Trump "Made in America" Delay! Trump Mobile $499 Gold Phone Delayed Again

Trump Mobile postpones the $499 gold-colored phone “T1” originally scheduled for delivery by the end of the year. The company promised in June to manufacture in the US to compete with Apple and Samsung, but supply chain analysts question its feasibility. Ironically, Trump is demanding Apple produce in the US and threatening a 25% tariff, yet his own company cannot fulfill its promise.

The Real Challenges of the US Manufacturing Promise

Trump Mobile initially claimed the T1 would be launched in August and be “Made in America,” requiring a $100 deposit for pre-order. This promise is especially ironic given Trump’s criticism of Apple’s over-reliance on Chinese manufacturers. Trump demands Apple produce in the US and threatens a 25% tariff, but his own enterprise faces the same supply chain issues.

Supply chain analysts and industry experts have raised serious doubts about the US manufacturing claim. They point out that, given the current heavy reliance of smartphone suppliers on Asian supply chains, it is nearly impossible to produce a mass-market device using only US components. According to IDC estimates, less than 5% of iPhone parts are manufactured in the US. This stark data reveals a harsh reality: even tech giants like Apple cannot escape dependence on Asian supply chains.

In response to skepticism, Trump Mobile quickly retracted its previous statements. Weeks after the announcement, the company revised its promotional materials, changing “Made in America” to “Launched in America.” This wordplay exposes the huge gap between business promises and technological realities. The original August launch was pushed back to the end of the year, and now that deadline has also been missed.

Trump Mobile’s customer service team blamed the latest delay on the government shutdown, claiming the device “is very likely” to be undeliverable this month. This explanation is highly questionable. First, the government shutdown mainly affects federal agencies, with limited impact on private sector supply chains and production plans. Second, even if the shutdown caused some administrative delays, a company claiming to have the “industry’s best talent” should have contingency plans.

More critically, Trump Mobile has never clearly explained its supply chain structure. If the phone is truly assembled in the US, what parts are needed? Where do these parts come from? Which state is the assembly factory in? The lack of this basic information makes the “Made in America” promise seem more like marketing hype than a concrete plan.

Mysterious Team Background Sparks Trust Crisis

The team behind Trump Mobile has remained low-profile since the launch event. The president’s sons, Donald Jr. and Eric Trump, claim to work with “the industry’s top talent,” but the backgrounds of the three senior executives are confusing.

Revealing the Core Team of Trump Mobile

Pat O’Brien (Customer Service Head)

· President of Ensurety Ventures

· Insurance operator in Missouri

· Responsible for operating Trump Mobile customer service hotline

· No experience in the smartphone industry

Eric Thomas (Device Manager)

· Owner of Olympus Construction in Utah

· Background in real estate

· No experience in consumer electronics development

· Responsible for R&D of “Made in America” phones

Don Hendricks (Executive Vice President)

· Senior executive at Liberty Mobile Wireless

· Virtual network operator in Florida

· Previously worked in the pager industry

· Operations center located in Miami Trump Tower

This team composition raises serious doubts. The device manager is a real estate developer, the customer service head comes from insurance, and the only telecom-experienced executive previously worked in the pager industry. Pagers are a 1990s communication technology, completely different from the complex supply chains and software ecosystems of modern smartphones.

Even more confusing is that Liberty Mobile Wireless is a little-known virtual network operator. MVNOs do not own infrastructure but lease network services from other carriers. This business model is entirely different from starting from scratch to manufacture smartphones. How Trump Mobile plans to bridge this gap has never been clearly explained.

The Financial Times attempted to contact the three executives for comments, but Trump Mobile, Thomas, and O’Brien did not respond, and Hendricks could not be reached. This silence further deepens external doubts about the project’s viability.

Shift to Reselling Used Devices

Faced with the difficulties of self-manufacturing, Trump Mobile has begun selling used Apple and Samsung devices. This shift exposes a fundamental contradiction in the company’s business model. On one hand, Trump himself criticizes Apple’s reliance on China and threatens tariffs; on the other hand, Trump Mobile sells products made by “America’s enemies” on its website.

The website lists the 2023 iPhone 15 for $629, claiming its used devices “have no inflated price tags.” However, the new iPhone 16 released last year can be purchased directly from Apple for only $699. Trump Mobile’s used iPhone 15 is priced just $70 below the brand-new iPhone 16, making this “deal” quite ironic.

Trump Mobile also sells used Samsung S24, released early 2024, for $459, slightly below Samsung’s official secondhand price of $489. A $30 difference offers little competitive advantage, especially considering consumers might trust official channels for after-sales service more.

This business model is essentially MVNO plus used device resale, far from the original promise of “American-made smartphones challenging Apple and Samsung.” Coupled with a $47.45 monthly plan, Trump Mobile more resembles a white-label telecom service provider than a tech innovator.

The T1 device announced in June and its accompanying plan are seen as one of the many commercial moves by Trump’s family business to leverage his return to the White House. However, from the quick retraction of the US manufacturing promise, repeated delays in the launch date, to ultimately reselling secondhand products from competitors, the entire project trajectory resembles a failed attempt at political branding monetization.