Trump says Apple must pay a 25% tariff on iPhones not made in the U.S.
Apple CEO Tim Cook, left, and President Donald Trump speak to the press during a tour of the Flextronics computer manufacturing facility in Austin, Texas, where Apple's Mac Pros are assembled, Nov. 20, 2019.
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
Business of Fashion
17 minutes ago
- Business of Fashion
This Week: Are Tariff Price Hikes Finally Here?
What's Happening: On Wednesday, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics will release inflation data for May, the first inflation reading taken entirely after Trump's tariffs went into effect. In April, consumer prices rose 2.3 percent, just under the economists' consensus. Delayed Impact: Forecasters are calling for a mild uptick in prices, if that. Many fashion and beauty brands have announced price increases, often to be implemented on select products over the summer rather than right away. This gives consumers a bit of time to acclimate to their new, more expensive reality. And it builds in room to change course on the off chance Trump calls the whole trade war off in the meantime. Rock and a Hard Place: This strategic approach to price increases is savvy, but for many brands also borne out of a lack of options. After raising prices so much in the post-pandemic years, companies are worried they'll lose customers by hiking further, even if they have a good reason. Questioning Reality: Whether consumers believe prices are rising can have a big impact on inflation, so all those early warnings from brands may become a self-fulfilling prophecy even if Trump doesn't announce a single new tariff. There are also growing questions about the numbers themselves. Last week, economists raised questions in the financial press about whether inflation data could still be trusted, noting hiring freezes and layoffs had curtailed the government's ability to conduct its massive monthly survey of consumer prices. What to Expect at The Business of Beauty Global Forum 2025 What's Happening: On June 9 and 10, The Business of Beauty holds its third annual gathering in Napa Valley. A second class of entrepreneurs will also receive The Business of Beauty Global Awards. In the News: Speakers include Hailey Rhode Bieber, fresh off her $1 billion deal. Tracee Ellis Ross will share her observations on the needs of the Black and texturised hair community at a time when DEI is under siege. Global Perspective: Founders from international brands including Beauty of Joseon, Ultra Violette, Byoma and Nykaa will address challenges and opportunities in the global beauty market. Attorney Lindsay Toczylowski will speak on her efforts to help her client, Andry José Hernández Romero, the Venezuelan makeup artist currently detained in an El Salvador prison. See for Yourself: If you won't be in Napa Valley, catch these speakers and more on the livestream. The Week Ahead wants to hear from you! Send tips, suggestions, complaints and compliments to
Newsweek
17 minutes ago
- Newsweek
LA Protests: Trump's National Guard Move Sparks Legal Concerns
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's announcement of the deployment of the National Guard in California to quell protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions has raised legal concerns. Why It Matters Federal immigration enforcement operations sparked protests across California for a second day in a row on Saturday. ICE carried out raids in Paramount, Los Angeles County, following similar actions at several locations throughout other parts of city on Friday. Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the move, saying that local law enforcement was already mobilized and the presence of the National Guard was "purposefully inflammatory," would "escalate tensions" and "erode public trust." What To Know On Saturday, the White House ordered the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles under a provision called Title 10 to "temporarily protect ICE and other United States government personnel who are performing federal functions." The National Guard is a state-based military force that serves as both a state and federal reserve branch of the U.S. Army and Air Force. It typically operates under state command and is funded by the state. However, in some cases, troops may be assigned to federal missions while still under state control, with funding provided by the central government. The law referenced in Trump's proclamation allows National Guard troops to be placed under federal command, and permits this under three conditions: if the U.S. is invaded or faces the threat of invasion; if there is a rebellion or imminent rebellion against federal authority; or if the president is unable to enforce federal laws using regular forces. A protester stands on a burned car holding a Mexican flag at Atlantic Avenue on June 7, 2025, in Paramount, Los Angeles County, California. A protester stands on a burned car holding a Mexican flag at Atlantic Avenue on June 7, 2025, in Paramount, Los Angeles County, California. Apu Gomes/GETTY The memorandum from the White House reads: "To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States." However, the law also stipulates that such orders should be "be issued through the governors of the states." It is not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Newsweek contacted the White House for clarification via email outside of regular working hours. "President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power," said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project. The Trump administration has not invoked the Insurrection Act, according to anonymous U.S. officials who spoke to Reuters this weekend. The act of 1807 serves as the primary legal authority allowing a president to deploy the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or civil unrest. A memo issued by the White House on the matter specifies that the National Guard has been deployed to "temporarily protect ICE and other United States government personnel who are performing federal functions, including the enforcement of federal law, and to protect federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations." This means that National Guard troops will not be permitted to aid local law enforcement—they will be used to protect and provide logistic support to federal ICE agents. "There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves," Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, wrote in a blog post. "There is the obvious concern that, even as they are doing nothing more than 'protecting' ICE officers discharging federal functions, these federalized troops will end up using force—in response to real or imagined violence or threats of violence against those officers. In other words, there's the very real possibility that having federal troops on the ground will only raise the risk of escalating violence—not decrease it." What People Are Saying A White House memo reads: "Numerous incidents of violence and disorder have recently occurred and threaten to continue in response to the enforcement of federal law by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other United States government personnel who are performing federal functions and supporting the faithful execution of federal immigration laws. In addition, violent protests threaten the security of and significant damage to federal immigration detention facilities and other federal property." Border czar Tom Homan on Fox News: "We're already mobilizing. We're gonna bring the National Guard in tonight and we're gonna continue doing our job. This is about enforcing the law." He continued: "American people, this is about enforcing the law, and again, we're not going to apologize for doing it." California Governor Gavin Newsom on X, formerly Twitter, following the National Guard announcement: "The federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers. That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions. L.A. authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment's notice. We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need." Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project: "By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians." Newsom's office also told Newsweek on Friday: "Continued chaotic federal sweeps, across California, to meet an arbitrary arrest quota are as reckless as they are cruel. Donald Trump's chaos is eroding trust, tearing families apart, and undermining the workers and industries that power America's economy." Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, told the Los Angeles Times: "It is using the military domestically to stop dissent. It certainly sends a message as to how this administration is going to respond to protests. It is very frightening to see this done." What Happens Next After Trump announced he was deploying National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton, south of Los Angeles, were on "high alert" and could also be mobilized "if violence continues."
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dow Jones Futures: Trump Warns Musk Of 'Serious Consequences'; China Trade Talks Loom
The S&P 500 is nearing recodr highs. Palantir is back in a buy area. Tesla investors should focus on this amid the Trump-Musk feud.
