Okay to go to India, but you're not going to sell in U.S. without tariffs: U.S. President Trump to Apple
U.S. President Donald Trump has said, 'It is ok for Apple to go to India to build its plants, but then the tech company will not be able to sell its products in America without tariffs'.
Mr. Trump's remarks came as he signed multiple executive orders in the Oval Office to boost the U.S nuclear power.
'…But I had an understanding with Tim [Cook] that he wouldn't be doing this. He said he's going to India to build plants. I said, 'That's okay to go to India, but you're not going to sell into here without tariffs.' And that's the way it is,' Mr. Trump said on Friday (May 23, 2025).
'We're talking about the iPhone. If they're going to sell it in America, I want it to be built in the United States,' he said.
Early on Friday (May 23, 2025), Mr. Trump said in a social media post that he expects Apple iPhones that will be sold in the US to be manufactured in America and 'not India, or anyplace else', threatening to put a 25% tariff on the tech company's products if it does not comply.
'I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else. If that is not the case, a Tariff of at least 25% must be paid by Apple to the US. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' Mr. Trump said.
Just last week, Mr. Trump had said in Doha during his visit to the Middle East that he had told the Apple CEO to not build in India and instead build its manufacturing capacity in the US.
'We have Apple, as you know, that's coming in, and I had a little problem with Tim Cook yesterday,' Mr. Trump had said in Doha in remarks to top executives.
'I said to him, 'Tim, you're my friend. I treated you very good. You're coming here with $500 billion, but now I hear you're building all over India. I don't want you building in India. You can build in India if you want to take care of India because India is the highest, one of the highest—tariff nations in the world. It's very hard to sell into India. And they've [India] offered us a deal where, basically, they're willing to literally charge us no tariff,' he had said.
Earlier this month, Mr. Cook had said in a Q2, 2025 Earnings Conference call that the existing tariffs that apply to Apple today are based on the product's country of origin.
"For the June quarter, we do expect the majority of iPhones sold in the U.S. will have India as their country of origin and Vietnam to be the country of origin for almost all iPad, Mac, Apple Watch, and AirPods products sold in the U.S,' Mr. Cook had said.
On Mr. Trump calling for Apple to shift iPhone production from India to the U.S., research firm Counterpoint Research Research Director Tarun Pathak had said last week that 'this is a familiar Trump tactic, He wants to push Apple to localise more and build a supply chain in the U.S, which is not going to happen overnight. Making in the U.S. will also be much more expensive than assembling iPhones in India.'
Counterpoint Research Vice President Neil Shah said that 'Apple has been doing a lot of groundwork in India, which has helped it successfully manage some of the U.S. iPhone demand from its India production facilities'.
'In terms of capacity, India has enough to potentially meet all U.S. iPhone demand in the future, but the ecosystem needs to be ramped up. We will see more efforts towards this as well as products beyond iPhones. We expect made-in-India iPhones to account for 25%-30% of global iPhone shipments in 2025, as compared to 18% in 2024.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
End of the Musk-Trump era: From Silicon Valley disruptor to DOGE head, how Musk's legacy shaped Trump 2.0
When Elon Musk arrived in Washington to join the Trump administration, he brought the energy of a Silicon Valley disruptor armed with a chain saw and the confidence of someone who had never failed to shake up an industry. From Cabinet meetings in a 'tech support' shirt and MAGA hat to lounging in the Lincoln Bedroom after a tub of caramel ice cream, Musk stormed into the federal government with bold ideas, sweeping power, and a $250 million campaign donation. Now, just months later, Musk is out — leaving behind what the Associated Press calls 'upheaval and unmet expectations,' as the self-styled savior of government efficiency exits with little to show and much damage left behind. Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 0:00 Loaded : 0% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 1x Playback Rate Chapters Chapters Descriptions descriptions off , selected Captions captions settings , opens captions settings dialog captions off , selected Audio Track default , selected Picture-in-Picture Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Musk's departure as a senior adviser, announced earlier this week, comes amid his decision to halt political donations and criticize the cornerstone of Trump's legislative agenda. His exit caps a whirlwind tenure marked by controversial firings, hollow cost-cutting claims, and a series of legal and bureaucratic setbacks. As Trump said Thursday on Truth Social, Musk's 'last day' is here, but he 'will, always, be with us, helping all the way.' A powerful entry, an underwhelming legacy Musk's tenure began with extraordinary access and influence. President Trump called him 'a smart guy' who 'really cares for our country.' Democrats, meanwhile, derisively dubbed him the 'co-president.' Musk's campaign-era promise of a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) became reality, backed by his enormous financial support and proximity to the Oval Office. Live Events He populated DOGE with software engineers and data experts who were embedded inside sensitive federal systems, alarming career civil servants. Some resigned rather than comply with Musk's directives. A plan requiring every federal worker to email five accomplishments each week under threat of dismissal was one of many initiatives that ultimately fizzled out. Despite Musk's assertions that 'if we don't do this, America will go bankrupt,' his sweeping language yielded limited tangible results. His initial goal of slashing $2 trillion from the federal budget steadily shrank — from $1 trillion, to $150 billion. Whether even that final figure will materialize remains unclear, as AP notes that Musk's team routinely exaggerated its impact. A culture of contempt and chaos Musk brought a confrontational attitude to Washington. From day one, federal employees were treated with suspicion or hostility. Musk believed many were either inefficient or fraudulent. His restructuring efforts led to thousands of layoffs, hundreds of which were later reversed amid lawsuits or operational crises. The Food and Drug Administration, for example, laid off 1,900 workers — but rehired scores of critical employees like scientists and support staff under legal and operational pressure. Even the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was unceremoniously shut down one day in February. Musk declared 'CFPB RIP' with a tombstone emoji. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was gutted, its global humanitarian efforts eviscerated, and Musk's dismissive retort — 'no one has died' — was proven false. Malnutrition-related deaths in vulnerable populations have already been recorded, with experts fearing worse to come. Musk also took a swipe at lesser-known institutions like the U.S. Institute of Peace, attempting to dismantle the Congressionally created think tank before a court intervened to reinstate its leadership. Despite Musk's pledge to cut 'vaporware'-level waste from the federal budget, the biggest sources of spending — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Pentagon — proved politically and logistically resistant to his interventions. Mass layoffs, 'existential threats' Musk described Social Security as 'a Ponzi scheme,' proposing massive savings by eliminating fraud. But his $500–700 billion savings estimate was quickly discredited. The program's inspector general confirmed only $71.8 billion in improper payments across eight years, and no credible evidence emerged to support Musk's claim that millions of deceased people were still receiving benefits. His push to restructure Social Security services — including the closure of call centers and offices — sparked political backlash and was largely walked back. Yet the agency may still lose up to 7,000 staffers. At the Pentagon, layoffs of civilian staff and consolidation plans were implemented, but Musk's broader ambitions collided with a growing defense budget. As AP reports, the 2025 Trump proposal includes $150 billion in additional military spending, with significant investments in missile defense and shipbuilding — the opposite of what Musk promised. Even as Musk talked of existential threats and government waste, his behavior in the White House often veered toward spectacle. He turned the driveway into a Tesla showroom, brought children to diplomatic meetings, and installed a giant screen in his office for video games. His comments about the experience — like joking about DOGE as an internet meme — underscored what many saw as a cavalier attitude toward public service. Trump, unbothered by concerns over Musk's inexperience or conflicts of interest related to government contracts, reportedly welcomed the chaos, even inviting Musk to sleep over at the White House. Musk's anecdotes of late-night treats and spontaneous decisions painted a portrait of an administration governed as much by whimsy as policy. An unpopular visionary Musk's popularity suffered as his promises failed to materialize. According to an Associated Press-NORC poll, just 33% of U.S. adults viewed him favorably in April, down from 41% in December. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said Musk had too much influence over the federal government. While Americans often agree that the federal bureaucracy is bloated, the reality of Musk's slash-and-burn approach left many disillusioned — especially as the true savings fell far short of historical benchmarks. For comparison, the Clinton administration's 'reinventing government' program yielded $136 billion in savings (over $240 billion today) after years of methodical, expert-led reforms. Elaine Kamarck, a key architect of Clinton's initiative, told AP that Musk's approach lacked such careful planning. 'We went about it methodically, department by department,' she said, noting the stark contrast. As Musk walks away from his advisory role, his legacy is marked more by damage than by efficiency. Federal agencies are bruised, their workforces diminished, and trust eroded. Institutional knowledge in key areas — like food safety, public health, and environmental protection — has been depleted. Even once-obscure corners of government felt the tremors of Musk's brief reign. But while the dust settles on his turbulent tenure, the broader consequences of his actions — from humanitarian setbacks abroad to regulatory breakdowns at home — may linger long after his final day. And though Trump insists that Musk 'will, always, be with us,' the reality, as AP reports, is that the tech billionaire leaves behind a government still reeling from his disruption, and far from the efficient machine he promised to deliver.
Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The pause on tariffs, and now a stay: where does this leave Trump's disruptive trade agenda
Hours after US President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on goods imported into America from almost every nation was ruled illegal by the US Court of International Trade, an appeals court – the Federal Circuit Court in Washington, DC that has jurisdiction over the trade court – on Thursday temporarily halted the decision, reinstating the levies for now. Its order said that it would grant the Trump administration's request for an immediate administrative stay, and gave the plaintiffs — a group of 12 states and five US-based companies — until June 5 to respond to the administration. Judicial Process As the Trump administration's appeal works its way through the American courts, what is clear is that this case will probably end up at the US Supreme Court at some point in the near future. The three judge panel at the US Court of International Trade, which included one Trump appointee, had ruled unanimously that the statute the White House used, known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IEEPA – does not grant the American President the authority to impose tariffs with a really wide scope as were levied through Trump's reciprocal tariffs on practically all major trading partners of the US. They said in the ruling that the emergency economic powers legislation (IEEPA) does not give 'unbounded tariff authority' to the President, and that the statute can only be used for unusual and extraordinary threats. Trade deficit, they said, does not really fit that definition. At the same time, there are sector specific tariffs that the Trump administration slapped on steel, aluminum, cars and car parts etc, under a different statute known as Section 232, which could be used in the near future for things such as semiconductors and pharmaceuticals too. Those were all imposed citing national security reasons, and were distinct from the tariffs under IEEPA. Those can all stay in place for the moment, and there is a chance that the Trump administration would now use provisions such as Section 232 to impose such sector-specific tariffs on countries, especially if the Federal Circuit court were to also rule against the IEEPA levies. What needs to be kept in mind is that apart from this case at the International Trade Court filed by the dozen other states and some small businesses, there is another high-profile case in California from the Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom arguing that Trump's trade tariffs were illegal. This, according to legal experts, is the case to watch out for. Ensuing Uncertainty In the meantime, what is unclear is whether business should ultimately plan for relief if the trade court's ruling stands, or whether the tariffs might stick. That raises the real question about whether the so-called reciprocal tariffs due in July will ever come into effect, whether the 10 per cent universal tariff can stay, whether the US Congress will come to the president's rescue, and what the final judgement of the Supreme Court will be. This course will decide whether nations need to negotiate for deals with the US. And during the appeals process, the Trump administration could seek alternate routes to deploy additional tariffs, according to experts. This could add to the uncertainties. The earlier ruling halting the imposition of the levies serves to undermine ongoing attempts by the US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to negotiate trade deals with other countries, including India. The UK is looking somewhat imprudent in having already rushed into a trade deal with the US, which retains the 10 per cent base rate that was part of Trump's original plan. This is despite the US have a trade surplus with the UK. Others such as Japan and the European Union were already holding back, after seeing the Trump administration beat a retreat amid an upheaval in the US government borrowing rates. The legal uncertainty is a further reason for countries to wait and watch. With negotiators from the US set to arrive in New Delhi for trade talks on June 5-6, officials in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry said they are 'studying the implications' of the US Court of International Trade's Wednesday ruling. Trump had on April 2 announced a steep 26 per cent reciprocal tariff on India, despite New Delhi agreeing to commence negotiations with Washington on a trade deal. The tariffs were paused till July 8, and the Indian government is keen to sign an interim trade deal before that. The legal developments, though, could warrant a recalibration now. Legal experts are of the view that the Trump administration could have a weak case, especially when it comes to the question of law on IEEPA. Constitutionally, in America, trade policy is the domain of the US Congress and the chairs of the Trade committees of the House and Senate (branches of the Ways and Means Committee) are typically very powerful positions. President Trump bypassed all of that by proclaiming a variety of national emergencies. While he has some scope to act in actual emergencies, under powers ceded by the US COngress to the White House over the decades, these two specific cases contend that the sweeping use of these powers to announce permanent tariff changes was illegal and unconstitutional. That could hold water. The Court of International Trade ruling appears rather robust from that perspective, and also emboldens California's similar case. For now, it would be prudent to expect other negotiators around the world to put their feet up and wait, while the White House tries to prove the legality of the very basis of its global trade onslaught. Anil Sasi is National Business Editor with the Indian Express and writes on business and finance issues. He has worked with The Hindu Business Line and Business Standard and is an alumnus of Delhi University. ... Read More
News18
32 minutes ago
- News18
Trump Administration May Impose 15% Global Tariffs As Legal Challenges Mount: Report
The Trump administration is considering imposing temporary tariffs of up to 15% on a wide range of goods from around the world, according to a Wall Street Journal report. The move comes as a response to recent legal rulings that have undermined the administration's existing tariff policies. Sources familiar with the matter told the Wall Street Journal that the White House is exploring the use of a little-known provision in the Trade Act of 1974, which allows for temporary tariffs lasting up to 150 days in response to trade imbalances. While no final decision has been made, the administration is weighing the option as a short-term solution while it works on a more permanent strategy, the sources said.
