Amazon CEO Andy Jassy is insisting that the Trump administration’s sweeping new tariffs on Chinese imports have had no significant impact on prices or consumer demand on the platform. But his comments, made during the company’s annual shareholder meeting, have done little to quell suspicions, especially in light of a recent behind-the-scenes intervention by President Trump himself over Amazon’s pricing practices.

Speaking to shareholders, Jassy said Amazon had not observed any meaningful increase in average selling prices and that shoppers were still spending normally.

“We have not seen any attenuation of demand at this point,” he said. “We also haven’t yet seen any meaningful average selling price increases.”

Jassy admitted that some sellers—particularly third-party merchants who make up the majority of Amazon’s marketplace—have raised prices in response to the tariffs. But he emphasized that the effect had been inconsistent across the platform.

“When you have 2 million sellers, they’re not all going to take the same action,” he said.

However, many find the CEO’s reassurances difficult to believe, especially following Amazon Chairman Jeff Bezos’ recent and unusual run-in with the White House. In April, President Trump personally called Bezos to pressure him into abandoning a plan that would have publicly disclosed how much new tariffs were increasing the cost of goods sold on Amazon. The plan, first reported by Punchbowl News, involved labeling products—particularly on Amazon’s budget-focused “Haul” section—with clear indicators showing the tariff burden passed on to U.S. customers.

The White House saw the move as a political provocation. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt blasted Amazon’s proposal as “a hostile and political act,” accusing the company of playing partisan games with economic policy. The administration’s quick and vocal pushback triggered a rapid about-face at Amazon.

Within hours of the Punchbowl report, the company issued a statement downplaying the feature, first suggesting that the tariff labels were being considered only for the Haul platform. But in a follow-up clarification, Amazon abruptly abandoned the plan, stating it “was never approved” and “is not going to happen.”

Then came Trump’s public confirmation. In a comment earlier this month, the President revealed that Bezos had personally reversed course after a phone conversation between the two.

“He took it off immediately. He’s just a very nice guy,” Trump said, offering rare praise for a billionaire he has frequently criticized in the past.

For many observers, the optics of that intervention cast doubt on Jassy’s current claims. If Amazon was prepared to show Americans how much tariffs were costing them, and then suddenly scrapped the plan after presidential pressure, it’s hard to believe the company now genuinely sees no impact on prices or demand.

It is especially so as evidence on the ground points to rising costs. A report published in April revealed that many Chinese sellers on Amazon had already begun raising prices, with at least one admitting to a 30% increase for U.S. customers due to the tariffs. While some sellers are absorbing the cost, others—especially smaller merchants—say they have no choice but to pass it on.

The 30% tariffs on Chinese goods remain in effect, and a 145% duty, though paused, could resume after August 12. The end of the de minimis exemption, which once allowed U.S. consumers to receive foreign shipments under $800 without paying import duties, is also quietly driving up prices for lower-cost goods—many of which dominate Amazon’s catalog.

Amazon has warned investors that tariffs are among several risk factors that could affect its financial guidance for the quarter, but the company has avoided direct confrontation with Trump since the Bezos call. Instead, it has stayed on message, emphasizing seller diversity and pricing resilience.

Other retailers, however, have been more candid. Walmart has said prices will likely increase “soon,” and Target confirmed it expects to pass some tariff costs to customers. Home Depot, for now, says it anticipates price stability, while Apple is preparing to raise prices on its upcoming iPhone models—though the company claims the increase is due to added features, not tariffs.

For Amazon, the controversy over tariff transparency has exposed a deeper tension between political power and corporate autonomy. While the company may be trying to present a united front, Jassy’s comments now appear less like a reflection of consumer trends and more like an effort to avoid reigniting a public battle with Washington.

The Nigerian government has recovered the $200 million bond it deposited ahead of arbitration proceedings in its legal battle against Process & Industrial Developments (P&ID) over an $11 billion judgment that was later quashed by a UK court.

The recovery marks another significant milestone in the country’s determined effort to overturn one of the biggest financial claims ever leveled against it.

Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi SAN, confirmed the bond’s return during a press briefing at the OAGF headquarters on Thursday. Flanked by members of Nigeria’s legal team, including the National Coordinator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria’s Legal & Investigation for P&ID, Kofo Abdulsalam-Alada, and the UK-based lead litigation counsel, Shaistah Akhtar, Fagbemi praised the team’s resilience and skill in dismantling what he described as a fraudulent case that could have burdened Nigeria with an astronomical financial liability.

“For completeness, I want to say that before we went into this arbitration, there was a demand for a deposit or bond of $200 million, which Nigeria paid. After our success, this bond was released,” Fagbemi stated.

The government is now focused on recovering legal costs it incurred during years of litigation, with Akhtar revealing that Nigeria is entitled to “tens of millions of pounds” in legal compensation. She disclosed that the UK court has already ordered an interim payment of £20 million in Nigeria’s favor, of which £10 million has been paid. The remainder is currently stayed, pending a July 2025 Supreme Court ruling on a dispute raised by P&ID over the currency in which the final settlement should be made.

The bond refund and ongoing cost recovery reflect the comprehensive legal victory Nigeria secured in October 2023, when Justice Robin Knowles of the Business and Property Court in London ruled that the $11 billion arbitration award obtained by P&ID in 2017 was based on fraud and corruption.

The decision brought an end to more than a decade of legal wrangling that began in 2010 when P&ID signed a gas processing deal with Nigeria. Under the agreement, P&ID was to build and operate a gas processing plant in Calabar, Cross River State, to convert wet gas from Nigeria’s petroleum operations into usable products. The company later accused Nigeria of failing to fulfill its part of the bargain, prompting a 2017 tribunal ruling that awarded it $6.6 billion plus interest, ballooning the total to $11 billion.

However, Nigeria challenged the award, arguing that the original contract was obtained through bribery and fraud. Evidence presented in court showed that P&ID executives offered financial inducements to Nigerian officials during the contract’s negotiation and procurement stages, undermining the legality of the deal.

Akhtar added that P&ID and its backers had initially resisted paying the court-ordered costs, prompting Nigeria to apply pressure. The result, she said, was a partial payment while the remainder awaits final judicial determination.

Kofo Abdulsalam-Alada, a key figure in Nigeria’s legal strategy and a former director at the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), said the case has set a precedent that the government is committed to enforcing going forward.

“And there are similar things still going on behind the scenes, and the government, having done this in the case of P&ID, is also resolved that we are going to toe the same line and never enter into settlements with this type of people”, he said.

He also emphasized that P&ID and its financiers would be held accountable for the costs of Nigeria’s legal defense, which they have begun to pay back.

“Let it be known that these people not only lose in the courts; they’re also going to lose the amount that we spent defending this country, because they are going to pay back, and they have actually started paying back.

“And it’s a lesson, sending a signal to others who attempt to drag Nigeria through this route that they will be made to pay,” he added.

The UK High Court’s ruling was celebrated by legal observers as a significant moment for global arbitration, reinforcing the need for transparency and due diligence in high-stakes commercial contracts involving sovereign states. The judgment also spared Nigeria a devastating financial blow, equivalent to about 30% of its national budget.

The federal government had faced mounting pressure over the years to settle the P&ID claim, but President Donald Trump’s administration in the U.S., along with other allies, reportedly backed Nigeria’s stance that the claim was fraudulent and should not be honored.

As it stands, the Nigerian government is poised not only to recoup all expenditures tied to the P&ID case but also to send a clear message to other companies that fraudulent claims and backdoor dealings will not go unchallenged.

The July 2025 UK Supreme Court ruling is expected to bring a final resolution to the matter of cost reimbursements. In the meantime, Nigerian authorities say the bond recovery and partial legal fee payment represent a major win in the country’s global legal posture.

President Donald Trump has warned Apple that it could face a crippling 25% tariff on all iPhones sold in the United States — unless it moves production to American soil.

The president issued the threat Friday via his Truth Social account, making it clear he expects Apple’s flagship product to be assembled domestically rather than overseas.

“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,” Trump posted. “If that is not the case, a Tariff of at least 25% must be paid by Apple to the U.S. Thank your for your attention to this matter!”

The statement comes just days after Financial Times reported that Apple supplier Foxconn is developing a $1.5 billion plant in southern India’s Chennai to produce iPhone displays. This is part of Apple’s broader strategy to diversify its production base away from China, spurred by both the COVID-era supply chain disruptions and rising U.S.-China trade tensions.

But Trump, who has long criticized Apple’s overseas manufacturing model, is now taking aim at the company’s pivot to India and Southeast Asia.

Apple Stock Dips as Markets React

Trump’s post triggered immediate tremors in financial markets. Apple shares fell 3.6% in premarket trading Friday, dragging down the S&P 500 index by 1.5%. European indices also dropped after Trump issued a separate threat against the European Union, proposing a 50% tariff on EU goods starting June 1. He accused the bloc of exploiting the United States through “trade barriers and corporate penalties,” calling the $250 billion trade deficit “totally unacceptable.”

Earlier this month, Trump hinted at his growing frustration with Apple CEO Tim Cook. “I had a little problem with Tim Cook yesterday,” Trump told an audience. “I said to him, ‘my friend, I treated you very good. You’re coming here with $500 billion, but now I hear you’re building all over India.’ I don’t want you building in India.”

Despite Apple’s commitment to invest $500 billion in the U.S. over the next four years, and Cook’s personal $1 million donation to Trump’s 2017 inauguration, the president’s patience appears to be wearing thin.

Why Apple Can’t Just Build iPhones in the U.S.

Trump’s demand confronts Apple with a dilemma that analysts say has no easy solution. Building iPhones in America is not only logistically difficult but also economically unrealistic.

Apple’s reliance on Asia is deeply rooted in decades of global manufacturing evolution. Assembling a single iPhone involves hundreds of parts from dozens of countries, and relies on an ultra-efficient supply chain that has been perfected over time, particularly in Chinese cities like Shenzhen and Zhengzhou.

Analysts estimate that shifting production to the U.S. could cause iPhone prices to spike by 50% or more — raising the retail cost to somewhere between $1,500 and $3,500, depending on the model. That’s a steep price for consumers and would threaten Apple’s competitive edge in the global smartphone market.

“The pressure from Trump on Apple to build iPhone production in the US as we have discussed this would result in an iPhone price point that is a non-starter for Cupertino and translate into iPhone prices of ~$3,500 if it was made in the US which is not realistic in our view,” said Dan Ives, analyst at Wedbush Securities.

In manufacturing circles, Shenzhen is often referred to as having a “manufacturing brain trust” — a dense, interconnected cluster of engineers, skilled workers, and suppliers that allows production to scale up rapidly and adapt in real-time.

Cook had in the past, attributed Apple’s decision to manufacture in China to a vast supply of highly skilled vocational talent.

“China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like,” Cook said at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou in 2017.

“The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people. The reason is because of the skill, and the quantity of skill in one location and the type of skill it is. And China has an abundance of skilled labor unseen elsewhere, says Cook,” added.

He explained that in the U.S., you could have a meeting of tooling engineers and not fill the room, while in China, you could fill multiple football fields.

That infrastructure simply does not exist in the U.S. Even when Apple has tried, the results have been limited. Its Mac Pro, assembled in Texas, is one of the few Apple products made in the U.S., but even that machine uses components sourced from around the globe.

From Trump’s ‘America First’ Agenda

The timing of Trump’s outburst is no coincidence. His administration has continued its hard line on trade imbalances, and Friday’s threats suggest tariffs will remain a key feature of his economic policy. India currently faces a baseline 10% tariff on goods imported to the U.S., while China’s rate stands at 30% — a figure that could rise again in August when a temporary reduction expires.

Until now, many Apple products, including iPhones, have enjoyed exemptions from the more punitive tariff tiers. But with Trump threatening to revoke those protections, Apple may be forced to either absorb the cost or pass it on to American consumers.

And the problem isn’t isolated to China or India. Trump’s blanket approach to trade means Apple’s other key production countries — Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, and even Ireland — could face similar tariff hikes, further narrowing the company’s options.

Apple at a Crossroads

This means the path forward is unclear for Apple. Moving large-scale iPhone production to the U.S. would require massive investments, workforce development, and a total reengineering of its supply chain. Meanwhile, complying with Trump’s 25% tariff without relocating would devastate its profit margins or alienate customers with soaring prices.

Though Apple has not responded publicly to the tariff threat, industry insiders say the company is unlikely to reverse its global manufacturing strategy overnight — especially when it is only now beginning to scale meaningful production outside of China.

Trump’s message, however, signals a hardening of trade policy that could force Apple — and potentially other U.S. tech giants — into a costly recalibration. The president’s stance also complicates Apple’s broader ambitions, including future product launches and its efforts to insulate itself from geopolitical shocks.

President Donald Trump has declared his intent to impose a sweeping 50% tariff on all imports from the European Union starting June 1, 2025, intensifying tensions in an already volatile global trade environment.

The announcement, made Friday morning via a Truth Social post, comes amid what Trump described as “failed” trade negotiations with the 27-nation bloc.

“Our discussions with them are going nowhere,” Trump wrote, accusing the EU of deliberately erecting barriers to U.S. products while engaging in “monetary manipulations” and “unjustified lawsuits against American companies.”

He claimed that the trade imbalance—over $250 billion annually in favor of the EU—is unacceptable.

The new tariff threat immediately rattled financial markets. European stocks dropped 2%, and U.S. stock futures fell in pre-market trading, reflecting investor anxiety over the economic fallout of an aggressive trade stance. The escalation also triggered a wave of uncertainty in U.S. tech shares after Trump, moments earlier, threatened to slap a 25% tariff on iPhones unless Apple begins manufacturing them domestically.

“There is no tariff if the product is built or manufactured in the United States,” Trump added, reinforcing his long-held demand for reshoring American manufacturing jobs.

Reigniting the Trade War

The tariff announcement marks a dramatic return to Trump’s combative trade policies. Just weeks ago, he celebrated the outlines of new trade pacts with China and the UK, raising hopes among investors that he was softening his earlier stance on tariffs. Now, the proposed 50% duty against the EU would not only undo that momentum but escalate the trade war to unprecedented levels.

“To go to 50% is a completely different order of magnitude,” said Austan Goolsbee, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, during a CNBC interview. “If they’re putting in place tariffs that have a stagflationary impact—which is to say they slow down output by raising the cost of production while also raising prices—then that’s the central bank’s worst situation.”

In 2022, the EU was the second-largest buyer of American exports, accounting for nearly $351 billion in trade. The new tariffs, if implemented, could endanger that commercial relationship and put thousands of export-reliant jobs at risk in the U.S., especially in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors.

High Stakes and Short Deadlines

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, appearing on Fox News shortly after Trump’s announcement, confirmed the seriousness of the proposed tariff.

“I would hope this lights a fire under the EU,” Bessent said when asked if the bloc has time to negotiate within the nine-day window before the tariffs are enacted.

The timing of the announcement appears calculated. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer is scheduled to meet with European Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic later on Friday. According to a Financial Times report, Greer is expected to tell his counterpart that Brussels’ latest trade proposals “fail to meet U.S. expectations.”

The European Commission has so far declined to comment publicly on Trump’s tariff threat. But the bloc is expected to push back strongly against any unilateral imposition, with diplomats already warning of retaliatory tariffs if the U.S. proceeds with the plan.

A Pattern of Provocation

Friday’s tariff threat is not Trump’s first shot at the EU. Earlier in April, he announced a 20% blanket tariff on European imports, only to scale it down to 10% for 90 days under what he called a “reciprocal” plan. That move was seen as a negotiating tactic meant to pressure the EU into concessions. But with Trump now threatening a straight 50% tariff, many trade experts say he has gone well beyond the boundaries of leverage.

In addition to the proposed blanket tariff, Europe is still dealing with sector-specific duties imposed under Trump’s earlier directives, including a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum imports.

The impact of such aggressive trade measures could reverberate globally. The EU has long been a vital pillar of the international trading system, and any significant rupture in transatlantic commerce would disrupt global supply chains and complicate diplomatic ties, particularly in areas of shared interest like defense, technology, and energy.

Trump’s Domestic Manufacturing Strategy

Central to Trump’s justification is his campaign-style promise to bring jobs and production back to American soil. His iPhone threat is a case in point: he warned that unless Apple begins domestic manufacturing of its devices, it too will face steep tariffs.

The tariffs are sending a broader message that Trump is once again embracing protectionism as a key plank of his economic platform, using tariffs both as a weapon and a bargaining chip.

But analysts warn that the economic consequences could be severe. The combination of supply shocks, inflationary pressure, and retaliatory tariffs could trigger price spikes across sectors, from consumer electronics to automobiles and food.

As the June 1 deadline looms, attention will turn to whether the EU offers concessions to stave off the tariff or digs in for a trade confrontation. The ball is now in Brussels’ court, though trade experts believe the bloc is unlikely to respond well to what it views as economic bullying.