Trump TikTok Executive Order Sparks MAGA Backlash: 'Brazenly Illegal'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
President Donald Trump's decision to extend the deadline for TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, to sell its United States operations has provoked an intense backlash from prominent conservative voices.
The new executive order, signed on Thursday, grants ByteDance an additional 90 days, until September 17, 2025, to divest TikTok or face a ban.
Why It Matters
Thursday's extension marked the third time Trump has delayed enforcement. The first came via executive order on January 20, his first day in office, after the platform briefly went dark when a national ban approved by Congress and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court took effect.
The second extension came in April, when White House officials believed they were close to a deal to spin off TikTok into a new U.S.-owned company. The agreement ultimately collapsed after China withdrew following Trump's tariff announcement.
What To Know
With each new extension, a U.S. ban on TikTok seems increasingly unlikely in the near future. But the decision to keep the app running by executive order has sparked criticism, even from some of the president's own allies.
"This is lawless—nothing in statute or otherwise permits the President to extend the deadline like this," Heath Mayo, founder of conservative group Principles First, wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
National Review journalist Charles C. W. Cooke called the move "brazenly illegal," while conservative commentator Guy Benson was even more direct: "This is illegal."
Even those generally aligned with Trump's policy goals took issue with the method.
"Um there's nothing in the law (or the Constitution) that allows for this," wrote Jonah Goldberg, co-founder of conservative news outlet The Dispatch, on X.
The inaction is also prompting unease on Capitol Hill. Mississippi Republican Senator Roger Wicker, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told the Washington Examiner that he was "not overly delighted" about the delay.
"I don't think it's a good idea," Wicker said.
"I think there is growing frustration," Illinois Republican Representative Darin LaHood, who serves on both the House Intelligence Committee and the Select Committee on China, told the Examiner. "The national security concerns and vulnerabilities are still there, and they have not gone away. I would argue they've almost become more enhanced in many ways."
The administration has defended the delay as part of a larger diplomatic and strategic approach to U.S.-China relations. Trump told reporters on Thursday he would "probably" extend the ban and suggested he would need approval from Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Americans are now more divided on how to handle TikTok than they were two years ago. While lawmakers largely agreed, passing the law with overwhelming bipartisan support in the House (360–58) and Senate (79–18) last year, the public has begun to take a different view. The original deadline was set for January 19.
A recent Pew Research Center survey found that approximately one-third of Americans supported a TikTok ban, down from 50 percent in March 2023. Roughly one-third said they would oppose a ban, and a similar percentage said they were unsure.
Among those who said they supported banning the social media platform, about 8 in 10 cited concerns over users' data security being at risk as a major factor in their decision, according to the report.
Photo illustration of the TikTok logo on a phone screen backed by the American flag.
Photo illustration of the TikTok logo on a phone screen backed by the American flag.
Photo byWhat People Are Saying
President Donald Trump, Thursday on Truth Social: "I've just signed the executive order extending the deadline for the TikTok closing by 90 days (September 17, 2025). Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, told the Associated Press: "An executive order can't sidestep the law, but that's exactly what the president is trying to do."
What Happens Next
For now, TikTok continues to function for its 170 million users in the U.S., and tech giants Apple, Google, and Oracle were persuaded to continue offering and supporting the app, on the promise that the Justice Department would not use the law to seek potentially steep fines against them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
3 minutes ago
- CNBC
Labubu-maker Pop Mart's shares extend slide as Morgan Stanley removes it from China focus list
BEIJING — Shares in Pop Mart, the Chinese toy company behind the recent Labubu craze, continued to tumble Friday, after Morgan Stanley removed the stock from a focus list. Pop Mart's Hong Kong-listed shares were last down more than 5%, extending their slide from the previous session when they had slumped 5.3%. That's put the high-flying stock on track for its first negative week since early May — with losses of more than 13% so far. Its year-to-date gains stand at over 160%. Morgan Stanley said in a note late Wednesday it was replacing Pop Mart with insurance company PICC P&C in the firm's China and Hong Kong focus list. The investment bank did not elaborate on why it removed Pop Mart shares. The firm on June 10 had raised its price target on the toy company to 302 Hong Kong dollars ($38.47), up from 224 HKD, on expectations that Pop Mart still had room to grow in the long term. "We think the market has fully factored in Pop Mart's exponential growth in 2025 but may not have strong conviction on the long-term outlook," equity analyst Dustin Wei and a team said in the June 10 report. "That said, in view of its lofty valuation, we do not expect this level of outperformance to continue in the next few quarters," the report said. Pop Mart shares hit a record intra-day high of 283.40 HKD on June 12. The Beijing-based toy company has rapidly expanded overseas with online sales platforms and physical stores, including in the U.S. and U.K. Pop Mart first gained popularity with its "blind box" concept, in which consumers buy unmarked boxes — which can cost from about $5 to $10 each — for a chance at getting a unique figurine and building a collection. In the last few months, the company's "Labubu" series of toys featuring an elf-like character have become a global phenomenon, even drawing the attention of fashion and culture-focused New York Magazine and The New York Times. Pop Mart has also released Labubu stuffed toys, pillows and related merchandise to capture demand. A 4-foot-tall Labubu sold for the equivalent of $170,000 at an auction in Beijing earlier this month. Many of the more affordable versions of the figurine subsequently went out of stock in mainland China. "We've seen certain trends like that before ... There seems to always be some cute thing that people have to have," Jacob Cooke, co-founder and CEO of WPIC Marketing + Technologies, told CNBC on Friday. The company helps foreign brands — such as Vitamix and iS Clinical — sell online in China and other parts of Asia. He pointed to interest last year in capybara stuffed toys. Chinese retailer Miniso, which also has stores in the U.S. and other countries, was one of the main sellers of the stuffed animal. Cooke saw Pop Mart as "more lucky than anything," although he pointed out it reflects growing interest in toys not just for children but also adults. Indicating the soaring popularity of its toys, Pop Mart's overseas sales in 2024 have already surpassed the company's overall sales in 2021. The company reported total sales, primarily domestic, of 4.49 billion yuan ($624.6 million) in 2021. In 2024, overseas sales alone surpassed that to hit 5.1 billion yuan, up 373% from a year ago, while mainland China sales climbed to 7.97 billion yuan.
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says number of 'non-working holidays' in America 'must change' in Juneteenth social media post
Trump criticized the number of American holidays and claimed they cost billions in productivity. The post was made on Juneteenth, a federal holiday that Trump previously supported. The president said the number of non-working holidays "must change." In a social media post on Juneteenth, President Donald Trump said America has "too many" holidays where people don't work. "Too many non-working holidays in America," Trump wrote on Truth Social late Thursday. "It is costing our Country $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to keep all of these businesses closed." The president said that the frequency of holidays "must change" and that workers didn't want them, either. "The workers don't want it either!" he continued. "Soon we'll end up having a holiday for every once working day of the year. It must change if we are going to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Juneteenth, held on June 19 every year, commemorates the end of slavery in the United States and has long been celebrated by Black Americans. It became the 11th federal holiday in 2021 with a law signed by then-President Joe Biden. The bill passed with broad bipartisan support, receiving unanimous approval in the Senate and all but 14 votes in the House of Representatives. Most federal offices, such as the US Postal Service, are closed during Juneteenth. Markets like the Nasdaq and New York Stock Exchange don't trade during the holiday, either. But whether private companies and state governments remain open varies. Most major banks are closed for the holiday, but not all companies provide paid time off. The White House press office didn't immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment regarding Trump's Truth Social post. Earlier on Thursday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a press briefing that the White House was open. When asked by a journalist about commemorating Juneteenth, she said she was "not tracking" Trump's signature on any proclamations for the holiday. "I know this is a federal holiday," she said. "I want to thank all of you for showing up to work. We are certainly here. We're working 24/7 right now." Trump himself supported making Juneteenth a federal holiday in the wake of widespread protests following the killing of George Floyd. "Make Juneteenth a National Holiday" was included among his "Promise to Black America over 4 years" policy proposals in his 2020 presidential campaign. During that campaign, Trump took credit for publicizing Juneteenth after moving one of his rallies from June 19 to June 20 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. "I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous," Trump told The Wall Street Journal at the time. "It's actually an important event, an important time. But nobody had ever heard of it." In the same interview, Trump expressed surprise that his administration had commemorated Juneteenth every year. "Oh really? We put out a statement? The Trump White House put out a statement?" he said, according to the Journal. "OK, OK. Good." The White House did not publish a statement on its website commemorating Juneteenth this year. Read the original article on Business Insider
Politico
16 minutes ago
- Politico
Appeals court blocks Newsom's bid to reclaim control of National Guard from Trump
A federal appeals court has indefinitely blocked an effort by California Gov. Gavin Newsom to reclaim control of the National Guard troops President Donald Trump deployed to Los Angeles following unrest related to immigration enforcement. The three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that Trump appeared to have acted within his authority when he took control of 4,000 California National Guard troops under a law that has never been invoked without the consent of a state governor. Despite a debate over the level of violence accompanying the protests, the judges — two appointed by Trump and one by President Joe Biden — concluded that the law gives Trump enormous latitude to determine that the protests and related violence were interfering with execution of federal law. The judges said there are limits to the president's ability to call up the Guard, but there was enough evidence of civil unrest and danger to federal officials to justify Trump's actions. The ruling indefinitely sets aside a decision by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who last week issued a temporary restraining order against Trump's deployment of the Guard. Breyer is scheduled to hold another hearing in the case on Friday to consider Newsom's request for a longer-term block of both the Guard deployment and Trump's subsequent deployment of 700 Marines. The three judges on the panel were Trump appointees Mark Bennett and Eric Miller and Biden appointee Jennifer Sung. All three appeared skeptical of Newsom's position during oral arguments on Tuesday. Their Thursday night order was issued on a 'per curiam' basis, which means no judge was identified as the author of the opinion. Newsom, a Democrat, could ask a larger, 11-judge panel of the appeals court to take up the issue or seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. Despite ultimately ruling for Trump, all three judges flatly rejected his administration's claim that the courts had no role in reviewing his call-up of the military to Los Angeles. Had Trump's call-up been 'obviously absurd or made in bad faith,' they said, courts would clearly have a role in assessing it. However, the appeals court said a line of legal precedents dating to the early 19th century indicated that the court's review of Trump's decision should be 'especially deferential' and that the president's orders should be upheld if they reflect 'a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a 'range of honest judgment.'' Newsom and his attorneys argued that Trump's involvement of the National Guard was likely to fuel more anger from protesters and inflame an already tense situation on the streets of L.A. But the appeals judges said those concerns were too remote to entitle the state to an order reversing Trump's action. 'California's concerns about escalation and interference with local law enforcement, at present, are too speculative. We do not know whether future protests will grow due to the deployment of the National Guard,' the court wrote. 'And we do not know what emergencies may occur in California while the National Guard is deployed.' There are signs that the protests and altercations with authorities have actually diminished in the days since the deployment. After imposing a curfew in downtown L.A last week, Mayor Karen Bass eased the curfew Monday and lifted it on Tuesday. The 9th Circuit judges also concluded that a technical aspect of the law — a requirement that Trump issue his order to call up the Guard 'through' Newsom — was not violated, even though the order was delivered to Newsom's subordinate. Even if it were a violation, they added, it wouldn't justify Breyer's ruling to rescind the order altogether. The appeals court panel had put a temporary hold on Breyer's ruling shortly after he issued it — an administrative measure to give the panel time to hear arguments. The decision Thursday grants the Trump administration's request to keep the hold in place as litigation proceeds. While it's not a final ruling on the legality of Trump's deployment order, by the time those issues are resolved by another panel of the appeals court, the Guard deployment could be over and the dispute could be moot.
