Trump’s tariff threat reignites long-standing manufacturing debate
President Donald Trump’s renewed push to bring iPhone manufacturing to the United States has reignited a long-standing debate over Apple’s global production strategy. As Trump threatens a 25% tariff on Apple and other smartphone makers unless they build phones domestically, the company faces increasing political and economic pressure — but experts say relocating iPhone production to the US is highly improbable in the near future.
Despite Apple’s growing investment in its American footprint, the company’s reliance on global supply chains, labor specialization abroad, and cost efficiencies in countries like China and India continue to make US production largely unfeasible.
Trump’s Tariff Threats and Apple’s Response
On May 23, Trump took to Truth Social to declare that Apple must manufacture iPhones sold in the US within the country’s borders — or pay a steep 25% tariff. This echoes former President Barack Obama’s 2011 conversation with then-CEO Steve Jobs, where the same question was posed: why not build iPhones in America?
Tim Cook, Apple’s current CEO, recently stated that most US-bound iPhones will continue to be shipped from India. While Apple has pledged to invest $500 billion in the US over the next four years — including expanding R&D and opening a Detroit academy for smart manufacturing and AI training — it has not announced any plans to shift iPhone assembly stateside.
According to Apple, these investments aim to support smaller businesses and tech infrastructure rather than replicate the massive production systems already in place overseas.
Why US-Based iPhone Manufacturing Isn’t Viable
The primary obstacle to US-based iPhone production is the lack of an existing infrastructure with the scale and specialization found in China or India. Foxconn, Apple’s main manufacturing partner, operates massive assembly complexes in China that employ up to 900,000 workers during peak seasons. Workers live in dormitories, enabling agile production shifts that would be difficult to mirror in the US.
Analysts argue that replicating such an ecosystem in the United States would require enormous time and financial investment — and would likely result in higher prices or significant product changes. David Marcotte of Kantar noted that the skills involved in component production are highly refined and take years to develop. Moreover, fewer Americans are entering the manufacturing sector, which now employs only 8% of the workforce compared to 26% in 1970.
Tim Cook previously acknowledged that China’s blend of craftsmanship, robotics, and computer science is uniquely suited for iPhone production — a skill intersection that is rare elsewhere.
Automation, Labor Costs, and Design Changes
While experts don’t rule out partial shifts in production, any realistic scenario would involve extensive automation. According to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Apple has explored using robotic arms to build iPhones with the same precision found in foreign plants. Mohit Kumar, founder of smart ring maker Ultrahuman, shared that automating tasks and cross-training employees helped his company move production from India to Texas — but even that required considerable adaptation.
Patrick Moorhead of Moor Insights & Strategy believes a partial US transition is technically possible within five years, but would necessitate altering iPhone designs to better accommodate automation. Even then, sourcing components would remain a challenge: an estimated 90% of iPhone production once occurred in China, and although Apple has shifted more work to India, it still relies heavily on global suppliers.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives estimated that fully domesticating iPhone production could triple the cost of the device, pushing prices as high as $3,500 per unit.
A Political and Economic Tightrope
Trump has hailed Apple’s US investment as a political victory, yet his tariff threats place the company in a difficult position. While Cook met with Trump last week and even donated $1 million to his inauguration, Apple cannot easily satisfy both economic realities and political demands.
“For Apple, it’s a tightrope,” said Dipanjan Chatterjee of Forrester. “They can’t practically move production to the US, but saying no outright is politically risky.”
As Apple walks that line, its decisions will not only impact its supply chain and pricing strategies, but also set the tone for how US tech companies balance global operations with rising domestic political pressure.