Donald Trump delays US TikTok ban again
'As he has said many times, President Trump does not want TikTok to go dark. This extension will last 90 days, which the administration will spend working to 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,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement on Tuesday.
Mr Trump disclosed the executive order on the Truth Social platform on Thursday morning.
Donald Trump (Alex Brandon/AP)
It is the third time the president has extended the deadline. The first one was through an executive order on January 20, his first day in office, after the platform went dark briefly when a national ban — approved by Congress and upheld by the 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 US ownership that fell apart after China backed out after Mr Trump's tariff announcement.
It is not clear how many times he 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.
Mr Trump has gained 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 likely that TikTok will be banned in the US any time soon. The decision to keep the site alive through an executive order has received some scrutiny, but it has not faced a legal challenge in court, unlike many of Mr Trump's other executive orders.
This political Groundhog Day is starting to resemble the debt ceiling drama: a recurring threat with no real resolution Jeremy Goldman
Jeremy Goldman, analyst at Emarketer, called TikTok's US situation '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 US, and tech giants Apple, Google and Oracle were persuaded to continue to support the app, on the promise that Mr 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 Centre survey found that about a third of Americans supported a ban, down from 50% in March 2023. Roughly a third said they would oppose a ban, and a similar percentage said they were not sure.
Among those who supported a ban, about eight in 10 cited concerns over users' data security being at risk as a major factor in their decision, according to the report.
Democratic senator Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the Trump administration is 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,' he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Fan climbs netting at Wrigley Field to retrieve Sal Frelick's bat
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
BBC News
33 minutes ago
- BBC News
US joining Israeli strikes would cause hell, Iranian minister tells BBC
The US joining Israeli strikes would cause "hell for the whole region", Iran's deputy foreign minister has told the Khatibzadeh said this is "not America's war" and if US President Donald Trump does get involved, he will always be remembered as "a president who entered a war he doesn't belong in".He said US involvement would turn the conflict into a "quagmire", continue aggression and delay an end to the "brutal atrocities". His comments came after the Soroka hospital in southern Israel was hit during an Iranian missile attack. Iranian state media reported that the strike targeted a military site next to the hospital, and not the facility itself. Israel's Ministry of Health said 71 people were injured during the attack on the Soroka Medical Centre. Meanwhile, Israel's military said it had targeted Iran's nuclear sites including the "inactive" Arak heavy water reactor and Natanz has not given an update on casualties in Iran from Israeli latest attacks come at a critical time. On Thursday, the White House said Trump would decide whether or not the US gets directly involved in the conflict within the next two to the BBC, Khatibzadeh insisted that "of course, diplomacy is the first option", but said but while bombardment continues "we cannot start any negotiation".He repeatedly called Iran's attacks on Israel "self defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter" and said "we were in the middle of diplomacy" when in a major escalation of the conflict on 13 June, Israel launched attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, killing several top generals and nuclear deputy foreign minister called the conflict "unprovoked" and "unnecessary". Responding to Trump's repeated comments that the conflict could have been avoided if Iran had accepted a nuclear deal, Khatibzadeh said they were negotiating until Israel "sabotaged" discussions by launching attacks Iran. "We were planning to have the sixth round of nuclear talks in Muscat, and we were actually on the verge of reaching an agreement," he said. "President Trump knows better than anybody else that we were on the verge of reaching an agreement." He also criticised Trump's "confusing and contradictory" social media posts and interviews, which he said indicated "that Americans have been aware and have participated" in the conflict. US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi have reportedly spoken on the phone several times since Friday, in a bid to find a diplomatic end to the crisis, Reuters reported. According to three diplomats who spoke to the news agency and asked not to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter, Araqchi said Tehran would not return to negotiations unless Israel stopped the attacks. Israel has alleged Iran has recently "taken steps to weaponise" its enriched uranium stockpile, which can be used for power plants or nuclear bombs. Iran has always claimed that its nuclear programme is entirely Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - the UN's nuclear watchdog - said Iran had amassed enough uranium enriched up to 60% purity - a short technical step away from weapons grade, or 90% - to potentially make nuclear bombs."This is nonsense," Khatibzadeh said in response. "You cannot start a war based on speculation or intention."If we wanted to have a nuclear bomb, we would have had it way before."Iran has never developed any programme for nuclear weaponisation of peaceful nuclear activities. Bottom line." IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said that nuclear facilities "must never be attacked, regardless of the context or circumstances, as it could harm both people and the environment". Khatibzadeh also discussed potential diplomatic channels after a G7 summit in Canada. He said: "What we are hearing from Europeans is that they would like to get back to diplomacy at a ministerial level"."They are going to have a meeting in Geneva and we are very much happy that finally they have to come and talk at the table about the issues at hand."
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
Dubya Dubya II: Democrats see echoes of Bush Iraq War push in Trump's Iran nukes rhetoric
While Republicans largely fall in line behind President Donald Trump as he disregards experts and prepares for the United States to take on a larger role in Israel's war with Iran, using the pretense of nuclear weapons being built, Democrats are seeing flashbacks of the Iraq War. On Thursday, the White House said that the president would make his decision on whether to strike Iran in the next two weeks. This comes as the president has directly contradicted Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on whether Iran is actively building a nuclear weapon. That raised alarms for Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. 'If this president wants to completely ignore the intelligence community, we are playing in dangerous ground, and this is exactly the way we got ourselves into Iraq,' he told The Independent on Thursday. The parallels are quite stark. In 2002, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush insisted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. At the time, the Bush administration maintained that Iraq posed an existential threat, with Secretary of State Colin Powell making the case in a presentation before the United Nations. After the United States invaded Iraq, it found little evidence of any weapons of mass destruction. Now, Warner's Democratic colleague from Virginia, Sen. Tim Kaine, has introduced a war powers resolution that would trigger debate and a vote for any military action against Iran. 'No one in Congress should on a matter of war, just say, let the President do what they want,' he told The Independent. 'The president can engage in self defense without an authorization, but the notion that we're being asked to join a bombing campaign in Iran is clearly offensive. I think it was. It's a horrible idea, but if my colleagues think it's a good idea, I think they should introduce war authorization.' Only six senators who voted against the Iraq War — either as members of the House of Representatives or as senators — remain in the Senate. 'We've discovered, particularly Middle East, it's easier to break things hard to put them together,' said Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. 'So, and we've seen operations like the invasion of Iraq under George W. Bush, which for the first few weeks looked like it was brilliant. Nothing happened. And four years later, we were wondering, what are we doing here and how do we get out?' By contrast, 14 senators in either capacity voted for the Iraq War. Senate Majority Leader John Thune voted for it as a member of the House and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, then in his first term in the Senate, voted for it. In addition, Schumer is considered a hawk on Israel and Iran, having opposed the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the agreement brokered by the Obama administration and US allies to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. The number of senators who remember the mistakes of Iraq continues to dwindle. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate minority whip who voted against it, is retiring at the end of next year. Sen. Adam Schiff of California, a veteran congressman who became a senator last year, voted for the war as a member of the House. One of the opponents of the Iraq war who remains is Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Wyden voted against Gabbard's confirmation, but still criticized Trump. 'This wouldn't be the first time where Donald Trump has done an about face on foreign policy,' Wyden told The Independent. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont who voted against the war as a congressman, who had his own resolution, joined onto Kaine's resolution. But even Democrats who came to Congress afterward, particularly those shaped by the War on Terror, want to rein in the president. Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a freshman from Michigan, joined the CIA after the September 11 attacks partly because she lived in New York on the day of the attack. Slotkin led a war powers resolution after Trump launched a strike that killed top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani. She said she is looking at Kaine's language. 'I think Congress, ever since the Iraq War, has been scared to exercise their oversight role in war and Democrats and Republicans,' she told The Independent. 'So I've been pretty consistent that we need to get back to that.' By contrast, so far, few Republicans save for Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky have raised reservations about war with Iran. Paul's father, former congressman Ron Paul, voted against the War in Iraq. Below is a list of Senators who voted for and against the War in Iraq who remain in Congress. Yes as Senators: Yes in the House: Adam Schiff (D-CA) John Boozman (R-AR) Lindsey Graham (R-SC) John Thune (R-SD) Roger Wicker (R-MS) Jerry Moran (R-KS) Ed Markey (D-MA) Shelly Capito (R-WV) Senators who voted No: Dick Durbin (D-IL) Patty Murray (D-WA) Jack Reed (D-RI) Ron Wyden (D-OR) Democrats who voted No as House members: Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
