Apple is reportedly ramping up shipments of India-made iPhones to the United States, a major strategic shift aimed at softening the blow of sweeping new tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on goods from China.

The move marks a significant pivot for the company, which has long depended on China as the center of its manufacturing and supply chain operations.

According to sources cited by The Wall Street Journal, Apple now plans to use India to meet as much as half of American demand for iPhones, in a bid to escape the worst of the new tariff hikes. Under the latest U.S. tariff framework, iPhones and other goods imported from China are now subject to duties of at least 54%, compared to a 26% rate for the same products shipped from India.

Apple did not respond to requests for comment, but the company is also said to be lobbying for exemptions similar to the waivers it secured during Trump’s first term — even as it pursues other mitigation strategies.

India Steps In as Apple’s “Plan B”

India’s growing role in Apple’s global production chain is no longer just about diversification, it has become an economic lifeline for the tech giant’s U.S. market. The tariff pressure has accelerated Apple’s shift, with its local manufacturing partners like Foxconn and Pegatron scaling up production lines in Indian facilities to handle more U.S.-bound orders.

Until recently, India had been producing only a fraction of iPhones, mostly older models intended for local or emerging markets. But the scale of the Trump administration’s tariff escalation appears to have forced Apple’s hand. Bloomberg also reported that the company front-loaded inventory shipments before the tariffs kicked in, effectively delaying the hit until the next quarter.

Still, the timeline is tight. Even with India ramping up, the U.S. remains vulnerable to possible shortages if demand surges or production lags — a concern already pushing consumers to stockpile.

U.S. Consumers React, Panic Buy

Over the weekend, Apple stores in several U.S. cities witnessed an unexpected surge in foot traffic, with scenes resembling holiday shopping crowds. Consumers concerned that prices would spike once the tariffs filtered into retail prices, rushed to buy available iPhones and accessories before any price adjustment took effect.

The panic-buying came as fears mounted that Apple would have no choice but to pass on the added costs to customers. While the company has kept the base price of its flagship iPhone at $999 since 2017, analysts say that holding that line may no longer be sustainable, especially if India fails to scale quickly enough or if exemptions are denied.

According to insiders, Apple may attempt to cushion the blow by squeezing supplier margins and cutting internal costs. But given the scale of the tariffs, those measures might only offer short-term relief.

U.S. Tariffs Upend Apple’s Market Cap

Apple’s stock has already taken a beating. Following the tariff announcement, the company saw its shares tumble, joining others like Nike and Wayfair which are heavily reliant on overseas manufacturing. The result: a stunning $300 billion was wiped off Apple’s market capitalization in a matter of days — a direct consequence of investors’ concerns about the company’s exposure to high tariff zones.

Analysts say the reaction underscores just how vulnerable even the world’s most valuable tech company is to shifting trade dynamics. And it comes at a time when Washington is actively pushing to bring manufacturing back home — a goal that Apple, according to the WSJ, has described as a “nonstarter” due to the enormous cost of building and staffing facilities on American soil.

However, Apple’s maneuvering is emblematic of the broader pressure many multinational companies now face under the Trump administration’s revived protectionist agenda. The new wave of tariffs, the steepest yet, has widened the global economic fault lines, especially as U.S. allies and rivals respond with countermeasures.

India, while benefiting from Apple’s shifting focus, is itself caught in the crossfire. The country has previously clashed with Washington over tariffs on American ethanol and other goods.

But for now, Apple appears to be betting on India — both to supply its American customers and to weather a political climate increasingly hostile to Chinese manufacturing dominance. Whether the strategy pays off depends on how long the tariff war drags on, and how quickly India can scale to meet Apple’s quality and volume standards.

Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman has put forward what he calls a more practical and strategic alternative to the Trump administration’s sweeping tariff policy, warning that the current path could drag the global economy into a “self-induced, economic nuclear winter.”

In a lengthy social media post titled “How’s this for a simple approach?”, the Pershing Square CEO called for an immediate 90-day pause in reciprocal tariff escalation, arguing that such a window would allow for private negotiations with trade partners. His intervention comes amid mounting concerns from economists and business leaders over the long-term implications of President Donald Trump’s protectionist agenda.

Ackman criticized both the intent and execution of the tariff strategy, saying the administration’s formula for measuring foreign tariffs inflated their size “four times larger than they actually are.” That miscalculation, he said, is now steering the U.S. toward what could be a major economic misstep.

“The global economy is being taken down because of bad math,” Ackman wrote. “The President’s advisors need to acknowledge their error before April 9th and make a course correction before the President makes a big mistake based on bad math.”

Tariff Pause and Realignment

At the core of Ackman’s proposal is the idea of a modest, across-the-board 10% tariff for countries doing business with the U.S.—a blanket fee meant to compensate for America’s longstanding investments in global security and health, as well as past trade deficits. But beyond that, he urged for a targeted, case-by-case approach.

“We keep the pressure on China to resolve materially unfair trading practices, IP theft, currency manipulation, and other practices that have disadvantaged our nation,” he said, emphasizing the need for specificity and diplomacy rather than blanket punishment.

The plan, he noted, would begin with a 90-day halt in tit-for-tat tariff escalation, focusing instead on bilateral talks with countries whose policies have most impacted U.S. competitiveness, especially in manufacturing.

Rethinking Trade Deficits

Ackman also challenged some of the foundational ideas that have shaped Trump’s hardline approach to trade, particularly the obsession with reducing the U.S. trade deficit on a country-by-country basis.

“It does not make sense to have balanced trade with countries that are smaller than us and that have fewer resources to spend on U.S. goods,” he argued. “We will forever be buying more from Madagascar than they will buy from us.”

He warned against using export-import parity as a benchmark, calling it a misguided target for a country like the U.S., which has the largest economy and highest standard of living in the world. Instead, Ackman urged the administration to recognize the value of less visible American exports—such as software, intellectual property, and financial services—that don’t show up in traditional trade data but contribute significantly to the economy.

“If these were included, the balance of trade statistics would look much more balanced,” he said.

He added that U.S. multinationals that operate subsidiaries abroad also generate returns in the form of profits, dividends, and strategic influence, even though those revenues are often missing from standard trade metrics.

Manufacturing Realities

Ackman, whose investment firm manages billions in assets, also dismissed the idea of bringing low-wage manufacturing back to the U.S., calling it economically unrealistic and strategically flawed.

“Attempting to bring back jobs in low-wage manufacturing is not good for America,” he said, noting that countries like Bangladesh and Vietnam are naturally better suited for industries such as textile and footwear production.

Instead, he encouraged U.S. policymakers to embrace high-value services and technology exports as the new face of global competitiveness.

A Plea for Prudence

In his closing remarks, Ackman acknowledged the flaws in the existing global trade system but cautioned against tearing it down without a viable plan to replace it.

“The current trading system, while far from perfect or fair to the U.S., has served us extremely well,” he wrote. “We need to be prudent in how we change it so as not to upset the world order in such a manner that it disadvantages our country over the long term.”

The post shared just days before a critical April 9th deadline for the next wave of tariff decisions marks one of the strongest warnings yet from a Wall Street heavyweight about the potential cost of Trump’s approach.

However, it is not clear if the Trump administration will take the advice. Trump has doubled down on the tariff policy, calling on Americans to support it as it’s meant to make the economy better.

“The United States has a chance to do something that should have been done DECADES AGO. Don’t be Weak! Don’t be Stupid! Don’t be a PANICAN (A new party based on Weak and Stupid people!). Be Strong, Courageous, and Patient, and GREATNESS will be the result!” The president said on Monday.

However, with global markets showing signs of strain and recession alarms sounding in key economies, the pressure is mounting for a recalibration. Ackman, like several other investors, is calling for a replacement of hardline posturing with intelligent recalibration, before the U.S. ends up isolating itself in a trade war of its own making.

Nigeria faces a double whammy: potential oil crash, and insecurity which has cut-off most activities in the rural areas. These two vectors could potentially expire the 2025 budget and soon-to-be crafted 2026 budget even before they go mainstream. If oil price crashes, and people cannot even enter farms due to insecurity, what next? We’re getting closer to the Malthusian catastrophe and our options are narrowing.

Everyone is a victim: I shut down Zenvus due to insecurity as it was becoming dangerous to send young people to farms to deploy tech for clients. My fear was this: if a young person is kidnapped working for me, what would I tell the spouse, kids and parents? To avoid that possibility, I closed the business and moved on despite a huge contract from Rice Farmers Association of Nigeria (RIFAN).

Read Goldman Sachs on the trajectory of oil: “The prospect of global oil prices tumbling to below $40 per barrel has triggered alarm far beyond Wall Street, with fresh fears mounting in Nigeria over the fate of its fragile economy.

“In a Monday note that underscores the vulnerability of oil-dependent nations, analysts at Goldman Sachs warned that Brent crude — the international benchmark, could fall under $40 by late 2026 in a worst-case scenario marked by a global slowdown and the collapse of OPEC+ production cuts.”

At the center of the looming crisis is the Nigerian government’s 2025 fiscal blueprint, which is built around a $75 per barrel oil benchmark. The country, still heavily reliant on crude oil exports for revenue, has projected an N14 trillion oil revenue target for 2025 — a figure that becomes a fantasy if Brent prices slide anywhere near the $40 mark.

Nigeria typically earns over 70% of its foreign exchange and about half of its government revenue from oil. With production volumes struggling to exceed 1.3 million barrels per day, well below OPEC quotas, the only way Nigeria has managed to keep its books somewhat balanced is through the elevated oil prices seen in recent years.

Nigeria’s insecurity is a huge threat and I do hope people understand how this will play on investment decisions especially outside the major cities. This problem did not begin today and cannot be fixed overnight. But our leaders must show urgency. Whenever I remember my hobby – visiting university campuses across Nigeria to teach electronics, from Sokoto to Ife, Owerri to Kano, and beyond (see photos  ) and how that is IMPOSSIBLE now, I feel bad. Our past must not be more memorable than the present! We must show urgency on dealing with insecurity everywhere.

The prospect of global oil prices tumbling to below $40 per barrel has triggered alarm far beyond Wall Street, with fresh fears mounting in Nigeria over the fate of its fragile economy.

In a Monday note that underscores the vulnerability of oil-dependent nations, analysts at Goldman Sachs warned that Brent crude — the international benchmark, could fall under $40 by late 2026 in a worst-case scenario marked by a global slowdown and the collapse of OPEC+ production cuts.

For Nigeria, this is more than a market forecast. It’s a direct threat to the foundation of its economic planning and a signal that the government’s 2025 budget, already under pressure, could unravel.

Goldman Sachs’s current base-case outlook pegs Brent at $55 per barrel by December 2026. But the analysts outlined a darker possibility: should there be a full unwinding of OPEC+ production restraints coupled with a global recession, prices could dive to levels not seen since the COVID-19-triggered crash of 2020. A slump of that magnitude would deal a crushing blow to Nigeria’s finances.

Nigeria’s Budget Math Doesn’t Add Up Anymore

At the center of the looming crisis is the Nigerian government’s 2025 fiscal blueprint, which is built around a $75 per barrel oil benchmark. The country, still heavily reliant on crude oil exports for revenue, has projected an N14 trillion oil revenue target for 2025 — a figure that becomes a fantasy if Brent prices slide anywhere near the $40 mark.

Nigeria typically earns over 70% of its foreign exchange and about half of its government revenue from oil. With production volumes struggling to exceed 1.3 million barrels per day, well below OPEC quotas, the only way Nigeria has managed to keep its books somewhat balanced is through the elevated oil prices seen in recent years.

A price collapse now would leave gaping holes in its revenue projections and force another round of emergency borrowing or austerity. Already, the country is spending more than 60% of its revenue on debt servicing, with limited fiscal space to respond to new shocks.

Economists warn that such a scenario would widen Nigeria’s fiscal deficit significantly. Last year, the National Assembly approved the extension of the 2024 Budget’s lifespan to June 2025, a decision aimed at ensuring the continuity of fiscal operations and the uninterrupted execution of critical government projects. This situation is expected to repeat itself if oil prices linger below Nigeria’s budget benchmark in 2025.

OPEC+ Uncertainty and Trump’s Tariffs Compound the Threat

Goldman Sachs’s bleak forecast comes on the back of twin developments that have rattled the global oil market. The first is President Donald Trump’s renewed trade offensive, including fresh tariffs that have shaken investor confidence and triggered fears of a slowdown in global economic activity. The second is a surprise decision by OPEC+ to increase output, despite earlier commitments to maintain production cuts that helped stabilize prices in previous months.

Those two shocks sent oil prices plunging more than 7% last Thursday, with Brent and WTI extending declines to four-year lows by Monday.

“Increased production combined with growing concerns about global economic growth has shifted market psychology from scarcity to surplus,” wrote Angie Gildea, KPMG’s U.S. energy leader.

That shift is toxic for Nigeria. The country needs high oil prices not just to balance its books, but to attract foreign investors and stabilize its volatile currency. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), which recently floated the naira in an attempt to unify exchange rates, has been hoping for increased oil receipts to shore up reserves. That lifeline could now be slipping away.

U.S. Shale Producers Also Under Pressure

Ironically, while Nigeria and other resource-dependent economies brace for impact, U.S. oil producers are hardly in better shape. With breakeven costs above $62 per barrel for many shale operators, prices around $60 — let alone $40, would force a wave of production cuts, capital expenditure reductions, and dividend suspensions.

“The corporate reality for public players means that already modest growth could be at risk,” said Matthew Bernstein of Rystad Energy. He added that U.S. producers may soon have to choose between profitability and output.

Trump’s energy agenda, which once touted “drill, baby, drill” as a pathway to energy dominance, is now colliding with the reality of his own tariff policies. Rising costs, including those from tariffs on imported steel used in oil well construction, are eating into margins and worsening the uncertainty that investors hate.

For Nigeria, however, the stakes are existential. The country entered multiple recessions over the last decade due to oil price volatility and has struggled to diversify its economy despite repeated promises. President Bola Tinubu’s administration is now under pressure to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

Analysts say the government must urgently revise its fiscal assumptions, explore alternative revenue sources, and reduce its dependence on oil exports. But that’s easier said than done. Non-oil tax collection remains abysmally low, and previous efforts to widen the tax net have met stiff resistance from a population already grappling with inflation, unemployment, and rising fuel costs.

If Brent does slide to $40, the federal budget will need drastic revisions. Subnational governments that rely on monthly allocations from the Federation Account could face cash crunches, public sector salaries may be delayed, and capital projects could be stalled across the board.

In the end, the only silver lining of Goldman Sachs’s under-$40 forecast could be —– a lower oil price that will result in a cheaper cost of transportation — which many believe would take some financial pressure off the Nigerian people.