, the pitch was simple and succinct, packed with pure patriotism: 'Made in the U.S.A.' The Trumps are apparently having second thoughts. How about 'proudly American'? Those are the two words that have replaced the 'Made in the USA' pitch that just a few days ago appeared on the website where customers can pre-order the so-called T-1 gold-toned phones with an American flag etched on the back. Elsewhere on the site, other vague terms are now being used, describing the $499 phone as boasting an 'American-Proud Design' and 'brought to life right here in the U.S.A.' The Federal Trade Commission requires that items labeled 'Made in USA' be 'all or virtually all' produced in the U.S. and several firms have been sued over misusing the term. The Trump Organization has not explained the change and has not responded to a request for comment. Neither did an outside public relations firm handling the Trumps' mobile phone business, including a request to confirm a statement made to another media outlet. 'T1 phones are proudly being made in America,' said Trump Mobile spokesman Chris Walker, according to USA Today. 'Speculation to the contrary is simply inaccurate.' The language change on the website was first reported by the news site The Verge. An expert on cell phone technology, IDC analyst Francisco Jeronimo, said he's not surprised the Trump family has dropped the 'Made in the USA' label because it's nearly impossible to build one here given the higher cost and lack of infrastructure to do so. But, of course, you can claim to do it. 'Whether it is possible or not to build this phone in the US depends on what you consider 'build,'" Jeronimo said. 'If it's a question of assembling components and targeting small volumes, I suppose it's somehow possible. You can always get the components from China and assemble them by hand somewhere.' 'You're going to have phones that are made right here in the United States of America,' said Trump's son Eric to Fox News recently, adding, 'It's about time we bring products back to our great country.' The Trump family has flown the American flag before with Trump-branded products of suspicious origin, including its 'God Bless the USA' Bibles, which an Associated Press investigation last year showed were printed in China. The Trump phone is part of a bigger family mobile business plan designed to tap into MAGA enthusiasm for the president. The two sons running the business, Eric and Don Jr., announced earlier this month that they would offer mobile phone plans for $47.45 a month, a reference to their father's status as the 45th and 47th president. The call center, they said, will be in the U.S., too. 'You're not calling up call centers in Bangladesh,' Eric Trump said on Fox News. 'We're doing it out of St. Louis, Missouri.' The new service has been blasted by government ethics experts for a conflict of interest, given that President Donald Trump oversees the Federal Communications Commission that regulates the business and is investigating phone service companies that are now Trump Mobile rivals. Trump has also threatened to punish cell phone maker Apple, now a direct competitor, threatening to slap 25% tariffs on devices because of its plans to make most of its U.S. iPhones in India. ___
Los Angeles Times
21 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Mexico disputes U.S. money laundering charges against banks allegedly linked to fentanyl trafficking
MEXICO CITY — President Trump's vow to 'wage war' on drug cartels has resulted in bombshell accusations of money-laundering against three Mexican financial institutions — allegations that produced a defiant pushback from Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. 'There's no proof, just words,' a clearly agitated Sheinbaum told reporters on Thursday. 'There has to be proof to know if there was money laundering or not. Therefore, we don't deny it or accept it.' A day earlier, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued what it called 'historic' sanctions against CiBanco, Intercam Banco and Vector Casa de Bolsa. The department accused the three of laundering millions of dollars in narco-cash to facilitate the trafficking of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids into the United States. The orders 'affirm Treasury's commitment to using all tools at our disposal to counter the threat posed by criminal and terrorist organizations,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a news release. The Treasury Department move would largely prohibit U.S. financial institutions from dealing with the three sanctioned entities, effectively shutting them out from access to the world's largest market. The Treasury accused the three firms of laundering funds for various Mexican drug cartels and 'facilitating payments for the procurement of precursor chemicals needed to produce fentanyl.' U.S. authorities say Mexican cartels use chemicals imported from China to produce fentanyl in clandestine laboratories and then smuggle the potent opioid into the United States. Black-market fentanyl has led to tens of thousands of overdose deaths in the United States, officials say. Sheinbaum has been widely lauded for her non-confrontational, 'cool-headed' approach with the Trump administration, despite many disagreements — including on Trump's imposition of 25% tariffs on some Mexican imports, a levy meant to prompt Mexico to crack down further on fentanyl smuggling. But Sheinbaum signaled her clear displeasure with Treasury's punitive actions. 'Mexico is not subordinate to anyone,' Sheinbaum said. 'We coordinate, collaborate — we have said this many times — but we will not subordinate ourselves.' In Mexico, some analysts have called the Treasury moves a broadside against Mexico's economic well-being. U.S. authorities have frequently sanctioned Mexican companies and individuals for alleged links to drug smuggling, but experts say targeting of banks is much less frequent. 'The accusation is the gravest news for the Mexican financial system in decades and represents a point of no return for these three firms,' wrote columnist Carlos Mota of the El Heraldo de México newspaper. 'The entire Mexican financial system entered into shock.' But the Treasury said that 'any burden and disruption should be relatively minimal,' since none of the three firms is a dominant player in Mexico. All institutions — two banks and a brokerage house, all medium-sized firms — denied any wrongdoing. Vector Casa de Bolsa said it 'categorically rejected any imputation that compromises its institutional integrity.' Vector manages about $11 billion in total assets, according to U.S. officials. The case against Vector has drawn special scrutiny in Mexico because of the firm's ties to Alfonso Romo, a businessman who served for two years as chief of staff for former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Sheinbaum's predecessor, mentor and the founder of Mexico's dominant Morena political bloc. After leaving the chief of staff position, Romo remained a top economic advisor to López Obrador. Mexican media accounts have described Romo as the honorary president and co-founder of Vector. Romo has not commented publicly. According to Mexican media reports, Mexico's current finance minister, Edgar Amador, is a former analyst with Vector. Among other allegations against Vector, the Treasury said that from 2013 to 2016 'a suspected Sinaloa cartel money mule' transferred more than $1.5 million to the brokerage firm. Vector was also allegedly linked to millions of dollars in Sinaloa cartel payouts to Genaro García Luna, Mexico's former top federal security official. García Luna was convicted in 2023 U.S. district court of colluding with the Sinaloa mob and receiving millions of dollars in graft. He is serving a 38-year prison sentence. The U.S. order against the three Mexican financial institutions is to take effect in 21 days. It is a civil action and does not involve criminal charges. Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report.
