Context:

President Donald Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on Apple and Mattel in response to comments by their CEOs, despite legal challenges to such actions. Trump expressed his discontent with Apple's plans to shift iPhone production to India, suggesting a 25% tariff on imported smartphones. He also threatened a 100% tariff on Mattel's toys after the CEO mentioned potential price hikes due to tariffs. Legal experts argue that targeting specific companies with tariffs may face constitutional issues, as tariffs must apply to a whole class of products. Trump's threats appear to be more about leveraging negotiations for US investments rather than implementing the tariffs themselves.

Dive Deeper:

• Donald Trump has targeted Apple and Mattel with tariff threats after their CEOs made comments that displeased him, but legal experts suggest such company-specific tariffs could face significant judicial challenges.

• Trump's dissatisfaction with Apple's CEO Tim Cook stems from Cook's decision to move iPhone production from China to India, leading Trump to threaten a 25% tariff on all imported smartphones, including those from competitors like Samsung.

• Mattel faced a 100% tariff threat from Trump after its CEO mentioned potential price increases due to tariffs and the decision not to move production to the US, as domestic production would be more costly than paying existing tariffs.

• Legal analysts, including trade attorney Lizbeth Levinson, argue that Trump lacks the constitutional authority to impose tariffs targeting specific companies, as tariffs must be applied to an entire class of products across the industry.

• Trump's approach seems to focus on using tariff threats as a negotiation tactic to secure US investments or other concessions rather than actually implementing the tariffs, as evidenced by similar strategies in the past.

• The possibility of a Section 232 investigation into imported smartphones, which could lead to tariffs based on national security grounds, is being considered by Trump's administration, though such measures would take time to implement.

• Despite the tariff threats, experts believe actual implementation of these tariffs is unlikely due to the potential economic impact on consumers and the legal hurdles involved, suggesting Trump's actions are more about posturing for negotiation leverage.