Made in the US? Trump's MAGA phone is just another phoney deal
The Trump family says it's going to launch a mobile phone service with phones 'proudly designed and built in the United States'. Really? Not really.
For a start, the statement in the press release claiming that the new 'sleek, gold smartphone' will be manufactured in the US is false.
While a spokesman for the Trump Organisation told The Wall Street Journal that the phones would be manufactured in Alabama, California and Florida, Eric Trump admitted to a podcaster that, at least initially, the phones – supposed to be available from August – would be made offshore.
'Eventually, all the phones can be built in the United States of America,' he said. 'Eventually' could involve a very long wait.
While the Trumps described 'T1 Mobile' as a 'transformational, new cellular service designed to deliver top-tier connectivity, unbeatable value and all-American service for our nation's hardest-working people,' what's on offer appears to be an expensive re-badging of another company's offering.
It's a licensing deal. The Trumps aren't building anything. They're selling the Trump brand, as usual, to a third party that will create a virtual network by accessing the actual mobile networks operated by AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile.
Are they at least offering the unbeatable value their announcement proclaimed? It appears not.
The plan, as described, is $US499 ($766) for the phone plus $US45.47 a month (Trump is both the 45th and US 47th president, how clever!) for unlimited talk and text and 20GB of high-speed internet, access to telehealth services and roadside assistance.
Leaving aside the service offerings because it's unclear whether they carry additional costs – the company that will provide the telehealth service charges a minimum of $US29 a month – the Trump Mobile plan costs more than twice that of similar plans offered by the companies whose networks will deliver the services.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Baby brain: Why MAGA's pro-natalist plans are ill-conceived
America's politicians have babies on the brain. In February, President Donald Trump told officials to make IVF cheaper. Even without its procreator-in-chief, Elon Musk, the White House is thought to be working on a bigger package of pro-natalist policies. Vice-President J.D. Vance is keen. Mr Trump says he favours a $US5000 (about $7700) handout for new parents. In Britain, meanwhile, Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, a MAGA-ish opposition party, has proposed tax breaks and benefits to encourage women to have more children. Politicians have long feared the fiscal consequences of an ageing population, with too few young workers supporting legions of pensioners. Governments in places with very low birth rates, such as Japan and South Korea, have spent billions trying to reverse the decline, with little success. The new pro-natalist policies of the transatlantic right differ from older ones in that they are more targeted at working-class women, whose fertility rate has fallen the most. That might make them a bit more effective. But not at a reasonable cost, or without creating perverse incentives. Previous attempts to deliver a baby boom have either failed or been eye-wateringly expensive, relative to the number of extra births they deliver. Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orban, started a big pro-natal push in 2011, and has since given parents everything from tax breaks and cash handouts to free child care. These policies cost a staggering 5.5 per cent of the country's GDP annually – more than almost any government will spend on an ageing population in any year between now and 2050. In February, mothers of two were promised a lifelong exemption from income tax. Hungary's fertility rate rose to 1.6 children per woman in 2018, from 1.2 in 2011, making it a poster child for populist pro-natalists everywhere. However, it has since dipped, suggesting handouts encouraged some mums not to have more babies, but to have the same number sooner. Other countries, including Japan, Norway and Poland, have tried tax breaks, handouts, maternity leave, subsidised child care and even state-sponsored dating, to little effect. Such policies mostly soften the blow to the finances and career prospects of professional women from having children, without persuading them to have more. Like Mr Orban, both Mr Farage and Mr Vance see pro-natalism as a way to boost the native population over the immigrants they so dislike. However, they would not spend as lavishly as Hungary, and they would focus the cash more narrowly on poorer parents. Mr Farage would scrap a cap on benefits, which stops families claiming benefits for more than two children, and boost the threshold below which earnings are exempt from income tax for one half of a married couple. Mr Trump's handouts would be a bigger relief for poor households than rich ones. Underpinning these policies is an assumption that poorer women are more likely to respond to incentives to have more children. Indeed, their fertility rates do seem more elastic than those of professional women. Whereas the fertility rates of older, college-educated women have remained fairly steady over the past six decades, most of the collapse in fertility in America and Britain since 1980 stems from younger and poorer women having fewer children, particularly from unplanned pregnancies. Loading In 1994, the average age of a first-time American mother without a university degree was 20. Today, about two-thirds of women without degrees in their 20s have never given birth. Mr Trump's and Mr Farage's policies might therefore lead to more babies being born than the approaches of places like Norway, which focus on offering child care, a benefit that professional women tend to take up.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Baby brain: Why MAGA's pro-natalist plans are ill-conceived
America's politicians have babies on the brain. In February, President Donald Trump told officials to make IVF cheaper. Even without its procreator-in-chief, Elon Musk, the White House is thought to be working on a bigger package of pro-natalist policies. Vice-President J.D. Vance is keen. Mr Trump says he favours a $US5000 (about $7700) handout for new parents. In Britain, meanwhile, Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, a MAGA-ish opposition party, has proposed tax breaks and benefits to encourage women to have more children. Politicians have long feared the fiscal consequences of an ageing population, with too few young workers supporting legions of pensioners. Governments in places with very low birth rates, such as Japan and South Korea, have spent billions trying to reverse the decline, with little success. The new pro-natalist policies of the transatlantic right differ from older ones in that they are more targeted at working-class women, whose fertility rate has fallen the most. That might make them a bit more effective. But not at a reasonable cost, or without creating perverse incentives. Previous attempts to deliver a baby boom have either failed or been eye-wateringly expensive, relative to the number of extra births they deliver. Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orban, started a big pro-natal push in 2011, and has since given parents everything from tax breaks and cash handouts to free child care. These policies cost a staggering 5.5 per cent of the country's GDP annually – more than almost any government will spend on an ageing population in any year between now and 2050. In February, mothers of two were promised a lifelong exemption from income tax. Hungary's fertility rate rose to 1.6 children per woman in 2018, from 1.2 in 2011, making it a poster child for populist pro-natalists everywhere. However, it has since dipped, suggesting handouts encouraged some mums not to have more babies, but to have the same number sooner. Other countries, including Japan, Norway and Poland, have tried tax breaks, handouts, maternity leave, subsidised child care and even state-sponsored dating, to little effect. Such policies mostly soften the blow to the finances and career prospects of professional women from having children, without persuading them to have more. Like Mr Orban, both Mr Farage and Mr Vance see pro-natalism as a way to boost the native population over the immigrants they so dislike. However, they would not spend as lavishly as Hungary, and they would focus the cash more narrowly on poorer parents. Mr Farage would scrap a cap on benefits, which stops families claiming benefits for more than two children, and boost the threshold below which earnings are exempt from income tax for one half of a married couple. Mr Trump's handouts would be a bigger relief for poor households than rich ones. Underpinning these policies is an assumption that poorer women are more likely to respond to incentives to have more children. Indeed, their fertility rates do seem more elastic than those of professional women. Whereas the fertility rates of older, college-educated women have remained fairly steady over the past six decades, most of the collapse in fertility in America and Britain since 1980 stems from younger and poorer women having fewer children, particularly from unplanned pregnancies. Loading In 1994, the average age of a first-time American mother without a university degree was 20. Today, about two-thirds of women without degrees in their 20s have never given birth. Mr Trump's and Mr Farage's policies might therefore lead to more babies being born than the approaches of places like Norway, which focus on offering child care, a benefit that professional women tend to take up.
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
US President Donald Trump yet to call Prime Minister Anthony Albanese after G7 cancellation, but meeting still expected
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese remains without a phone call from Donald Trump after his G7 snub, even though the US President reached out to other countries he cancelled meetings with and met with an Italian soccer team. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has yet to receive a phone call from US President Donald Trump after their meeting was cancelled at the G7 summit in Canada. After the planned bilateral was abruptly cancelled so President Trump could address the Middle East conflict, he reached out to India and Mexico. As of Saturday, Mr Albanese had not received a phone call from President Trump, even though he contacted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. There has been no indication that President Trump has contacted other cancelled counterparts, such as South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, or Mr Albanese. The Albanese government has suggested there is no cause for concern, despite the highly visible diplomatic snub. A meeting between the two leaders is still agreed to, according to senior government sources - and the question now is simply when, not if. There is much cooperation defence space between the US and Australia and this meeting will happen, government sources believe. While President Trump rushed home from the G7 due to tensions in the Middle East, his schedule back in Washington included a puzzling detour to meet an Italian soccer team. President Trump met with players from Juventus FC, who were in the US for the Club World Cup. He questioned Juventus FC players for their view on transgender athletes, asking, 'Could a woman make your team, fellas?' 'We have a very good women's team,' General manager Damien Comolli responded. President Trump said: 'You do, but they should be playing with women… He's being very diplomatic." The brief and awkward exchange followed President Trump's executive order from earlier this year banning transgender athletes from women's and girls' sports — Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) June 17, 2025 Despite the absence of a face-to-face with the US President, Mr Albanese was still able to use the G7 summit to press the case on trade with members of the Trump administration. Mr Albanese held two 20-minute meetings with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The government reiterated its argument that tariffs on Australian goods make little economic sense, saying that only four per cent of exports go to the United States. Meanwhile, beef exports to the US rose 91 per cent year-on-year from April to April - even as US tariffs took effect from early April. One emerging theory among sources was that President Trump simply has little interest in multilateral forums. Sources suggest he dislikes summits like the G7, where tensions with European and Asian allies are more likely to flare. Given President Trump's differences with many world leaders, there is a view that the meeting was almost like the G6 - plus the US. Despite the cancelled meeting and lack of follow-up contact, officials remain hopeful a rescheduled Trump-Albanese meeting can still take place. The UN General Assembly in New York in September has shaped up as the next likely opportunity.
