Apple presents itself as a champion of human rights while simultaneously nurturing relationships with suppliers implicated in forced labor, particularly involving the Uyghur population in China. This contradiction is glaring, especially when the company swiftly enforces restrictive content policies on platforms like Twitter yet fails to prioritize investigations into serious allegations of exploitation within its own supply chain. A pointed viral tweet encapsulated the frustration, stating, “Slave labor in China is okay but free speech on Twitter is where Apple draws the line.”
The growing scrutiny surrounding Apple represents a critical examination of how business decisions can align or conflict with ethical commitments. Reports from organizations such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) revealed a disturbing reality: at least 80,000 Uyghurs have been forcibly moved from Xinjiang to factories across China, functioning under coercive work conditions. Reportedly, some of these factories are associated with Apple, raising ethical alarms.
The Australian report highlighted that these forced relocations are articulated by the Chinese government as a form of economic opportunity, notably termed a “Xinjiang Aid” policy. Yet on the ground, many Uyghur workers endure extensive surveillance and are deprived of their cultural identities. ASPI identified numerous factories in this system, connected to 83 international brands, placing Apple among the companies under scrutiny.
During the investigation, Apple failed to respond to inquiries immediately. As public pressure grew, lawmakers like Senator Jeff Merkley and Representative James McGovern escalated their demands. In early 2024, they insisted that Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, reveal the company’s supply chain details to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, urging a complete termination of relationships with suppliers tied to forced labor practices concerning the Uyghur minority.
“The mounting evidence is beyond troubling,” they stated firmly, pointing out that the assurances previously given by Apple regarding its supply chains were now suspect. They referenced investigations revealing that Apple still sources components from suppliers identified as participating in human rights abuses, escalating concerns over potential links to genocide.
While the moral and legal ramifications intensify, Apple has reacted decisively in areas concerning digital platforms. In late 2022, as protests erupted in China due to COVID restrictions, Apple restricted the AirDrop feature on iPhones sold in the country—explanations framed as a “planned update.” Critics scrutinized the timing closely, suggesting that pressure from the Chinese government influenced this rapid change.
This stark contrast highlights a troubling dynamic: swift action to limit political expression while significant inaction on human rights abuses in its supply chain. Lawmakers, human rights advocates, and shareholders have questioned Apple’s priorities and motivations. Shareholder activism reached a pinnacle when Apple resisted several environmental, social, and governance (ESG) proposals aimed at increasing transparency regarding forced labor risks in its supply chain and reporting on app removals in China. Despite this resistance, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ultimately allowed the proposals to proceed, demonstrating shareholder concern regarding Apple’s lack of transparency.
In defense, Apple claimed to have conducted over 1,100 audits and interviewed more than 57,000 workers, asserting that they found “no evidence of forced labor.” However, Senate and House representatives, including Marco Rubio and Chris Smith, argued that audits may fall short in unearthing forced labor realities in complex, opaque supply chains manipulated by authoritarian regimes.
“There must be a concerted, tough, and global response to the atrocities being committed in Xinjiang,” the lawmakers emphasized, echoing growing frustrations over corporate accountability.
The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, enacted in 2021, reinforces the legal framework surrounding these issues by prohibiting the import of goods from Xinjiang unless companies can prove their origins were free from forced labor. This legislation shifts the burden of proof onto corporations, a challenge many companies struggle to meet.
Despite the mounting risks—both legal and reputational—Apple’s financial interests in China remain significant, with 18% of its revenue generated from the region, relying on an intricate web of manufacturing relationships. Reports indicate that Apple’s iPhone assembly involves multiple suppliers across provinces where some are implicated in recent investigations involving forced labor.
Furthermore, a 2025 analysis of China’s automotive parts sector shows that globally recognized brands, including Tesla and Volkswagen, are associated with components made by workers coerced from the Uyghur region. These workers are often relocated into factory zones where their rights are systematically violated. Evidence surrounding these conditions is substantial, comprising videos, state media documentation, and trade records linking these parts to international supply chains.
Critics argue that major corporations like Apple have both the financial power and influence to demand reform or find alternative production avenues. However, Apple has predominantly relied on internal audits and public statements to address these complex issues while appearing to acquiesce to censorship demands from the Chinese government.
The outcome of these contradictions is telling. Apple, a corporate giant advocating for human rights, paradoxically prioritizes regulating freedom of speech on its platforms over severing ties with suppliers linked to systemic exploitation. This juxtaposition continues to attract criticism, exemplifying the enduring tension between corporate interests and ethical considerations, succinctly captured in a resounding social media critique: “Slave labor in China is okay but free speech on Twitter is where Apple draws the line.”
"*" indicates required fields
