Citadel’s Griffin says Apple should not be exempted from tariffs only because it’s ‘connected’

Key Takeaways:

• Ken Griffin, Founder and CEO of Citadel, opposes exempting Apple from President Trump’s tariffs.
• Griffin believes Apple’s powerful standing should not influence tariff decisions.
• The tariffs in question are part of ongoing U.S. trade policies under President Trump.
• Apple is often a central figure in trade debates due to its size and influence.
• The report was initially published by CNBC on September 25, 2025.

Ken Griffin’s Stance

Citadel Founder and CEO Ken Griffin voiced a clear objection to any move granting Apple a special exemption from President Donald Trump’s tariffs. According to Griffin, Apple’s prominent reputation and strong connections are not justifications for preferential treatment.

The Tariff Debate

President Trump’s tariffs have sparked conversations across industries, with companies large and small assessing what the policies mean for their bottom line. Apple, as one of the most valuable technology companies in the world, often finds itself at the heart of these discussions.

Apple and Its ‘Connected’ Status

Griffin specifically stated his concern that a company’s influence or “connected” status might sway policy decisions. In his view, trade rules should apply evenly, regardless of size or market presence. “Apple shouldn’t be exempt from tariffs only because it’s ‘connected,’” he said, summarizing his stance succinctly.

A Megacap Tech Perspective

Part of the broader focus on Apple stems from its position as a “megacap technology name.” While the company’s innovation and market power may attract favorable considerations, Griffin’s remarks challenge any notion that economic power alone ought to lead to special treatment under U.S. trade rules.

Looking Ahead

With Apple frequently in the spotlight, Griffin’s comments signal wider tension around how trade policies are implemented. Whether or not Apple ultimately receives any exemptions, Griffin’s intervention underscores the broader debate on balancing corporate clout and equitable tariff enforcement.