Unless the Trump family secretly built a U.S. factory, industry experts say the $500 made-in-America smartphone is a fantasy
Donald Trump's family business is putting the president's name behind something that few have dared to produce in years: a made-in-America smartphone.
The Trump Organization, led by the president's eldest sons, said on Monday that it has licensed Donald Trump's name to a new wireless service and a gold-colored phone. The T1, as the device is called, is supposed to be available in August for $499, and is 'proudly designed and built in the United States,' the company said in a statement.
But the patriotic pitch drew immediate skepticism, and not just over President Trump trying to cash in again while in office. Several tech industry insiders questioned whether selling a made-in-America phone is even possible within just a few months, considering most electronics manufacturing is done overseas because of expensive domestic labor, a shortage of skilled workers, and a lack of suppliers.
'As someone who's spent over a decade building a secure, privacy-first smartphone, focusing on manufacturing in the U.S., and I can say this with confidence: Producing a fully U.S.-made phone isn't something you spin up overnight,' said Todd Weaver, CEO of Purism, the only company currently producing a U.S.-made smartphone. 'If the Trump phone is promising a $499 price tag with domestic manufacturing, this announcement looks to be classic vaporware.'
Purism's U.S.-made phone, the Liberty Phone, costs $650 to produce, according to Weaver, and retails for $2,000. The markup covers some of the additional administrative costs for security-conscious customers who want to verify the phone's supply chain, along with Purism's profit.
The T1, in contrast, would retail for just a fraction of that price, raising questions about how such a U.S.-made device would be profitable.
The Trump Organization didn't disclose which company will make the T1, or where it will be produced. It only gave some technical specifications, including that it will run on Google's Android operating system, come with a fingerprint sensor and facial recognition for unlocking, and have a 6.8-inch screen.
The product page for the phone is also riddled with errors and omissions. It described the device as having a '5000mAh long life camera' (it should say 'battery,' an error that was subsequently fixed) and '12GB Ram storage' (RAM is generally referred to as memory, since any data stored in RAM is erased when the device is switched off), while neglecting to disclose an all-important piece of information: the kind of chips that will go into it.
Wayne Lam, an analyst with TechInsights, said available information about the phone 'doesn't suggest it is a competitive phone design' compared with higher-end devices like Apple's iPhone. He called the specs for the T1 'underwhelming.'
Manufacturing phones in the U.S., at least by major companies, is widely considered to be a lost cause. These days, their devices and components are almost entirely produced in Asia. Executives say U.S. manufacturing is too expensive in comparison, and that there aren't enough suppliers and skilled workers to get the job done.
Even if a company wanted to try its luck, setting up manufacturing of a U.S.-made phone could take years—not just a few months. A business would need time to line up suppliers, recruit workers, and set up a production facility.
Donald Trump's son Eric may have hinted at how the T1 will get around the problem. In an interview with podcaster Benny Johnson, on The Benny Show, he indicated that, initially, the phone may be made overseas. 'Eventually all the phones will be built in the United States of America,' Eric said. 'We need to bring manufacturing back.'
Of course, President Trump has made reshoring U.S. manufacturing a priority with his 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April and attacks on Apple for manufacturing its iPhones in Asia. Any imported T1 phones, or components, would, theoretically, be subject to his import levies.
In addition to the phone, Trump will also give his name to a wireless service, called Trump Mobile, that will cost $47.45 monthly and come with up to 20 GB of data. The price is a not-so-subtle reference to his two terms as president.
The Trump Organization did not say who it's partnering with on the wireless service or device, but tucked away in the website's terms of use is a reference to the service being powered by Liberty Mobile Wireless, itself a 'virtual' carrier that uses other companies' networks. Wireless coverage will come from the nation's three biggest wireless providers, the Trump Organization said.
Ross Rubin, an analyst with Reticle Research, said Trump Mobile's wireless service is more expensive than comparable carrier plans, like T-Mobile's Metro and Verizon's Total, along with discount provider Boost Mobile. Plus, he said, some of those carriers will give new customers a free phone when they sign up.
Weaver, of Purism, brought up one complication when it comes to the Trump Organization claiming a product is made in the USA. The Federal Trade Commission has strict rules that spell out when companies can and can't market a product as being homegrown. 'Unless the Trump family secretly built out a secure, onshore or nearshore fab operation over years of work without anyone noticing, it's simply not possible to deliver what they're promising,' Weaver said.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
16 minutes ago
- New York Post
Bill Clinton urges Trump to ‘defuse' Israel-Iran crisis, end ‘outright constant killing of civilians'
Former President Bill Clinton called on President Donald Trump to 'defuse' the current conflict between Israel and Iran during an appearance on 'The Daily Show' on Tuesday. So far, the U.S. has stayed out of direct action in the conflict, but it has helped Israel shoot down missiles from Tehran. Advertisement There are some indications, however, that the Trump administration could move to get more directly involved in the conflict. While the former president expressed skepticism about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump's intentions regarding peace in the Middle East, he urged the current president to calm the situation and end the 'outright constant killing of civilians.' 'First of all — they're not talking about negotiating peace in the Middle East because the Israelis have no intention of… under Prime Minister Netanyahu, of giving the Palestinians a state. And now, they're too divided and crushed to organize themselves to achieve it,' Clinton said. He continued, maintaining that Trump agrees with Netanyahu in believing that the Palestinians 'shouldn't have a state.' Advertisement However, he added that neither leader wants to trigger a full-scale regional disaster. 3 Former President Bill Clinton made an appearance on 'The Daily Show,' calling on President Donald Trump to resolve the Israel-Iran conflict. The Daily Show 'Mr. Netanyahu has long wanted to fight Iran because that way he can stay in office forever and ever. I mean, he's been there most of the last 20 years,' the former president said. 'But I think we should be trying to defuse it, and I hope President Trump will do that.' Advertisement Clinton emphasized the importance of the U.S. protecting its allies in the region, while simultaneously advocating for restraint. 3 The U.S. has not been involved in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, though the Trump administration could get involved. AFP via Getty Images 'We have to convince our friends in the Middle East that we'll stand with them and try to protect them,' he stated. 'But choosing undeclared wars in which the primary victims are civilians, who are not politically involved, one way or the other, who just want to live decent lives, is not a very good solution.' Advertisement Clinton conceded that the U.S. needs to try and stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but again stressed the importance of saving innocent lives in the region. 3 Clinton also said that the 'outright constant killing of civilians' has to end. IRANIAN SUPREME LEADER'S WEBSITE/GPO/AFP via Getty Images 'Do I think that we have to try to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon? I do,' he declared. 'But we don't have to have all this outright constant killing of civilians who can't defend themselves, and they just want a chance to live.' Fox News' Rachel Wolf contributed to this report.

Associated Press
21 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Israel's military warns people to evacuate the area around Iran's Arak heavy water reactor
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Israel's military warned people Thursday to evacuate the area around Iran's Arak heavy water reactor. The warning came in a social media post on X. It included a satellite image of the plant in a red circle like other warnings that proceeded strikes. The Arak heavy water reactor is 250 kilometers (155 miles) southwest of Tehran. Heavy water helps cool nuclear reactors, but it produces plutonium as a byproduct that can potentially be used in nuclear weapons. That would provide Iran another path to the bomb beyond enriched uranium, should it choose to pursue the weapon. Iran had agreed under its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers to redesign the facility to relieve proliferation concerns. In 2019, Iran started up the heavy water reactor's secondary circuit, which at the time did not violate Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. Britain at the time was helping Iran redesign the Arak reactor to limit the amount of plutonium it produces, stepping in for the U.S., which had withdrawn from the project after President Donald Trump's decision in 2018 to unilaterally withdraw America from the nuclear deal.


New York Times
25 minutes ago
- New York Times
An Iran Strategy for Trump
Nobody, perhaps even President Trump himself, knows for sure whether the United States will wind up joining Israel in launching military strikes on Iran. 'I may do it, I may not do it,' he said on Wednesday. But with a third U.S. aircraft carrier on its way to the region and the president calling for Iran's 'unconditional surrender,' the chance of war seems higher than ever — particularly now that Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, has gruffly rebuffed Trump's demand. If the U.S. does attack, the most obvious target will be the Fordo nuclear site, a deeply buried facility where Iran enriches uranium and which, by most reports, can be knocked out only by a 15-ton bomb known as a Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP. Less well known but surely on the U.S. target list is a new, still unfinished subterranean facility south of Iran's main (and now largely destroyed) enrichment plant at Natanz. American pilots would also almost certainly join their Israeli counterparts in attacking Iranian ballistic missile launchers and bases. And then what? Nobody doubts the U.S. can do a lot of damage to Iran's nuclear capabilities, at least in the short term. What comes afterward is harder to predict. Proponents of an American strike believe that we have no realistic choice other than to help Israel do as thorough a job as possible in setting back Iran's nuclear ambitions not just for months but years — more than enough time to allow benign forces to shape events, including the possibility of Iranians overthrowing their widely detested rulers. By contrast, skeptics fear that the lessons Iran's leaders will draw from an American attack is that they should have gotten a bomb much sooner — and that the appropriate response to such an attack is to be more repressive at home and less receptive to diplomatic overtures from abroad. Skeptics also expect that Iran will respond to an attack by ramping up its malign regional activities, not least to embroil the U.S. in another Middle East war the Trump administration desperately wants to avoid. I'm with the proponents. A nuclear-armed Iran, fielding missiles of ever-growing reach, is both an unacceptable threat to U.S. security and a consequential failure of U.S. deterrence. After years of Iran's prevarications, which led even the Biden administration to give up on diplomacy, to say nothing of Iran's cheating on its legal commitments — detailed last month in a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency — the world had run out of plausible nonmilitary options to prevent the regime from going nuclear. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.