Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Your guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the world

The US government’s tariff announcements have become a “big headache” for technology companies such as iPhone maker Apple and cloud service provider Amazon, their manufacturing partner Foxconn said on Friday, in a rare public admission of the disruption caused by President Donald Trump’s erratic trade policy.

“The issue of tariffs is something that is giving the CEOs of our customers a big headache now,” chief executive Young Liu told investors on an earnings call. “Judging by the attitude and the approach we see the US government taking towards tariffs, it is very, very hard to predict how things will develop over the next year. So we can only concentrate on doing well what we can control.”

Liu said the company’s customers were “one after another” hatching plans for co-operating with Foxconn on manufacturing in the US. He declined to give details as those plans were not yet finalised, but said there should be “more and more” manufacturing in the US.

The world’s largest contract electronics manufacturer assembles the vast majority of the world’s iPhones for Apple and also makes a broad range of other electronics products, including laptops, servers, robots, medical equipment and electric vehicles.

Foxconn itself is affected by Washington’s attempts to force more manufacturing to move onshore. The lion’s share of its manufacturing capacity is in China — recently hit by an additional 10 per cent US tariff — India and Vietnam, which are both likely targets for Trump’s planned reciprocal tariffs. Foxconn is also building what it said last October would be the world’s largest factory for Nvidia Blackwell servers in Mexico, where Trump has slapped a 25 per cent tariff on its exports to the US.

Foxconn forecast its information and communication products business, dominated by its contract work for Apple, would be stable this year. “But under the uncertainties related to geopolitics and tariffs, manufacturing will face challenges and demand might also suffer,” Liu said, adding that the company would work closely with customers to adjust its global footprint.  

But the Taiwanese group gave a bullish outlook for AI servers. The company’s server assembly revenue increased 78 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2024 compared with the same period a year earlier, and it said it expected the AI server business to more than double in the current quarter.

Liu said he did not share concerns that cloud service providers might cut spending this year. He said the success of Chinese AI company DeepSeek in developing a large language model with smaller hardware investment was likely to encourage larger numbers of medium-sized companies to develop their own LLMs, further boosting server demand.

Driven by that strong growth, cloud and networking products would account for half the company’s revenue this year, overtaking the consumer electronics business, which has long weighed on Foxconn’s margins with its low-margin smartphone assembly operations.

Foxconn reported a surprise 13 per cent year-on-year drop in net profit for the fourth quarter. Net earnings slid to NT$46.3bn (US$1.4bn) in the three months to the end of December, but the decrease was due to a drop in non-operating income, while operating profit increased by 32 per cent.

Federal judges who have ruled against the Trump administration this year are confronting a wave of threats, potentially compromising their personal safety and the independence of the judiciary.

The sister of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett received a bomb threat earlier this month, and lower court judges who hit pause on some of President Trump’s efforts to dismantle federal agencies and programs have been singled out on social media.

Republican lawmakers close to the president even have proposed impeachment proceedings against a few of those judges, who serve for life.

Elon Musk, who oversees the Department of Government Efficiency making cuts to federal agencies, himself has repeatedly posted on social media about impeaching judges who delay or block parts of Trump’s agenda.

Efforts to undermine the judiciary come at the same time the Trump administration has moved to fire lawyers inside the Justice Department and the Pentagon, penalize private law firms who represented clients Trump does not like, and to back away from participation in the activities of the American Bar Association.

Judge Richard Sullivan, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, said in his lifetime four federal judges have been killed in retaliation for their work on the bench.

“This is not hypothetical,” Sullivan, who leads a Judicial Conference panel on security issues, told reporters in a news conference this week. The Judicial Conference is a representative body of federal judges that frames policies for courts. “It’s real. It’s happened before. We have to be certain that it doesn’t happen again,” he said.

The Federal Judges Association, a voluntary group of more than 1,000 judges across the nation, said judiciary plays a “critical role in preserving democracy and a law-abiding society.”

“Judges must be able to do their jobs without fear of violence or undue influence,” the group said in a written statement to NPR.

Early threats

One thing stands out to legal experts: these attacks on judges are coming at a very early stage in the legal process — often, before the Supreme Court weighs in as the final decider.

“We have a system of justice that allows for appeals,” Judge Jeffrey Sutton, chief judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, told reporters this week. “That’s typically the way it works. Impeachment is not and shouldn’t be a short-circuiting of that process. And so it is concerning if impeachment is used in a way that is designed to do just that.”

Only 15 federal judges have faced impeachment, mostly for allegations of wrongdoing such as bribery, corruption, or perjury, in the past couple of centuries.

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, said the odds of a successful judicial impeachment are pretty low, and to remove a judge from the bench would require a two-thirds vote from the Senate.

“The more that people like Elon Musk are putting on the wall the idea that it’s appropriate to attack these judges for nothing more than ruling against the federal government, the more that we’re normalizing what really are in the main very serious threats to judicial independence,” Vladeck said.

“Jeopardize the Rule of Law”

But Paul Grimm, who spent 26 years as a federal judge, said even the threat of impeachment can amount to intimidation.

“And if you try to intimidate judges, if that’s your goal, so that they do not do their constitutional duty, then you jeopardize the rule of law,” said Grimm, who leads the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School. “And without the rule of law, every liberty and every right that we cherish as Americans is vulnerable.”

Grimm said he worries a lot about online posts that display the home and work addresses of judges and their adult children, a step that he said “crosses the line.”

Nearly five years ago, an angry litigant shot and killed the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas in New Jersey.

And in 2023, a state court judge in Maryland was gunned down in his driveway.

Attacks over rulings

The U.S. Marshals say threats against federal judges have doubled in recent years, according to the most recent data. And those threats have been directed at both Democrat and Republican judges.

Justice Barrett came under withering criticism this month from some right-wing political commentators, after she voted alongside Chief Justice John Roberts and the liberals on the high court against Trump’s effort to freeze foreign aid.

Lower court judges have faced online attacks for their early rulings on Musk’s DOGE team, efforts to restore government web pages, and the freeze on foreign aid.

The Marshals protect judges, but they also report to the U.S. Attorney General, not to the courts themselves. That’s got some members of Congress on alert.

“A judge’s security is dependent in many ways on the Marshals Service who the president appoints to protect the judges, and if a president doesn’t like a decision that’s coming from a judge, theoretically they could pull their security,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, said at a congressional hearing this month.

The administration has already yanked protection this year from former military and national security officials who disagreed with Trump in his first term.

Swalwell said Congress should consider giving judges their own security force — one that’s independent from the White House.