Your next iPhone could cost substantially more — Trump threatens 25% tariff
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
President Donald Trump really wants Apple to make iPhones in the United States.
Apple attempted to get around the tariffs on goods made in China by moving much of its iPhone manufacturing to India. However, that doesn't appear to be good enough for the President, as he said he would impose "a Tariff of at least 25%" on iPhones made outside of the country.
"I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhone's that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform (typos included). "If that is not the case, a Tariff of at least 25% must be paid by Apple to the U.S. Thank your for your attention to this matter!"
Trump recently posted that he "had a little problem with Tim Cook," in response to the Cupertino-based company moving production to India instead of the U.S.
Currently, goods made in India are subject to the 10% import tariff that applies to all countries. This is substantially lower than the 30% tax applied to goods from China.
Presumably, if Trump imposes a 25% additional tariff on iPhones imported to the U.S., it would be on top of the 10% already there. He said, "at least," which means the fee to import iPhones could be even higher.
There's a lot of uncertainty for Apple about importing iPhones to the U.S. While it might be unrealistic to move all production stateside, it may also be the only way Apple can avoid massive fees — fees that will inevitably be passed onto consumers looking for one of the best iPhones.
I pixel-peeped the world's fastest gaming monitor — after testing 610Hz, real-life feels laggy
I tested the MSI Titan 18 HX — the power is wild, the price is wilder
I played 5 games on the RTX 5060 — is this budget GPU actually enough?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Journals
34 minutes ago
- Business Journals
Clear Investment Group targets $300M for distressed multifamily acquisitions
Clear Investment Group is raising hundreds of millions for a new fund, but the Chicago-based firm may have to look beyond its home turf to find the right deals.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - More renters are getting lawyers during evictions, and that's a good thing
Last year, landlords in Los Angeles filed almost 90,000 eviction cases. These cases are hard on tenants: Beyond just the immediate loss of housing, eviction leads to drops in income, higher rates of homelessness, serious health issues, and even increased risk of death. Yet the vast majority of Angelenos who navigate the complex eviction court process do so alone. That is about to change. Last month, Los Angeles joined 18 other cities, two counties, and five states across the nation where most or all tenants are guaranteed a lawyer when they go to court for an eviction. These 'right-to-counsel' programs improve outcomes for individual tenants, but their impact goes further: They can help to coordinate services, change the way the courts operate, and open up new possibilities for tenant organizing. As researchers who study eviction in the U.S., we urge more jurisdictions to push forward housing justice and stability for renters by extending the right to counsel. These programs are particularly important now. Over the last twenty years, rents have gone up much faster than incomes, leaving half of renters cost-burdened. Faced with these sorts of affordability challenges — and given evidence that homelessness is at an all-time high and rising — the federal government should be taking steps to protect renters. Instead, it is making the situation worse. The Trump administration is proposing shrinking the Department of Housing and Urban Development and gutting key benefits such as Housing Choice Vouchers. Right-to-counsel programs provide an example of what state and local governments can do to step into the leadership void created by federal retrenchment. Pop culture has sold us the myth that every defendant has the right to an attorney. But that's not true. Americans aren't necessarily guaranteed a government-funded lawyer when faced with a civil action such as debt collection, a child custody claim, or a landlord-tenant dispute. They're on their own unless they can afford a lawyer, and most people can't. These civil actions are far more common than criminal cases. In any given year, almost half of Americans have to deal with a civil legal case. Take eviction, for example. An average of 7.6 million Americans face eviction cases annually; only 4 percent of these tenants have lawyers to help them through this rapid, complicated, and deeply consequential process. That started changing in 2017, when New York City established the nation's first right to counsel program. Since then, this movement has expanded protections for renters in San Francisco, Baltimore, Detroit, and dozens of other places. Although programs differ in who receives access to a lawyer and when in the process they can get help, the basic idea is the same: to provide tenants with legal assistance during what may be their darkest hour. For tenants who now have lawyers, these programs make a world of difference. Eviction filings are less likely to result in a tenant being removed by court order, and even those that do result in evictions often leave the tenant owing less money. The benefits to health and well-being are also substantial. For example, the availability of right to counsel during pregnancy reduces adverse birth outcomes among newborns. At the end of the day, a lawyer cannot make up for missed rent. But in our work studying how jurisdictions have implemented right-to-counsel, we have seen how the presence of lawyers defending tenants can lead to wholesale culture shifts in civil courts — something that rental assistance and other one-time interventions don't achieve. We have seen courts where, rather than just rubber-stamping landlords' eviction cases, judges now inform tenants of their rights and postpone hearings to make sure that they are represented. Courts can become a place where advocates and social workers connect tenants with services and resources and diversion is a priority. To meet their full potential, state and local leaders need to provide the stable, long-term funding necessary to launch and run these programs right. That means adequate money for outreach and education so that tenants know that protections are available if they show up to court. It also means sufficient funding to ensure that enough lawyers are available, a challenge that the New York City program has faced. San Francisco provides a model of how to do this right, steadily increasing funding, even expanding support during the pandemic when other programs were being cut. Right to counsel programs are bringing change, justice, and hope for renters experiencing one of the most difficult challenges of their lives. As the federal government pulls back supports and reverses longstanding legal protections for low-income renters, it's time for state and local leaders to work together to expand protections like right-to-counsel in a sustainable way that can help as many families as possible avoid the irreversible fallout of eviction and the risk of homelessness. Peter Hepburn is an assistant professor of sociology at Rutgers University-Newark and associate director of Princeton University's Eviction Lab. Emily A. Benfer is a professor of clinical law at the George Washington University Law School and a research collaborator at the Princeton University Eviction Lab. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump signals fresh trade tensions with China
US President Donald Trump signaled renewed trade tensions with China on Friday, arguing that Beijing had "violated" a deal to de-escalate tariffs, at a time when both sides appeared deadlocked in negotiations. Trump's post on his Truth Social platform came hours after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that trade talks with China were "a bit stalled," in an interview with broadcaster Fox News. The world's two biggest economies had agreed this month to temporarily lower staggeringly high tariffs they had imposed on each other, in a pause to last 90 days, after talks between top officials in Geneva. But on Friday, Trump wrote that: "China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US," without providing further details. Asked about the post on CNBC, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer took aim at Beijing for continuing to "slow down and choke off things like critical minerals." He added that the United States' trade deficit with China "continues to be enormous," and that Washington was not seeing major shifts in Beijing's behavior. On Thursday, Bessent had suggested that Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping could get involved in the situation. He said there could be a call between both leaders eventually. Since Trump returned to the presidency in January, he has imposed sweeping tariffs on most US trading partners, with especially high rates on imports from China. New tit-for-tat levies from both sides reached three digits before the de-escalation earlier this month, where Washington agreed to temporarily reduce its additional tariffs on Chinese imports from 145 percent to 30 percent. China, meanwhile, lowered its added duties from 125 percent to 10 percent. The US tariff level remains higher as it also includes a 20 percent levy that the Trump administration recently imposed on Chinese goods over the country's alleged role in the illicit drug trade -- an issue that Beijing has pushed back against. The high tariff levels, while they were still in place, forced much trade between both countries to grind to a halt, as businesses paused shipments to try and wait for both governments to reach an agreement to lower the levies. Trump's tariff plans are also facing legal challenges. A trade court ruled this week that the president overstepped his authority in tapping emergency economic powers to justify sweeping tariffs. It blocked the most wide-ranging levies since Trump returned to office, although this ruling has since been put on hold for now as an appeals process is ongoing. The ruling left intact, however, tariffs that the Trump administration imposed on sector-specific imports such as steel and autos. bys/st
