Trump delays the TikTok ban once again
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order to keep TikTok running in the U.S. for another 90 days to give his administration more time to broker a deal to bring the social media platform under American ownership.
It is the third time Trump has extended the deadline. The first one was through an executive order on Jan. 20, his first day in office, after the platform went dark briefly when a national ban — approved by Congress and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court — took effect. The second was in April when White House officials believed they were nearing a deal to spin off TikTok into a new company with U.S. ownership that fell apart after China backed out following Trump's tariff announcement.
It is not clear how many times Trump can — or will — keep extending the ban as the government continues to try to negotiate a deal for TikTok, which is owned by China's ByteDance. While there is no clear legal basis for the extensions, so far there have been no legal challenges to fight them. Trump has amassed more than 15 million followers on TikTok since he joined last year, and he has credited the trendsetting platform with helping him gain traction among young voters. He said in January that he has a 'warm spot for TikTok.'
As the extensions continue, it appears less and less likely that TikTok will be banned in the U.S. any time soon. The decision to keep TikTok alive through an executive order has received some scrutiny, but it has not faced a legal challenge in court — unlike many of Trump's other executive orders.
Jeremy Goldman, analyst at Emarketer, called TikTok's U.S situation a 'deadline purgatory.'
The whole thing 'is starting to feel less like a ticking clock and more like a looped ringtone. This political Groundhog Day is starting to resemble the debt ceiling drama: a recurring threat with no real resolution.'
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 to offer and support the app, on the promise that Trump's Justice Department would not use the law to seek potentially steep fines against them.
Americans are even more closely divided on what to do about TikTok than they were two years ago.
A recent Pew Research Center survey found that about one-third of Americans said they supported a TikTok ban, down from 50% in March 2023. Roughly one-third said they would oppose a ban, and a similar percentage said they weren't sure.
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.
Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the Trump administration is once again 'flouting the law and ignoring its own national security findings about the risks' posed by a China-controlled TikTok.
'An executive order can't sidestep the law, but that's exactly what the president is trying to do,' Warner added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
39 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
China sends scores of planes across central line in Taiwan Strait
TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — China sent 74 warplanes toward Taiwan between late Thursday and early Friday, 61 of which crossed the central line in the Taiwan Strait that unofficially divides the sides, an unusually large number as tensions remained heightened in the region. It wasn't clear why so many planes were scrambled between late Thursday and early Friday, as tabulated by Taiwan's Defense Ministry. The planes were sent in two separate tranches, it added. China considers Taiwan its own territory and uses such deployments to advertise its threat to encircle and possibly invade the self-governing island. China also hopes to intimidate Taiwan's population of 23 million and wear down its equipment and the morale of its armed forces. On Thursday, Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs 'confirmed and welcomed' the transit of the British Royal Navy's off-shore patrol craft HMS Spey through the Taiwan Strait a day earlier. The ship's transit, the ministry said, 'once again (reaffirmed the Strait's) status as international waters.' 'Such transits by the U.K. and other like-minded countries are encouraged to safeguard peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, and to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific,' the Foreign Ministry said. Britain's representative office in Taipei said in a statement that the Spey had conducted a navigation of the Taiwan Strait in accordance with international law and rights provided under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 'Wherever the Royal Navy operates, it does so in full compliance with international law and exercises its right to Freedom of Navigation and overflight,' the statement added. China responded angrily, saying the Eastern Theater Command of the People's Liberation Army 'organized troops to monitor and guard the entire process and effectively responded and dealt with it.' The British ship's action 'deliberately disturbed the situation and undermined the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait,' the Eastern Theater Command said in a statement. The bustling Taiwan Strait lies in international waters, but China objects to any transit or activity within it by foreign military vessels. It wasn't clear if the large number of Chinese warplanes sent on Thursday and Friday were related to the earlier sailing of the British ship. Six military ships accompanied the Chinese planes, which ranged from drones to fighter jets and early warning and other support aircraft. Taiwan deployed ships, fighter interceptors and land-based missile systems in response.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
History in reruns
Opinion I've seen this movie already. I don't want to see it again. 'They lied,' said U.S. President Donald Trump in 2016, when he was running for the Republican presidential nomination against the neocons in his own party who had started the 'forever wars' in Afghanistan and Iraq. 'They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none.' Invading the wrong country is generally a big mistake, and everybody outside the United States knew it (except maybe Britain's Tony Blair). However, then-president George W. Bush had to believe in Saddam Hussein's alleged 'weapons of mass destruction' so that he could invade Iraq and expunge the blame for having let 9/11 happen on his watch. (Yes, I know Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Don't get tangled up in the details. The point is that Bush managed to persuade Americans of a link between Saddam and 9/11.) Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu is in a similar position. He not only failed to prevent Hamas from carrying out the massacre of Oct. 7, 2023; he had previously allowed a flow of cash from Qatar into the Gaza Strip in order to ensure that the Palestinians remained divided between Hamas and Fatah. Bibi must erase his guilt for that failure if he is to have a political future, and even the expulsion of the Palestinian population from Gaza (now being prepared) may not be enough. Whereas the destruction of the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons threat, and perhaps of the entire Iranian regime, could earn him full absolution within Israel. Netanyahu is genuinely obsessed about such weapons, but there is also always a tactical, political element in his warnings. He said Iran was 'three to five years away from a bomb' in 1992. He said it again in 1995. It was allegedly only one year away in 2012, and it has always been 'imminent' since 2019. Which brings us to the congressional testimony of Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's own director of national intelligence, on March 26 of this year. She said that the U.S. intelligence community 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' Finally, an American official who thinks she is working for her country, not for her party — but then she is also a combat veteran (Iraq) and a lieutenant-colonel in the National Guard. She takes her job seriously, and does not fall for all that guff about an Iranian nuclear weapons program. There once was such a program. It began in the mid-1980s, when the fledgling Islamic Republic of Iran was invaded by Iraq (with U.S. encouragement and support). It was cancelled after the U.S. invaded Iraq and found no nuclear weapons there in 2003, and to the best of our knowledge, it has not been restarted since then. All Middle Eastern governments know that they would face a pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike if they ever sought nuclear weapons of their own. (Israel has had nuclear weapons since the late 1960s and now has a hundred or more, deliverable by planes, missiles and submarines.) The idea that Iran is working on such weapons now is frankly ridiculous. The whole show is performative nonsense. Even if Iran had weapons-grade uranium now, fabricating warheads, testing the weapons and devising a reliable means of delivery (it has nothing suitable now) would take years. Whereas if Israel really believed Tehran were close to success now, it would have nuked all of Iran's facilities six months ago. Trump has long known that Bibi was trying to sucker him into a joint war against Iran, and never fell for it before. Why now? Probably because he just can't resist the opportunity to strut around emoting on the stage. Look at his recent tweets. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' And a couple of minutes later: 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' They won't surrender. This will be Trump's own 'forever war.' Gwynne Dyer's new book is Intervention Earth: Life-Saving Ideas from the World's Climate Engineers.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Can militarization deliver a safer world?
Opinion In a recent speech, Prime Minister Mark Carney said, 'Rising great powers are now in strategic competition with America. A new imperialism threatens. Middle powers compete for interests and attention, knowing that if they are not at the table, they will be on the menu.' We hear this dog-eat-dog sentiment shared quite often now, most notably from U.S. President Donald Trump, and it is often used as a justification for Western countries to spend more on their military. I would argue that the world has not spiked in terms of violence, and I would also argue that we cannot forget that an important context of violence is inequality and poverty. Focusing on militarization diverts our attention and creates conditions that will exacerbate international poverty and drive further violence. The world is becoming more violent, right? Not really, at least not in the sense of rising interstate wars. For simplicity I focus on the post-Cold War period, 1989-2023, and use deaths from conflict as the indicator. Less than 10 per cent of the 3.47 million conflict-related deaths over this period were due to interstate conflict (i.e., war). Most, almost 55 per cent, were from intrastate deaths. The rest are considered one-side violence or non-state conflicts. The world is clearly more violent for many people but often this is not the result of war (interstate conflict) but due to internal conflict, e.g., the Rwandan genocide. Conflict-based deaths have a strong regional distribution. The regions most affected by violence are Africa and the Middle East. During this period, Africa has faced 350 deaths per 100,000 people; the Middle East 285 deaths; Europe 40 deaths; Americas 31 deaths; and Asia-Oceania 19 deaths. There is evidence of an increase in annual deaths from conflict since 2012, but this has been driven by non-state and one-sided violence, not interstate violence. It was not until 2022, with the latest episode of the Ukraine-Russia war, that interstate conflict death numbers rose. A recent study estimated that up to 100,000 Ukrainians were killed and 300,000 were wounded, while 250,000 Russians have died and 700,000 have been wounded. The data I have presented are slim in support of the view that the world has become more violent. But I accept that there might be better indicators of violence or that the argument is not about recent history, but about fear of the future. That is, the fear is that the rise of authoritarian countries, most notably the rise of authoritarianism in the United States (not to mention China and Russia) and that these states will fuel future interstate violence. So, will better arming us will make us less vulnerable to aggressive authoritarian pressures? I do not specialize in military and political theory, so I leave this debate for others. But what I would like to argue is that an unequal world is one that can create and exacerbate tensions and lead to rising violence including interstate violence. Violence flows from a world in which certain groups, nations, and regions accumulate more wealth and power at the expense of others. Conversely, there are many ways in which a poor group can experience self-identified economic improvement. It is critically important that the international economy is rules-based, that these rules embed economic justice within them, and that wealthy nations support relatively poorer ones. Worthwhile support comes in the form of fair trading and investing systems. Moreover, the poorest nations require assistance in the form or high-quality development assistance. But fair trade, investment, and aid are diminishing. Trade barriers are rising. For instance, the U.S. has placed a 37 per cent tariff on garments from Bangladesh. This is an odd move, because it is unlikely the U.S. will ever gain a share of garment manufacturing. It is a low-wage sector and, with anti-immigration pressures in the U.S., American wages are likely to rise well beyond what is needed for a competitive garment sector. For years, a key international goal was that development assistance would reach 0.7 per cent of national income. This is only one of many needed reforms. But the increasingly ubiquitous goal of spending two per cent (or five per cent) of national income on military has usurped that goal. The U.K. has stated its plan to cut its development assistance and the U.S., by cutting its agency USAID, it has already done so. Canada and other countries are following suit and plan to reduce their development assistance. The case of the Israel-Gaza/Palestine conflict demonstrates how military force does not solve the problem. After over a year and a half of violence, there is no end in sight. Civilian deaths and infrastructure obliteration will only aggravate inequality and cycle back into more violence. Fear about a violent future should compel us to embrace a justice-based economic system. The alternative is imperialism and the violence that logically flows from inequality. Jerry Buckland is a professor of economics and international development at Canadian Mennonite University.
