Trump says Apple must pay a 25% tariff on iPhones not made in the U.S.
Mandel Ngan | AFP | Getty Images
President Donald Trump said in a social media post Friday that Apple will have to pay a tariff of 25% or more for iPhones made outside the United States.
'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. If that is not the case, a Tariff of at least 25% must be paid by Apple to the U.S.,' Trump said on Truth Social.
Shares of Apple fell about 2% on Friday after the post.
Apple's flagship phone is produced primarily in China, but the company has been shifting manufacturing to India in part because that country has a friendlier trade relationship with the U.S.
Some Wall Street analysts have estimated that moving iPhone production to the U.S. would raise the price of the Apple smartphone by at least 25%. Wedbush's Dan Ives put the estimated cost of a U.S. iPhone at $3,500. The iPhone 16 Pro currently retails for about $1,000.
This is the latest jab at Apple from Trump, who over the past couple of weeks has ramped up pressure on the company and Cook to increase domestic manufacturing. Trump and Cook met at the White House on Tuesday, according to Politico.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview with Fox News on Friday that he was not part of the meeting at the White House but that the Apple situation could be part of the Trump administration's push to bring 'precision manufacturing' back to the U.S.
'A large part of Apple's components are in semiconductors. So we would like to have Apple help us make the semiconductor supply chain more secure,' Bessent said.
Cook gave $1 million to Trump's inauguration fund and attended the inauguration in January. Apple has announced a $500 billion spend on U.S. development, including AI server production in Houston.
Apple declined to comment for this story.
The company said during its May 1 earnings report that it expects about $900 million in additional costs for tariffs in the current quarter. Cook said on the company's earnings call that the tariff outlook was 'very difficult to predict' past June.
Foxconn, one of Apple's main iPhone assembly partners, is spending $1.5 billion on expanding its India facilities, the Financial Times reported Thursday.
Trump has publicly criticized other major U.S. companies, including Walmart , during his trade war push, but the levies on a specific consumer product is a new step. The exact legal mechanism for the tariff is unclear.
Trump followed up his post about Apple with another one calling for a 50% tariff on products from the European Union. Taken together, the posts point to trade tensions increasing again after the U.S. had temporarily lowered many of its levies, including in an agreement with China.
Apple also had to navigate tariff threats during Trump's first term, when a 15% tariff on Chinese imports was being considered in 2019. At that time, Cook had a strong relationship with Trump and the final trade deal excluded core Apple products from the duties.
As Apple is caught in the U.S. president's crosshairs, the company is also seeing weak demand in China. On Friday the company hiked trade-in incentives for iPhones in China.
READ SOURCE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask the all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the US Agency for International Development into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with details from the opinion.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results A $340 Million New York Office Makeover Is Converting Boardrooms to Bedrooms ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. 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
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's economic war on India is a gift to China
President Trump's decision to slap secondary sanctions on India over its imports of Russian oil, while also unleashing a tariff barrage on Indian exports, is more than a trade dispute. It is a self-inflicted wound to America's most vital strategic partnership in Asia, and it comes at a time when China is flexing its military muscle throughout the region. Washington has long courted India as a bulwark against an expansionist China and as a critical pillar of its ' free and open Indo-Pacific ' strategy. Yet Trump's punitive steps against India are eroding the very trust on which strategic alignment rests — to Beijing's delight. The mutual trust painstakingly built over years underpins bilateral cooperation. Once lost, it will be hard to rebuild. Even if the administration eventually reaches a trade deal with India, it may not be able to repair the damage. Targeting India over Russian oil purchases smacks of selective enforcement. The European Union's large imports of Russian energy products, especially liquefied natural gas, have been left untouched. Such European imports not only contribute more to Russia's coffers than India's purchases, but Europe spends more on Russian energy than on assisting Ukraine. Trump has also spared the world's largest buyer of Russian oil and gas: China. But India, the very country Washington has spent years courting as an Asian counterweight, has become the first victim of his secondary sanctions. This suggests Trump's tactics are less about punishing Moscow than about pressuring New Delhi. Russian oil is a pretext to strong-arm India into accepting a Trump-dictated trade agreement, much as he foisted a largely one-sided deal on the European Union. That his tariffs on India have little to do with Russian oil is evident from one telling fact: Indian exports to the U.S. of refined fuels such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel — increasingly made from Russian crude — remain exempt from his tariffs. Such is the Trumpian logic. He has hit Indian non-energy exports with steep tariffs, but spared booming exports of refined fuels made largely from Russian crude. Trump seems to have no problem with Russian oil — as long as it is refined in India and then pumped into American planes, trucks and cars. Furthermore, given continued U.S. imports of Russian enriched uranium, fertilizers and chemicals, Trump does not seem troubled that his own administration is helping fund Russia's war in Ukraine while still locked in a proxy war with Moscow. In truth, Trump is using New Delhi's Russian oil purchases as a crude bargaining tactic to secure a bilateral trade deal on his terms. India illustrates how the Trump administration has weaponized tariffs not merely to extract trade concessions but also to bind other countries more closely to American strategic and security interests. In seeking to bend India to its will, it has targeted that country's traditionally independent approach to global affairs, including neutrality on conflicts. Indian exports to the U.S. now face a steep 50 percent tariff, signaling the end of Trump's bromance with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. His moves against strategic-partner India are harsher than against China. This marks a dramatic U-turn from his first term, when bilateral relations thrived to the extent that Trump declared at a huge February 2020 rally in Modi's home state of Gujarat, 'America loves India, America respects India, and America will always be faithful and loyal friends to the Indian people.' In Trump's second term, Modi was among the first world leaders to visit the White House, agreeing to fast-track trade negotiations. In July, the Indians believed they had reached an interim deal, awaiting only Trump's approval. But in characteristic fashion, Trump abruptly rejected the accord and embarked on punishing India. New Delhi has publicly criticized the Trump administration's double standards. But it is more concerned about a deeper question: If Washington can so easily turn its coercive tools on a supposed ally, what is to stop it from doing so again? U.S.-India relations have probably plunged to their lowest point in the 21st century, thanks to Trump's economic war and his singling out of India for secondary sanctions. The fallout will extend beyond lost trade. India could respond by doubling down on strategic autonomy — hedging between the U.S., Russia and others — and diversifying its economic and security partnerships. Trump's gamble may wring out trade concessions in the short term, but it risks undermining the security architecture in the Indo-Pacific, where unity among key democracies is the only real check on China's expansionism. America is effectively handing China an opening to court a disillusioned India. New Delhi is already signaling that it has other geopolitical options. Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to visit India in the coming weeks. In less than three weeks, Modi is scheduled to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, which Putin will also attend. Moscow is pushing for a revived Russia-India-China grouping. A stable Indo-Pacific order demands more than joint military exercises and communiqués; it requires political will to accommodate each other's core interests. Punishing India in ways that ignore its legitimate security and energy needs sends the opposite message. Ironically, Trump's sanctions-and-tariffs blitz may have done India a favor by exposing the strategic reality of America's unreliability. By presenting the U.S. as a transactional power, Trump has signaled that Washington cannot be counted on to separate short-term commercial considerations from long-term strategic imperatives. Trump's economic coercion risks alienating a vast, still-growing market that U.S. firms see as central to their future growth. India remains the world's fastest-growing major economy, and as many other economies stagnate and populations shrink, it stands out as a rising giant. Sacrificing a linchpin of Indo-Pacific stability for a fleeting win in a tariff war is not tough bargaining. It is strategic recklessness — and a gift to China.
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
DC police support Trump's federal takeover — are Dems and the media clueless on crime?
National Democratic politicians and mainstream media commentators have spent the last 24 hours blasting President Donald Trump for announcing a federal takeover of Washington, D.C., police. For liberal and progressive critics of the president, this is undoubtedly yet more evidence of his authoritarian tendencies. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for instance, condemned the president's move as a deliberate distraction from his incompetence and accused him of hypocrisy because his failure to deploy the National Guard four years ago is what contributed to January 6 th — even though former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund has repeatedly clarified that Pelosi herself was the person responsible for failing to enlist the guard. And on CNN, Abby Phillip described Trump's takeover of the police as akin to Batman coming to save Gotham, as if that's a bad thing? I don't know about you, but I'm sold! Now in all seriousness, there's plenty of reason to be generally suspicious of getting the feds more involved in local issues, so I understand a certain level of reflexive distrust at what Trump is doing here. I also think it's important to tell the truth and be mindful of the facts, not feelings. Just because D.C. feels unsafe to some people doesn't necessarily mean that it is. We should be mindful of statistics that show that crime in the nation's capital has thankfully gone down since 2023, although let's add a little asterisk to that — I'll circle back in a minute. All that said, whether crime is technically down or technically up, it's crystal clear that Washington, D.C., has too much crime, from gangland shootings to mentally ill people attacking pedestrians to flash mobs of teenagers stealing cars and vandalizing convenience stores. That's why I find it very, very interesting that, at the local level, the relevant political authorities are not echoing the comments by national Democrats and the media. Consider, for instance, the stance of Muriel Bowser, D.C.'s incumbent Democratic mayor. Bowser issued a face-saving statement that the federal takeover was 'unprecedented and unsettling.' But she did not vow to fight it or to oppose it, and in fact, seems to be sending positive vibes to Trump that she wants to work with him rather than against him on this. That's because she knows city residents are tremendously frustrated with what's happening in the district, and more police could make a difference. Moreover, D.C.'s police union straightforwardly supports Trump on this, though the union thinks full staffing of the local police department is more important as a long-term solution. Indeed, the things that would really go a long way toward solving the crime problem in D.C. have to do with budgeting, staffing and government competence. The major problem — the single biggest problem impacting the justice system in D.C. — is the lack of a working crime lab. D.C.'s forensics lab was de-accredited due to various problems several years back, and while it's now up and running again, it has no means of processing ballistics evidence. That significantly hampers the ability of prosecutors to charge criminals effectively. As a result, D.C. has a very low prosecution rate, and a very low conviction rate, for serious crime. We need more resources for homicide detectives and prosecutors, and also we need the backlog of superior court judges to be addressed. If you don't have the system working to investigate, prosecute and convict criminals, you will have more crime. It's that simple. Now let's return to that asterisk: It may not be the case that D.C.'s crime statistics are even accurate. I'll let former Rep. Peter Meijer make the case: 'I think Mayor Bowser may also know that there's an ongoing investigation in her police department over the potentially manipulation of those statistics, that there have been a down classing of some of the crimes. There has been a massaging of the numbers in the reporting in order to fit them more beneficially into the FBI crime stats,' said the Michigan Republican. 'So, she may know some things that national Democrats are not paying attention to.' Food for thought.
