Trump to extend US TikTok ban deadline

SAN FRANCISCO — TikTok will live on for at least another three months in the United States, as President Donald Trump is poised to extend a sale or ban deadline for the third time since taking office this year.
"President Trump will sign an additional Executive Order this week to keep TikTok up and running," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday.
The popular video sharing app was supposed to be banned in the US after its Chinese owner, ByteDance, refused to sell it to a US buyer by a January deadline.
TikTok and ByteDance did not immediately respond to requests for comment from the BBC.
Leavitt said the 90-day extension would "ensure this deal is closed so that the American people can continue to use TikTok with the assurance that their data is safe and secure."
Before Leavitt's announcement, Trump told the BBC that he would "probably" extend the TikTok.
"We'll probably have to get China approval," Trump said. "I think we'll get it. I think President Xi will ultimately approve it."
When asked if he has the legal basis to extend the deadline, he responded: "We do."
Trump's extension is at odds with the will of Congress, which passed the sale-or-ban measure last year. His predecessor, former President Joe Biden, immediately signed the bill into law.
The law was aimed to address concerns that TikTok, which has 170 million American users, could be used by China as a tool for spying and political manipulation.
The Supreme Court agreed with a lower court and upheld the law in January just before Trump was set to take office.
The platform briefly went dark for a few hours during the weekend before Trump's inauguration.
TikTok praised Trump for saving the platform after it became available again.
Trump tried to force a sale of TikTok to an American buyer in 2020, during his first term in office.
But last year, Trump said he liked the platform because he believed it had helped him win the 2024 presidential election.
"I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok, because I won youth by 34 points," Trump said in December, although most young voters backed the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris.
Trump's unilateral deadline extensions have led some analysts to dismiss the notion that a ban might ever take place during his time in office.
"What ban? There is nothing 'looming' about the potential TikTok ban anymore," said Forrester principal analyst Kelsey Chickering.
"TikTok's behaviour also indicates they're confident in their future, as they rolled out new AI video tools at Cannes this week."
"Smaller players, like Snap, will try to steal share during this "uncertain time," but they will not succeed because this next round for TikTok isn't uncertain at all," Ms Chickering added.
The Trump administration said in April that the US and China had neared a deal that would have placed majority control of TikTok's US operations under American ownership. That deal has yet to materialize.
"There are key matters to be resolved," a ByteDance spokesperson said at the time. "Any agreement will be subject to approval under Chinese law."
Trump has said he would be open to seeing it sold to cloud computing giant Oracle, whose co-founder Larry Ellison is a long-time ally of Trump's.
Billionaire Frank McCourt, Canadian businessman Kevin O'Leary, and Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian are part of another team bidding for the platform.
And the biggest YouTuber in the world Jimmy Donaldson — AKA MrBeast — has said he's also interested in buying TikTok as part of a different investor group. — BBC

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Arab News

24 minutes ago

• Arab News

Targeting Iran's supreme leader is madness

The idea resurfaced last week that Israel may try to assassinate Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as if he were just another easy military target in the fierce war between Israel and Iran, which may soon involve the US. President Donald Trump made it clear he opposed Israel's move and did not support it. This issue is far more serious than just another military objective: it could become a matter of ideology and trigger deeply dangerous cycles of revenge. There have been times in history when warring parties refrained from targeting leaders and symbolic figures for reasons beyond direct military calculation. For example, Emperor Hirohito of Japan was a ruler and a sacred symbol. Documents confirm that he authorized his military leaders to go to war, invade Manchuria, and carry out the attack on Pearl Harbor, which led to America's entry into the Second World War. But during the war, and on the recommendation of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the US government decided not to target him. He was also excluded from the list of Japanese leaders prosecuted after the allied victory and the occupation of Tokyo. That decision paved the way for reconciliation between the US and Japan, and helped the Japanese people accept the Americans. Hirohito remained emperor and respected until his death, living for another 45 years. There have been times in history when warring parties refrained from targeting leaders and symbolic figures for reasons beyond direct military calculation. Abdulrahman Al-Rashed Ayatollah Khamenei is a spiritual leader, and any harm inflicted on him would cause wounds that may never heal — regardless of how decisive the Israeli or American victories are on the battlefield. The supreme leader is a lifelong authority, not a president. He would play a vital role in bringing about peace, just as Ayatollah Khomeini did in 1988, when he unilaterally announced an end to the war with Iraq — a war we thought would end only with the complete destruction of one or both countries. We remember that no one in the Iranian regime at that time dared to call for a ceasefire with Iraq — except the supreme leader. Some people get carried away by the intoxication of war, blinded by overwhelming military power and temporary victories, only to create hatred that could last for decades or even centuries when they could have achieved victory without doing so. There is no doubt that the Israelis possess superior intelligence capabilities and overwhelming destructive power, which allow them to penetrate deep into Iran and reach its leadership's hideouts, as they have done in Lebanon and Gaza. But Iran's supreme leader cannot be equated with Hezbollah's secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah, who was assassinated last year. The difference in symbolic weight is enormous, and the consequences of a miscalculation are grave. Ayatollah Khamenei is a spiritual leader, and any harm inflicted on him would cause wounds that may never heal. Abdulrahman Al-Rashed And even if the comparison isn't entirely accurate, the execution of Saddam Hussein on Eid Al-Adha in 2006 — though he was a Baathist and not a religious or tribal leader — came at a heavy price. US generals later attempted to reconcile with Sunni forces, but failed. Washington still suffers the consequences of that event, especially with half the Iraqi population. That grave mistake could have been avoided, and the resulting rift healed, after their military victory. Israelis are capable of stunning military victories, as they achieved in 1967 and again last year — but that doesn't mean they win the larger war. We are truly on the brink of a new and critical chapter of history that will reshape what we've known and lived through over the past half century. What's needed now is the threat of force without reaching for its maximum limits — to bring about change through consensus, as much as possible. That would benefit everyone, including Israel, the US, Iran, and all the nations in the region. Both winners and losers share an interest in reducing tensions and achieving a collective peace. • Abdulrahman Al-Rashed is a Saudi journalist and intellectual. He is the former general manager of Al-Arabiya news channel and former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article was originally published. X: @aalrashed

Leaders

43 minutes ago

• Leaders

Iraqi Cities Protest against Israel's War on Iran

Baghdad and other Iraqi cities witnessed wide protests on Friday from Moqtada Sadr's supporters against Israel's war against Iran, according to Arab News. Iraqi Protests Iraqi demonstrators gathered in the Sadr City district of Baghdad after Friday prayers and chanted 'No to Israel! No to America!' 'It is an unjust war… Israel has no right' to hit Iran, said protester Abu Hussein. Iraqi Cities Protest against Israel's War on Iran Meanwhile, approximately 2,000 people rallied in Iraq's southern city of Basra after the prayers. Cleric Qusai Assadi, 43, condemned Israel's use of Iraqi airspace to bomb Iran. 'It is a violation of Iraq's sovereignty,' he said, warning against 'a third world war against Islam.' Call for Not Targeting US Troops Baghdad asked Iran earlier this week to avoid targeting US interests in Iraq amid mounting tensions between Israel and Tehran, according to Al-Arabiya. Despite the fact that Baghdad is a close ally of Tehran, Iraq is also a strategic partner of the US and even has approximately 2,500 US troops on its soil as part of an anti-extremist coalition. Israel-Iran Conflict On June 13, Israel launched a wave of airstrikes on Iran under the name of Operation Rising Lion. The military campaign targeted Iran's nuclear facilities and killed top military commanders and nuclear scientists. As a response, Iran launched a retaliatory wave of missiles against Israel and targeted Tel Aviv. US Denies Involvement US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the United States was not involved in Israel's unilateral strikes on Iran, according to The New York Times. 'We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense,' Rubio said. He also warned Iran not to respond to Israeli strikes by targeting American bases in the region. Importantly, the US military maintains a large fleet of warplanes, naval vessels as well as thousands of troops stationed at its bases in the region, including in Qatar and Bahrain. 'Let me be clear: Iran should not target US interests or personnel,' Rubio added. Related Topics: US Military Aircrafts Vanish from Qatar Base Amid Iran Tensions China Condemns Israel's 'War of Aggression' against Iran 'Nobody Knows': Trump on US Striking Iran Short link : Post Views: 8

Al Arabiya

an hour ago

• Al Arabiya

California Argues in Court Against Trump's National Guard Deployment

California's challenge of the Trump administration's military deployment on the streets of Los Angeles returned to a federal courtroom in San Francisco on Friday after an appeals court handed President Donald Trump a key procedural win in the case. The hearing comes a day after the 9th Circuit appellate panel allowed the president to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed in response to protests over immigration raids. The appellate decision halted a temporary restraining order from US District Judge Charles Breyer, who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Despite the appellate setback, California's attorneys are expected to ask Breyer on Friday for a preliminary injunction returning control of the troops in Los Angeles, where protests have calmed down in recent days, to Newsom. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops have been necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said their presence on the streets of a US city inflamed tensions, usurped local authority, and wasted resources. The demonstrations have appeared to be winding down, although dozens of protesters showed up Thursday at Dodger Stadium where a group of federal agents in SUVs and cargo vans had gathered, with their faces covered, in a parking lot. The Los Angeles Dodgers organization asked them to leave, and they did. On Tuesday, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted a curfew in downtown Los Angeles that was first imposed in response to vandalism and clashes with police after crowds gathered in opposition to agents taking migrants into detention. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said allows presidents to control state National Guard troops only during times of rebellion or danger of a rebellion. 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of rebellion,' wrote Breyer, a Watergate prosecutor who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration argued that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions. The appellate panel ruled otherwise, saying presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, but said that by citing violent acts by protesters in this case, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for federalizing the troops. For now, the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit proceeds. It's the first deployment by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since troops were sent to protect Civil Rights Movement marchers in 1965. Trump celebrated the appellate ruling in a social media post, calling it a 'BIG WIN' and hinting at more potential deployments. 'All over the United States, if our Cities and our people need protection, we are the ones to give it to them, should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done,' Trump wrote. Newsom, for his part, has also warned that California won't be the last state to see troops in the streets if Trump gets his way. 'The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of US military soldiers against citizens,' Newsom said. Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance was traveling to Los Angeles on Friday to meet with US Marines who also have been deployed to protect federal buildings, his office announced.