Politics
'Nowhere to hide.' How Apple and others in Silicon Valley are bracing for Trump tariffs
SAN FRANCISCO — The iPhone is a quintessentially 21st century product — Californian in its creation and design and now enmeshed in the global economy.
Apple makes most of its iPhones in China, though in recent years the Cupertino-based company has made more of its products in India, Vietnam and other nations. In all, the tech giant says it relies on more than 50 countries and regions to put AirPods, iPads and MacBooks in the hands of consumers.
Now, that global supply chain is under siege.
This week, President Trump said he would impose a baseline 10% tariff on imports from all countries on Saturday. His administration also added tariffs of 34% on China, 46% on Vietnam and 26% on India.
“Apple has nowhere to hide,” said Eric Harwit, professor of Asian studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. “No matter where they’re making their technology, they’re going to be suffering, they’re going to see higher costs.”
Trump’s sweeping tariffs have rattled both investors and some of the world’s most valuable tech companies that have fueled the global economy and Silicon Valley’s growth. They’ve also raised questions about whether these global businesses will pass the higher costs on to consumers or slash their payrolls.
Apple has been especially hard hit. Its stock plunged more than 9% on Thursday and dropped another 7% on Friday to close at $188.38.
Share prices of other tech titans, including Google parent company Alphabet, Meta, chipmaker Nvidia and Amazon, also saw big declines, causing the tech-heavy Nasdaq composite to fall 5.8% on Friday — putting it more than 20% below its record set in December.
The unease reflects worries among investors that the tariffs could cause lasting damage, potentially making it harder for the U.S. tech industry to compete globally and dominate the race to deploy artificial intelligence technology, analysts said.
The duties also are expected to drive up the costs of consumer electronics, including the iPhone, as products become more expensive to produce.
“Technology pervades everyday life and these tariffs are attacks on consumer electronics,” said Todd O’Boyle, vice president of technology policy at the Chamber of Progress, a trade group. “They’re attacks on everything that we buy and that includes any foreign parts with global supply chains.”
The levies could cause consumers to pay as much as $2,500 more for an iPhone, which costs roughly $1,000, depending on the model.
Apple did not respond to a request for comment.
Meta, Amazon and Alphabet also produce consumer gadgets but make billions of dollars annually from ads purchased by brands in other countries, which some analysts say could also drop if these advertisers pull back spending.
Meta declined to comment, but its annual report cites the possibility that tariffs or a trade dispute could result in a drop for its China-based ad revenue. The company has also expanded production of its mixed reality headsets in Vietnam.
Alphabet — which makes phones, earbuds, smart speakers and other consumer electronics — also has cited tariffs among the manufacturing and supply chain risks that could harm its business. It did not respond to a request for comment.
The White House said it’s imposing tariffs because it wants to shift more manufacturing jobs back to America.
Relying too much on foreign producers could threaten economic security by “rendering U.S. supply chains vulnerable to geopolitical disruption and supply shocks,” Trump said in his executive order.
“These America First economic policies delivered historic job, wage, and investment growth in his first term, and everyone from Main Street to Wall Street is again going to thrive as President Trump secures our nation’s economic future,” said White House spokesman Kush Desai.
He cited recent multibillion-dollar commitments made by companies such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. and Apple to build more manufacturing plants in the United States.
The tech industry was bracing for more tariffs ahead of what the president dubbed “Liberation Day.”
The Trump administration already imposed tariffs on certain auto parts and imported aluminum and steel, materials that tech companies use to build data centers that store and manage computer hardware and equipment.
The administration spared those materials, along with copper, from its latest tariffs. Semiconductors that power electronics and AI systems also were excluded from what the White House dubbed “reciprocal tariffs.”
Exactly how tech companies will respond to the costs of tariffs is still unclear. Although Trump wants businesses to shift manufacturing back to the United States, they could also move production to places with lower tariff rates. It would take years for businesses to build new factories.
It’s also possible these tariffs will not remain.
During Trump’s first term, Apple got exemptions from tariffs imposed on imports from China for some of its products including its smartwatch. Trump’s tariffs in his second term go well beyond China, affecting more countries.
Nick Vyas, founding director of the Randall R. Kendrick Global Supply Chain Institute at USC’s Marshall School of Business, said the Trump administration is signaling to businesses that simply shifting production to places outside China isn’t enough.
“‘Every dollar that I open up my market for you, I need you to open up the market for me [to] the same degree,’” he said, describing Trump’s thinking.
Some tech companies have made efforts to bring more manufacturing back to the U.S.
Among them is Santa Clara, Calif.-based chipmaker Nvidia, one of the world’s most valuable companies.
Although it appears Nvidia would be spared from the brunt of the tariffs because of the exemption for semiconductors, some industry observers said more tariffs could still be coming.
Trump told reporters on Thursday that “chips are starting very soon” when asked if tariffs for chips are off the table.
“We’re manufacturing in so many different places. We could shift things around,” Nvidia Chief Executive Jensen Huang said at a Q&A with analysts last month. “Tariffs will have a little impact for us short term. Long term, we’re going to have manufacturing onshore.”
Apple in February said it would invest $500 billion in the U.S. that would go toward various efforts, including opening a manufacturing facility in Houston.
The company said in its annual report that “substantially all” of its manufacturing is done by partners primarily located in mainland China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam.
Shifting where iPhones and other Apple products are made is not easy.
China has engineers who can meet the high quality specifications on Apple products and the U.S. doesn’t have that great a number of engineers with those same skills, Harwit said.
“It’s really that level of manufacturing expertise that Apple developed over many years that makes it very difficult for Apple to give up on China and for the U.S. to find the skilled workers really needed in the United States to meet their needs,” he added.
Daniel Ives, a managing director at Wedbush Securities, said that it would take Apple three years and $30 billion to move just 10% of its supply chain from Asia to the U.S. Plus, the iPhone’s price tag would grow to $3,500, he estimated.
“The chances that Apple and the overall tech supply chain moves to the U.S. is a fantasy, fictional tale, unless you like $3,500 iPhones, $2,500 TVs and $300 AirPods,” Ives said.
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
Pennsylvania1 minute agoPennsylvania hunting licenses to soon go on sale
-
Rhode Island6 minutes agoRhode Island DCYF discloses fatality of 18-year-old
-
South-Carolina13 minutes agoDECISION 2026: What to know about primary elections in South Carolina
-
South Dakota16 minutes agoUSF becomes South Dakota’s first ‘cardiac ready’ campus
-
Tennessee21 minutes ago2026 Tennessee football preview: Grady Dangerfield
-
Texas28 minutes agoFort Worth police launch drone program to speed response times
-
Utah31 minutes agoGot cargo? Utah Highway Patrol, DPS want you to secure your load before you drive
-
Vermont36 minutes agoVermont barn-building ‘legend’ still visits every job site at 83
