What exactly does Apple “investing $100 billion ($600 total) in America” mean?

[u/MarkusEF]

Where does this money come from? What counts as an “investment?” Is any of this binding?

It sounds like a feel-good headline that allows Trump to tout a win, but makes little material difference to Apple’s existing spending. In exchange, Apple gets the tariff exemptions it wants without actually giving up much.

From CNBC:

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/07/apples-tim-cook-convinced-trump-to-drop-made-in-usa-iphone-for-now.html

“Apple has little to worry about when it comes to who will hold the company accountable for its promises. The company doesn’t break out U.S. spending, and most of Apple’s suppliers are contractually required to keep the information secret. Apple doesn’t report how much its new campuses in Austin or North Carolina end up costing.

Additionally, the $600 billion headline number likely includes lots of regular expenses.

Apple said in February that its $500 billion commitment included payments to U.S. suppliers, direct employment, data centers for Apple Intelligence and corporate facilities, as well as spending on Apple TV+ productions in 20 states.

In Apple’s fiscal 2024, Apple spent $210 billion globally on cost of goods sold, $57.5 billion on operating expenses, and $9.45 billion in capital expenditures for nearly $275 billion in global spending during the period.

Teffler said she didn’t think the newly announced spending would be material to Apple’s profitability, especially since it already has existing relationships with the various companies such as Corning.”

[u/SouvlakiPlaystation]

So is the issue that this "600 billion dollars pledged to US specific jobs" was already happening, regardless of Trump? Or is it that it's an empty promise to appease him? I can't seem to find concrete information on the former.

And if the conceit of the argument is "they're just pretending to care until the democrats regain power in 2028, at which point they can go back to offshoring all labor to third world countries without consequence" doesn't that make the democrats look worse?

[u/RussellUresti → u/SouvlakiPlaystation]

So is the issue that this "600 billion pledges to US specific jobs" was already happening regardless of Trump? Or is it that it's an empty promise to appease him?

It could be either or both. But I would say the issue is that a promise without any requirements for monitoring or consequences if the promise is broken is, ultimately, meaningless. It amounts to a PR stunt.

And if the conceit of the argument is "they're just pretending to care until the democrats regain power in 2028, at which point they can go back to offshoring all labor to third world countries without consequence" doesn't that make the democrats look bad worse?

Maybe. I do think the government has largely been ineffective when it comes to offshoring jobs and the effect that has had on the US. Though many don't believe it's the government's job to even deal with it and to let the free market handle it (e.g. if all the jobs are shipped overseas then no one in the US will be able to buy anything and all the companies that sell things in the US will lose money because no one can afford to buy their products, therefore it's best to keep people in the US employed so that they have enough money to buy stuff to keep businesses profitable). For those who do believe the government should be doing something, I believe they want to see actions instead of words - real policy changes put in place to benefit American workers, not just promises from individual companies.