There are growing concerns from some of the 590,000 buyers that preordered Trump Mobile’s T1 phones. Customers recently received disappointing emails from Trump Mobile, telling them that the gold-colored Trump phones they preordered from June 2025 when the venture was first announced will not be shipping. Customers had previously been given promised delivery dates that changed several times, for various reasons, but no phones are ever reported to have been delivered. Trump Mobile is offering no updates on when the $499 phones might be shipped.
Additionally some email recipients have reported that the emails said that their $100 deposit was non-refundable- though Trump Mobile maintains that all initial deposits remain fully refundable upon request. It states on the website that:
“If Trump Mobile cancels or discontinues the Device offering prior to sale, Trump Mobile will issue a full refund of the deposit amount paid.”
Preorders: Yes. Shipping: Maybe.
The Trump Mobile website currently shows that people can still make $100 pre-orders for the phone- however rumors of the cancellation of the T1 program started with the email’s announcement of no phone shipments. There is no official statement about any T1 program cancellation, but a recent update on the website also raised questions about that possibility. A recent April 6, 2026 update was added to the website and states:
“A preorder deposit provides only a conditional opportunity if Trump Mobile later elects, in its sole discretion, to offer the Device for sale. A deposit is not a purchase, does not constitute acceptance of an order, does not create a contract for sale, does not transfer ownership or title interest, does not allocate or reserve specific inventory, and does not guarantee that a Device will be produced or made available for purchase.”
This update has led some to believe that the T1 phone project will eventually be cancelled. How any potential refund of preorder requests would proceed is unclear.
Made in USA…?
There have been other questions raised about the T1 phone. Initial claims about the product said it was to be proudly designed and built in the United States, with all-American service through AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon. The product description online was later changed as being “American service by an American company” with “100% US-based support.”
In light of these customer complaints over Trump Mobile’s delayed product, 11 Democratic lawmakers- Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Representatives Greg Casar (D-Texas), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)- made a January 2026 request to the Federal Trade Commission. They asked FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson for investigation into the shifting delivery dates, claims that the phone is made in the USA, and conflict of interest presented by Trump Mobile’s relationship to the President.
“We write today regarding questions about false advertising and deceptive practices by Trump Mobile, and to seek information on how the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) intends to address any potential violations of consumer protection law given the inherent conflicts of interest presented by the company’s relationship to President Donald Trump.”
In their letter, the 11 Congressional members pointed out that marketing claims that a product is “Made in USA” must follow a specific set of FTC standards, violations of which come with civil penalties. The letter referenced similar companies that the FTC acted against when their customers were misled with similar made-in-USA claims for products actually made overseas, bait-and-switch tactics involving deposits for products never delivered, and failure to honor by stated delivery dates. They also asked how the FTC would proceed “if the President were to intervene and seek to influence your agency’s decisions related to Trump Mobile.”
Independent Agency vs Executive Authority?
This request to FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson is considered to be a critical test of FTC independence. The FTC has historically operated as an independent regulatory agency, but early in Trump’s second term Trump declared by executive order that agencies such as the FTC may no longer contradict his legal interpretations. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson has supported Trump’s claim of presidential authority, breaking with the FTC’s long-standing precedent to remain independent. He defended Trump’s April 2025 firing of the agency’s Democratic commissioners, saying at a Y Combinator’s Little Tech Competition Summit that:
“I’m firmly of the view that he had the authority, and that independent agencies [are] not good for a democracy. All powerful executive branch officials should be accountable to the people on whose behalf we are governing, and the only person in the executive branch that gets elected is the president.”
His sentiment potentially runs counter to the historical foundation of independent regulatory agencies like the FTC. Such bodies are established by Congress to operate without direct presidential control, so as to limit any president’s ability to interfere with Congressional enforcement of laws. Members are non-partisan, serve staggered terms and can only be fired “for-cause.” Executive agencies whose leader sits on a president’s Cabinet- e.g. the Department of Justice- differ in that they are partisan, expressly carry out specific presidential policies, and can be fired/replaced at his call.
There has yet to be an FTC response to the Jan 2026 letter about any potentially deceptive practices taking place with the Trump Mobile program.
Governance or Enterprise? The Ethics Question
Ethics experts continue to raise questions about the various Trump ventures. At the beginning of his second term, the Trump Organization stated that any business ventures would be distinctly run by the Trump children, not Trump. Whether it is the T1 phone, line of sneakers, Bible partnership, or gold card visa (attracting the wealthy and successful to America), these ventures appear to be based on politics and personal branding, blurring the line between business and presidency.
Photo by Arun Thomas
