Latest news with #MadeinAmerica
The Market Online
3 days ago
- Business
- The Market Online
Titan Mining is about to reignite U.S. graphite production
Titan Mining (TSX:TI) is on track to become the United States' first fully integrated graphite producer in more than 70 years by Q4 2025 supported by on-site power and logistics The company expects its graphite to be qualified for sale in Q1 2026 Titan Mining, an Augusta Group company, is a zinc producer and near-term graphite producer in New York Titan Mining stock has added 386.96 per cent year-over-year and 460 per cent since 2020 Titan Mining (TSX:TI) is on track to become the United States' first fully integrated graphite producer in more than 70 years by Q4 2025 supported by on-site power and logistics. This content has been prepared in collaboration with Titan Mining Corporation, and is intended for informational purposes only. Work is progressing on the processing facility at the company's Kilbourne deposit in New York – estimated at 653,000 tons of graphite inferred – with over 50 per cent of major equipment on site and subsidiary Empire State Mines slated to begin installation in August. The facility – built with 90 per cent of equipment sourced in North America – is fully permitted and positioned to qualify its graphite for sale by Q1 2026, unlocking scaling potential that could see it 'meet a majority of projected U.S. graphite demand in key sectors,' according to Monday's news release. According to S&P Global Mobility, North American graphite demand will skyrocket from 56 kilotons in 2023 to 620 kilotons in 2030, driven by its unmatched performance as anode material in lithium-ion batteries, the key enabler of ongoing exponential growth in the electric vehicle market. Titan's graphite operations will diversify existing nearby zinc production, also overseen by Empire State Mines, which is guiding for 64-69 million pounds of payable zinc in fiscal 2025. Leadership insights 'Graphite is a critical material, yet the U.S. has gone decades without domestic production. The current resource outlined at Kilbourne represents only 8,300 feet of strike length tested of a known total strike length of 25,000 feet. Kilbourne has significant resource expansion potential to meet the demands of U.S. natural flake graphite over a long-term period. Our facility is a major step towards restoring U.S. industrial graphite capability and delivering a fully Made in America natural graphite product in 2025,' Don Taylor, Titan Mining's chief executive officer, said in a statement. 'With escalating tariffs on imports and tightening trade restrictions globally, Titan is uniquely positioned to offer secure, tariff-free, U.S.-produced graphite to industrial markets. By investing in U.S.-sourced equipment, leveraging existing infrastructure and maintaining a skilled domestic workforce, Titan provides customers with a reliable alternative amidst growing supply chain uncertainty,' added Rita Adiani, Titan's president. About Titan Mining Titan Mining, an Augusta Group company, is a zinc producer and near-term graphite producer in New York. Titan Mining stock (TSX:TI) last traded at C$1.12. The stock has added 386.96 per cent year-over-year and 460 per cent since 2020. Join the discussion: Find out what investors are saying about this zinc and graphite stock on the Titan Mining Corporation Bullboard and check out the rest of Stockhouse's stock forums and message boards. Stockhouse does not provide investment advice or recommendations. All investment decisions should be made based on your own research and consultation with a registered investment professional. The issuer is solely responsible for the accuracy of the information contained herein. For full disclaimer information, please click here.
Hamilton Spectator
3 days ago
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Titan Mining On Track to Become the Only Fully Integrated U.S. Graphite Producer by Q4 2025
Gouverneur, N.Y., July 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Titan Mining Corporation (TSX: TI; OTCQB: TIMCF) ('Titan' or the 'Company') is pleased to provide an update on the construction of its graphite processing facility for its Kilbourne Graphite Project at Empire State Mines LLC ('ESM'), its wholly owned subsidiary located in St. Lawrence County, New York. Highlights: The recent arrival and placement of the ball mill—shown in the image below—marks another significant milestone in advancing toward operational readiness. Don Taylor, CEO of Titan commented: 'Graphite is a critical material, yet the U.S. has gone decades without domestic production. The current resource outlined at Kilbourne represents only 8,300 ft of strike length tested of a known total strike length of 25,000 ft. Kilbourne has significant resource expansion potential to meet the demands of U.S. natural flake graphite over a long-term period. Our facility is a major step toward restoring U.S. industrial graphite capability and delivering a fully Made in America natural graphite product in 2025.' Rita Adiani, President of Titan commented: 'With escalating tariffs on imports and tightening trade restrictions globally, Titan is uniquely positioned to offer secure, tariff-free, U.S.-produced graphite to industrial markets. By investing in U.S.-sourced equipment, leveraging existing infrastructure, and maintaining a skilled domestic workforce, Titan provides customers with a reliable alternative amidst growing supply chain uncertainty.' About Titan Mining Corporation Titan is an Augusta Group company which produces zinc concentrate at its 100%-owned Empire State Mine located in New York state. Titan is also an emerging natural flake graphite producer and targeting to be the USA's first end to end producer of natural flake graphite in 70 years. Titan's goal is to deliver shareholder value through operational excellence, development and exploration. We have a strong commitment towards developing critical minerals assets which enhance the security of the domestic supply chain. For more information on the Company, please visit our website at Contact For further information, please contact: Investor Relations: Email: info@ Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Information Certain statements and information contained in this new release constitute 'forward-looking statements', and 'forward-looking information' within the meaning of applicable securities laws (collectively, 'forward-looking statements'). These statements appear in a number of places in this news release and include statements regarding our intent, or the beliefs or current expectations of our officers and directors, including that Titan is on track to become the only fully integrated U.S. graphite producer by Q4 2025; equipment installation starting August 2025, commissioning targeted for Q4 2025; qualification sales targeted for Q1 2026; the Kilbourne Graphite Project offers significant scalability, positioning Titan to be able to meet a majority of projected U.S. graphite demand in key sectors. When used in this news release words such as 'to be', 'will', 'planned', 'expected', 'potential', and similar expressions are intended to identify these forward-looking statements. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements and/or information are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on forward-looking statements since the Company can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results or events to vary materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements, including risks relating to cost increases for capital and operating costs; risks of shortages and fluctuating costs of equipment or supplies; risks relating to fluctuations in the price of zinc and graphite; the inherently hazardous nature of mining-related activities; potential effects on our operations of environmental regulations in New York State; risks due to legal proceedings; risks related to operation of mining projects generally and the risks, uncertainties and other factors identified in the Company's periodic filings with Canadian securities regulators. Such forward-looking statements are based on various assumptions, including assumptions made with regard to our forecasts and expected cash flows; our projected capital and operating costs; our expectations regarding mining and metallurgical recoveries; mine life and production rates; that laws or regulations impacting mining activities will remain consistent; our approved business plans; our mineral resource estimates and results of the PEA; our experience with regulators; political and social support of the mining industry in New York State; our experience and knowledge of the New York State mining industry and our expectations of economic conditions and the price of zinc and graphite; demand for graphite; exploration results; the ability to secure adequate financing (as needed); the Company maintaining its current strategy and objectives; and the Company's ability to achieve its growth objectives. While the Company considers these assumptions to be reasonable, based on information currently available, they may prove to be incorrect. Except as required by applicable law, we assume no obligation to update or to publicly announce the results of any change to any forward-looking statement contained herein to reflect actual results, future events or developments, changes in assumptions or changes in other factors affecting the forward-looking statements. If we update any one or more forward-looking statements, no inference should be drawn that we will make additional updates with respect to those or other forward-looking statements. You should not place undue importance on forward-looking statements and should not rely upon these statements as of any other date. All forward-looking statements contained in this news release are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement. A photo accompanying this announcement is available at:
Newsweek
30-06-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Former Labor Secretary: Here's How Trump Should Rebuild American Manufacturing
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The House of Representatives recently held a hearing that explored strengthening American manufacturing, specifically in the medical space. The congressional inquiry echoed President Donald Trump's "Made in America" agenda, which intends to ramp up domestic production of everything from cars and trucks to iPhones and computer chips. But as this new landscape takes shape, returning to "peak" American manufacturing should not necessarily be the goal. The world looks very different today than it did in the 1970s, and so does our labor force. Policymakers should focus on making targeted investments—driven by smart tax incentives and reduced regulatory barriers—in key sectors that will help the country meet the strategic demands of the 21st century. President Trump has made it clear he will provide incentives to American companies willing to reshore operations closer to home. But two sectors in particular—national defense and health care—require the most attention. That's because both are foundational to the country's long-term stability and resilience, yet remain concerningly reliant on foreign supply chains that are vulnerable to disruption and manipulation. Take semiconductors. These chips power everything from smartphones to fighter jets, yet the vast majority of production occurs overseas in places like Taiwan. With COVID-19's supply chain disruptions fresh in our memory and China's growing hostility toward Taiwan, America should not be dependent on troubled areas for the technologies that underpin our defense systems. The same applies to shipbuilding and aerospace. In April, President Trump signed an executive order to restore American maritime dominance by boosting domestic vessel production. The initiative not only reinforces our national defense infrastructure; it also presents a major opportunity to revitalize America's skilled labor force by bringing thousands of high-quality manufacturing and engineering jobs back to coastal and heartland communities alike. US President Donald Trump (L) gestures as US Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta looks on as they speak to the media on July 12, 2019 at the White House in Washington, DC. US President Donald Trump (L) gestures as US Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta looks on as they speak to the media on July 12, 2019 at the White House in Washington, DC. Alastair Pike / AFP/Getty Images Such a large-scale effort would rely on smaller manufacturers to supply key components and materials. Large manufacturers currently take up that spotlight. (The recent deal brokered between U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel is a prime example.) But for every large manufacturer willing to take part in the "Made in America" campaign, ten smaller manufacturers are lining up at the door. Connecting small manufacturers to procurement pipelines—and reducing the regulatory burdens they face—would unleash a new level of innovation and coordination across the country. Just as national defense requires a robust industrial foundation, so too does our health care system. In fact, a strong health care system is itself essential to protecting and defending the nation. The inevitable vulnerabilities of diversified global supply chains, coupled with China's focused efforts to invest in its own biomedical industries, leaves Americans exposed when diplomatic relationships sour or global crises strike. Fortunately, the U.S. already has the infrastructure to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing home. States like Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are established industry hubs. Meanwhile, the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico—which currently boasts the second-largest pharmaceutical manufacturing output in the country—has long supported large-scale medicine production and is poised to continue to do so. Incentivizing further investment in these areas must remain a top priority for the Trump administration. The White House's recent executive action to reduce regulatory barriers for pharmaceutical companies reshoring their operations is a strong start—but it shouldn't stand alone. The budget reconciliation package, now advancing in Congress, presents a key opportunity to pair these efforts with targeted, pro-growth tax incentives. Cutting government red tape and lowering taxes can lay the foundation for a new golden age of American manufacturing. Rebuilding American manufacturing, an idea with strong national support, is rightly a focus of President Trump and his allies in Congress. But rather than spreading resources thin to cast a wide net that lightly lifts production across the board, policymakers should focus their energy on restoring the production capacity of sectors critical to national security and Americans' health. Alexander Acosta served as the 27th United States Secretary of Labor from 2017 to 2019. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Telegraph
17-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Why do celebrities think they can paint? Here's our pick of the worst
The double Oscar -winning actor Adrien Brody is rightly celebrated for his on-screen talents, even if there is some truth to the grumblings that he only really excels when he plays Holocaust victims. Yet before, during and after winning his second Oscar, for the magnificent drama The Brutalist, he seems to have been on a personal mission to behave in as obnoxious a fashion as possible. At the Oscars, for example, he caused much revulsion by throwing a piece of used chewing gum at his partner Georgina Chapman so she could hold it while he made his rambling, arrogant acceptance speech But Brody isn't just an actor; he is also an artist, or at least would like to be regarded as such. He is currently displaying a solo show, entitled Made in America, at New York's prestigious Eden Gallery that has been afforded all the accoutrements that a major art-world figure would merit. A lengthy profile piece in the New York Times, fawning news items about his selling one of his artworks, of Marilyn Monroe, for $425,000 at the amfAR gala in Cannes and an elevated degree of respect because of his existing fame. Part of this art, we learn, once again involves chewing gum. Visitors to Made in America are invited to take a piece of gum from a pre-packaged pile, chew it, and then stick it onto a canvas that is festooned with the word 'Violence.' A sign on the wall declares 'Leave your mark—messy, visceral, and anonymous'. This is one way of looking at it. Another way is to suggest that, in a contemporary art world that seems to have gone stark raving mad – Maurizio Cattelan's Comedian, in which a banana duct-taped to a wall sold for $6.2 million last year at Sotheby's, was quite literally bananas – the cachet brought in by an A-list celebrity makes apparently dreadful artworks seem both respectable and newsworthy. Brody's exhibition poses as a deconstruction of much-loved pop icons such as the Simpsons and Mickey Mouse, appearing to homage such New York legends as Jean-Michel Basquiat and Andy Warhol. Unfortunately, Made in America has been panned in the American and international art press on the grounds that Brody isn't a talented artist, despite his beliefs otherwise. 'Why do great actors have so much trouble when they venture into visual art?' asked Artnet critic Annie Armstrong, who attended the opening. 'Can you name one who has been able to bridge the gap?' She concluded: 'It feels uncanny to see an artist who is so successful in one medium be so flat-footed in another.' Still, it did not help that Brody approached this with maximum pomposity. At Cannes, while presenting his Monroe canvas, he indignantly shushed the audience during a lengthy introductory speech. 'I've painted and drawn most of my whole life,' he declared. 'Painting precedes acting for me.' In another interview in 2016 with the Huffington Post, he remarked: 'Maybe I am vain, to a certain extent, but the purpose of doing this is far from vanity.' Most would disagree with his summation. Still, in the actor's defence, he is far from the only celebrity who has dabbled in the world of art to disastrous or embarrassing effect. Everyone from the late Val Kilmer to Jim Carrey has, at one time or another, decided that they were capable of producing artworks of lasting impact and effect, enabled by a crowd of sycophants and excitable fans. Almost inevitably, the result has been the same; well-known figures have produced mediocre art – at best – that looks like something that a middling GCSE student might come up with as coursework. Whether it's Carrey's truly shameful pictures of 'Jesus Electric' and Melania Trump, Kilmer's self-aggrandising portrait of Jim Morrison (a homage to the man he played, to far greater effect, in Oliver Stone's biopic The Doors) or Sylvester Stallone's Rocky-inspired The Arena, the consistent impression that virtually anyone would have when seeing these 'artworks' is a profound wish that their creators don't give up the day job. Actors who paint tend to take what they do so very seriously, and most actors who do see themselves as artists tend to be exactly the kind of characters you would expect – Johnny Depp, Viggo Mortensen, Marlon Brando, etc. Sir Anthony Hopkins, however, is a refreshing exception to this rule. He may be one of the finest thespians that Britain has ever produced, but his bizarre, vaguely psychedelic paintings – George, for instance, depicts a vast purple elephant – seem like an elaborate joke. Which it probably is. 'Painting is something I really enjoy, like playing the piano,' Hopkins has said. 'I have a lot of fun with it. I just paint for the sheer enjoyment of it.' This sense of fun is sorely lacking from the more po-faced practitioners. Sharon Stone's abstract, sub-Rothko works, entitled things like It's My Garden, Asshole, appear to exist less to sell for the $40,000 that she charges for some of her canvases, and more for feminist empowerment. As she put it, 'It's my job to open a window for other women and hold it open further.' Likewise, if you look at the monochrome splodges that the actress Lucy Liu appears to specialise in, you will have been missing the point of how from the 'painterly, fleshy nudes to delicate depictions of the human spine in resin or embroidery, Lucy Liu's art lays bare themes of intimacy, belonging and memory.' It makes the relatively accessible and pleasant-looking work of Tony Curtis – which was ridiculed during the actor's lifetime – all the more bearable, although even here, Curtis was not immune to delusions of pseudery. 'When I paint, I don't paint shapes, I paint colours,' he once said. Yet is the desire to create art limited to actors. Musicians have also dabbled in the field, to mixed effect. Rolling Stone Ronnie Wood's paintings of him and his Rolling Stones bandmates have an appealing energy to them (let's ignore his 'nude studies', which have a different kind of energy) and there are many people who rate Bob Dylan's paintings and sculpture, which he was demonstrating as far back as the cover of 1970's Self Portrait album. Others have fared less well. David Bowie and Paul McCartney may be the two greatest post-war British musicians, but neither of them managed to persuade the art world that their own work was of any special significance, whether it was Bowie's alternately haunting and embarrassing Francis Bacon-esque studies or Macca's dreadful daubs. The late Brian Sewell had it about right when he said of the latter that they were 'a self-indulgent impertinence so far from art that the art critic has no suitable words for them – they are, indeed, beneath criticism.' Still, works on canvas are one kind of dreadfulness, but when celebrities veer into performance art, matters worsen inexorably. There are those who believe that Shia LaBeouf is an overlooked genius, others – especially post-Megalopolis – that he is simply a mediocre actor who is addicted to attention-seeking. Such actions as turning up at the premiere of Nymphomaniac in 2014 with a paper bag on his head saying 'I am not famous any more' and watching all his films in reverse order for the #ALLMYMOVIES project may have been original, but they also felt like the showily demonstrative actions of a bored has-been star. And let's not even get onto James Franco, whose smug, self-congratulatory blurring of boundaries between reality and fiction came crashing down in 2021 when he admitted allegations of sexual coercion with students at his acting school. Few miss Franco's once-ubiquitous, forever-irritating presence in public life, during which art was just one of the means he used to torment us. He once commented that he had been painting longer than he had been acting, which sounded like a threat of some kind. At least Robbie Williams, whose current solo show Radical Honesty ('expanding his visual language of sarcasm, self-deprecation, and playful irreverence), refuses to take this stuff seriously. Which is just as well, given that one critic described it as 'an Instagram self-help quote attacking your brain and eyes….incredibly bad art: so earnest, so superficial, it's barely even funny.' There have been a few more successful celebrities involved in the world of art, including Edward G Robinson, a Hollywood tough guy star from the Thirties and Forties and the legendary horror star Vincent Price, although both of these men were more notable as enthusiastic and prodigious collectors than for their own painting. This willingness to step back and let other, more talented artists take the limelight reflected well on them. Today, the Brodys and Carreys and McCartneys produce their terrible, vainglorious work and expect someone impressed by their fame to pay vast sums of money for them. The real tragedy is that, so far, they haven't been disappointed. Brody's exhibition may have been called Made in America, but this worship of celebrity excess is, alas, a global phenomenon, and it shows no signs of dissipating any time soon. Perhaps the solution is to send in the hardy protesters of Just Stop Oil, armed with paint and knives, and see what happens then. If it resulted in a few irreparably damaged works of celebrity hubris, I doubt that too many people would be truly devastated. The five worst celebrity artworks 1. Jim Carrey, Jesus Electric, 2017 The actor Jim Carrey recently claimed to have found God and Christianity, and stated that 'The energy that surrounds Jesus is electric. I don't know if Jesus is real, I don't know if he lived, I don't know what he means. But the paintings of Jesus are really my desire to convey Christ-consciousness.' This would be fine, if the Bruce Almighty star's representation of his idol's electric energy wasn't so embarrassingly redolent of the kind of paintings that you see for sale on a dodgy-looking stall in Camden Market. Such is Carrey's clout that he even made a short documentary about the painting's creation, called I Needed Colour; perhaps it should have been called I Needed A Better Agent, given how mired he is in Super Mario Bros films these days. 2. Adrien Brody, Hooked, 2016 Brody's most recent pictures and installations have been soundly and deservedly ridiculed, but some of his earlier work might be even worse – which, I suppose, is a back-handed way of saying he might be getting better. One Warhol-inspired display of fish in four different colours was embarrassing itself on his own terms, but worsened by Brody claiming, straight-faced, that 'If we look closely, we are the fish. We are the ones 'hooked' as we consume with abandon…the fragility and beauty and uniqueness of fish is much like our own spirit and spiritual state.' It makes Eric Cantona's discussion of fish and trawlers look like the last word in profundity. 3. Shia LaBeouf, #IAMSORRY, 2014 Describing Shia LaBeouf's performance artworks as 'good' or 'bad' is not really fair; 'embarrassing' and 'shameful' would be closer to the mark. Yet when he embarked on a five-day stint in a Los Angeles gallery of wearing his 'I am not famous any more' bag on his head, inviting members of the public to interact with him, one participant went rather too far. As LaBeouf later recalled, 'One woman who came with her boyfriend, who was outside the door when this happened, whipped my legs for 10 minutes and then stripped my clothing and proceeded to rape me.' After LaBeouf's girlfriend learnt of this, 'she came in [and] asked for an explanation, and I couldn't speak, so we both sat with this unexplained trauma silently. It was painful.' LaBeouf never pressed any criminal charges, suggesting that this piece of suffering for his art was simply part of the job. 4. Paul McCartney, Unfinished Symphony, 1993 Paul McCartney has always chafed against the idea that he was the 'safe' or somehow predictable Beatle in comparison to John Lennon, frequently bigging up his avant-garde and experimental credentials. Musically, this might well be true, but when it comes to his art, it can be found wanting. This painting, which might kindly be described as his attempt to capture on canvas what A Day in the Life's crescendo did musically, will seem to most as an ugly, Pollock-lite splurge of horrible colours all jumbled together. McCartney remarked of it that 'It is very spontaneous, I don't think there was a lot of thinking about that. But, you know, my composition generally is spontaneous. Some people I talk to will ask, 'Do you do sketches beforehand?' And I will say, 'No, it is alla prima.' You know, I just love to play around with the paint and let the paint show me the way, and I sense they are not as impressed if they think I did it spontaneously.' Perhaps a little less spontaneity may have been welcome here. 5. James Franco, Army Pants, 2011 It now seems incredible to think that James Franco – last seen popping up in French-language blockbusters as the villain – was once one of the hottest actors in Hollywood, an Oscar-nominated star who could (apparently) do no wrong. How else to explain the indulgence that he was offered when it came to producing such ugly, cluttered artworks as the frankly horrible Army Pants. It sold for just over $8000 when it was last offered for auction in 2023; a mere fraction of the work of other celebrity artists, and an indication of how steeply his reputation has fallen.
Yahoo
07-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The only ‘Made in America' smartphone maker has a message for Apple about manufacturing in the Trump tariff era
Todd Weaver has an important message for Apple as it faces growing demands by President Donald Trump to reshore some of its smartphone production: Don't listen to the conventional wisdom. Experts have long said that manufacturing iPhones in the U.S., rather than Asia, as Apple does, would be logistically impossible and ridiculously expensive. But Weaver argues companies can indeed do it successfully, and at a similar or only slightly higher cost—if given several years to navigate the inevitable complications. Weaver should know: His startup, Purism, is among the few, if not the only business, that assembles smartphones in the U.S. In fact, the U.S. pedigree is the main selling point of his company's Made in America device, the Liberty Phone. 'It is challenging to do this in the U.S.,' Weaver acknowledges. 'It's probably the reason I'm the only one.' And yet, he says his company has managed to make it work and has been profitable for the last two years—a real world example of what's possible on a hot-button topic in which political talking points and vested interests often dominate the debate. President Donald Trump recently put U.S. smartphone production in the spotlight as part of his global trade war. On May 23, he used social network Truth Social to publicly attack Apple for importing iPhones into the U.S., rather than making them domestically, and then threatened the company with a 25% tariff if it continued to do so. Whether any of the import taxes will become permanent is unclear given Trump's whiplash decision-making and court challenges by third parties. Still, Apple has long assembled its iPhones overseas, mainly in China, and has resisted relocating any of that production to the U.S. In April, when Trump announced his tariffs, Apple went so far as to shift the sourcing of most U.S.-bound iPhones to India, which faced lower import taxes. U.S. assembly was never publicly mentioned as a possibility. In the past, Apple CEO Cook explained the reluctance by saying the abundance of skilled labor and top-notch suppliers overseas would be difficult to reproduce at home. Weaver's company, of course, is no Apple, which has sold more than 2 billion iPhones globally since introducing the first models in 2007. The devices unleashed a new era in the tech industry in which mobile devices became the prime focus. Purism, in contrast, has sold just tens of thousands of phones since debuting its first model in 2018, according to Weaver. And the company is barely-known outside the world of tech nerds. Its Liberty Phone, manufactured near San Diego, comes with U.S.-made electronics installed on a metal chassis from China. It retails for $1,999. Another phone, the Librem 5, is mostly the same design, except it's made in China with Chinese parts, and costs $799. The company also produces tablet computers, laptops, and servers. Purism pitches its Made in America device as more secure and privacy friendly than those from major manufactures like Apple. Because all the critical parts and assembly are domestic, it's easy to verify that they haven't been tampered with by a foreign adversary that wants to snoop or stuff them with explosives. The phones also run on a Linux-based open source operating system. Anyone with technical know-how who is worried about the security can review the code—unlike with more popular phones, which come with operating systems that can't be easily inspected. Additionally, Purism's phones come with three kill switches that lets users physically disconnect their device from cell service, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, along with its microphone and camera. When turned on, the switches sever the electrical circuit to the features they control and make it impossible for them to be accessed by hackers, Weaver said. Toggling on Airplane Mode, as users often do on more mainstream phones, is less secure, he said, because it's a purely software feature that doesn't cut power to the device's chips. Customers who are especially security conscious can pay extra to have their devices shipped with 'tamper evident tape' on the packaging, among other options, to flag any monkey business during transit. Purism's biggest customers are government agencies, many of which require high security, and individual consumers. The company's clients, Weaver said, include the FBI and the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Weaver said the cost of manufacturing the Purism's two phones is largely the same, despite one being made overseas and the other domestically. The phone that's made in China costs around $600 for parts, manufacturing, and assembly while the U.S.-made one comes in at $650. 'Producing goods in China vs. the U.S. is the same plus or minus 10%,' said Weaver, based mostly on automation. The difference between what Purism charges customers for its two phones is partly due to the higher profit margin the company collects for its U.S.-made device. People who want stronger security are often willing to pay extra for it, Weaver said. It also covers the extra overhead from some customers wanting to verify that Purism's supply chain is secure and the small additional cost of U.S. manufacturing. Purism's assembly line is in Carlsbad, Calif., where up to a dozen workers put together devices. The area is home to a pool of skilled labor thanks to the local defense industry and manufacturing for other mobile carriers. That relatively modest assembly line is a major contrast to the factories that make iPhones, operated by contract manufacturers, mostly in China. Those facilities can be the size of several football fields and employ over 100,000 people who work around-the-clock shifts. Weaver said the U.S. is at a huge disadvantage to China when it comes to skilled workers, who make up a significant part of the workforce in smartphone factories. The only way to reverse the shortage and lay the groundwork for companies to reshore their production is to encourage more people to learn skills that are useful in the manufacturing process, he said. 'If you go over to China you can find buildings and buildings of thousands of electronics engineers. If you look here, you can find maybe five total,' Weaver said. Apple, for example, would risk a catastrophe if it suddenly, in 2026, needed to ramp up staffing in the U.S. to produce millions of iPhones, he said. Training enough people for such a massive undertaking would take years. Weaver said Purism, founded in 2014, took several years to develop its domestic supply chain. The company's small size means it only needs limited quantities of components, which makes it impossible to achieve the economies of scale that come from producing huge numbers of devices. Manufacturing in the U.S. also comes with higher labor costs than in China. But with the help of automation, those extra costs can be kept to a minimum by reserving human labor for tasks performed after production is complete, such as soldering, assembly, repairs, and testing. Apple, on the other hand, would need vast amounts of components to keep its assembly line humming. While the company would likely be able to cut deals with domestic suppliers for most iPhone parts, some, such as high-quality cameras, may be impossible to quickly source in the U.S. and it would therefore have to import them, Weaver said. One analyst has said iPhones could end up costing $3,500 if made in the U.S., to account for the extra costs and hassles. Weaver agrees that it would cost Apple substantially more to produce iPhones in the U.S., if it had to move production quickly. But given enough time, Apple could substantially reduce the cost after developing a new supply chain, finding enough workers, and by relying on extensive automation. For Apple, opening a domestic manufacturing plant would therefore need to be a years' long process, Weaver said. That's why he criticized Trump's tariffs for taking effect almost immediately. Yes, many of those tariffs have since been delayed. But the takeaway for businesses is that they can't plan ahead. And yet, that's exactly what's required for something as complex as shifting manufacturing to the U.S. Trump's tariffs would be far more effective if phased in over many years, Weaver said. In that scenario, companies would have a clear and increasing incentive to reshore production—without being punished right off the bat. Weaver argues his U.S. manufacturing effort is already paying off and that it will gain momentum over time. He hopes the recent scandal involving U.S. officials using the chat app Signal to discuss a military strike against Yemen, and then accidentally inviting a journalist to join them, will help lift sales by encouraging the federal government to focus more on security. Weaver wouldn't get into the specifics of Purism's financials other than to say it has millions in annual revenue and turned profitable in 2023. The Liberty Phone is its biggest seller. Wayne Lam, an analyst with market research firm TechInsights, gave a mixed take on Purism's prospect. In an email, he said: 'They can be a successful niche player, but the odds of success are lower thanks to the bigger brands. They won't be able to compete in the consumer market but government/enterprise/military are all niche markets they can address.' To fund the expansion of his business, Weaver is trying to raise additional investment after taking in $16 million in funding over the years. Some of that money would go to fixing a shortcoming with his phones. Because they don't use Apple's iOS or Google's Android operating systems, they are incompatible with many of the most popular mobile apps like Uber. To get such apps work on its devices, Purism must make technical tweaks for each one. Purism can at least claim one small advantage over the giant companies that dominate the smartphone industry. If Trump's tariffs become permanent, it won't feel much impact from its U.S.-made phone, while the big players and their foreign-made devices could be hammered. This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
