White House Joins TikTok With New Account. Here's What It's Posted So Far
So far, the TikTok account has four videos, a mix of videos of President Donald Trump speaking, footage of the White House itself over music and the caption: "We're so back." There's also a video of Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responding with hostility to a press conference question from a New York Times reporter, which is one way to set the tone early doors. As of this writing, the account had more than 123,000 followers so far.
The tagline for the account is: "Welcome to the Golden Age of America."
After a move to ban TikTok in the US due to its Chinese ownership, the administration has delayed a shutdown as it seeks to help the company's owner ByteDance, transfer ownership to a US company. There are expectations that new ownership could be announced as early as September as the company works on a US-only version of the TikTok mobile app.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US and EU frame the ongoing deal between the trading partners and solidify some commitments
WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States and the European Union on Thursday issued a joint statement that frames the ongoing deal between the trading partners and solidifies some trade commitments. 'This Framework Agreement will put our trade and investment relationship — one of the largest in the world — on a solid footing and will reinvigorate our economies' reindustrialization,' the document reads. Together, the U.S. and the EU have 44% of the global economy. Key points in the letter include a 15% U.S. tariff rate on most European goods, with specifics on auto tariffs tied to EU legislative actions. In addition, the EU agrees to eliminate tariffs on industrial goods and many agricultural products, while the U.S. will reduce tariffs accordingly. The agreement also covers $750 billion in energy purchases and $600 billion in EU investments by 2028. The agreement also addresses non-tariff barriers, digital trade and environmental regulations. In July, President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen met briefly at Trump's Turnberry golf course in Scotland and announced a sweeping trade deal that imposes 15% tariffs on most European goods, warding off Trump's threat of a 30% rate if no deal had been reached by Aug. 1. Before the Republican U.S. president returned to office for his second term, the U.S. and the EU maintained generally low tariff levels in what is the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world, with about $2 trillion, around 1.7 trillion euros, in annual trade. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ban on ranked choice voting passed Michigan House
A bill to ban ranked choice voting in Michigan sailed 57-44 through the House on Wednesday, August 20. Rep. Rachelle Smit, R-Martin, chair of the House Election Integrity Committee and a former township clerk, introduced House Bill 4707, which drew vigorous debate in a committee hearing earlier this week. Smit argues that ranked choice voting is confusing for voters and would cause "additional burdens on our already-stressed election administrators." Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, essentially marking backup options should their first choice be eliminated. Proponents of the voting method view it as a solution to plurality elections in which a candidate can win with less than 50% of the vote. Five cities in Michigan — Ann Arbor, East Lansing, Ferndale, Kalamazoo, and Royal Oak — have already passed proposals to adopt ranked choice voting in their elections. However, while ranked choice voting isn't explicitly prohibited in Michigan, current state election law makes it impossible to implement. Nevertheless, at the Aug. 19 hearing, several members of the Stop RCV coalition testified in favor of banning ranked choice voting outright. The coalition, which includes several prominent conservative organizations, campaigns across the country to encourage states to outlaw the voting method in their state and local elections. Jason Snead, executive director of Honest Elections Project Action and Co-Chair of the Stop RCV coalition, argued ranked choice voting 'makes voting needlessly time-consuming and burdensome' and stressed how complex and confusing ranking candidates will be for voters. Rank MI Vote Campaign Director Joe Spaulding, however, described ranked choice voting as a 'very simple solution to voters getting punished when they get more choices in an election.' The group Spaulding leads is proposing an amendment to the Michigan Constitution which would require ranked choice voting for major federal and statewide elections and open the door for municipalities to adopt the voting method. To put the proposal up for a vote on the November 2026 ballot, Rank MI Vote organizers need at least 446,198 signatures from Michigan voters. More: Michigan campaign seeks to put ranked choice voting measure on November 2026 ballot After a question from Rep. Stephen Wooden, D-Grand Rapids, in committee, Smit acknowledged that the bill comes in response to the growing Rank MI Vote ballot campaign and agreed with Wooden that, should that amendment to the constitution pass, the bill would become unenforceable. 'Why can't we just respect what the Michigan voters want?' Representative Matt Kolezar, D-Plymouth, asked Trent England, the other Co-Chair of Stop RCV, after his committee testimony. England said he felt the bill is a way for legislators to offer their view on the subject, which 'has a lot of value to voters because it's a complicated issue.' On the House floor Wednesday, Aug. 20, Rep. Josh Schriver, R-Oxford, called ranked choice voting "confusion disguised as reform." Rep. Ann Bollin, R-Brighton, along with Smit, said the voting method goes against the principles of "one person, one vote." Rep. Penelope Tsernoglou, D-East Lansing, however, accused those supporting the bill of distrusting their constituents as Rank MI Vote gains signatures and jurisdictions like East Lansing approve the voting method. "The question isn't whether you like ranked choice voting or not. The question is whether you respect the right of Michigan communities to make their own decisions," said Tsernoglou. "Do we trust the voters, or don't we?" The bill, which passed along mostly partisan lines, heads next to the Democratic-controlled Senate for consideration. It would need to pass both chambers and be signed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to become law. Aurora Sousanis is a politics intern at the Detroit Free Press. She can be reached at asousanis@ This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Ranked choice voting ban passes Michigan House
San Francisco Chronicle
19 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
This is the only California university facing a huge bill under new Trump-era endowment tax
New federal rules single out just one California university — Stanford — for a massive tax bill that will grow to more than $1 billion over the rest of the decade, rather than the $175 million the school would have otherwise paid. The higher tax rates are part of the national spending bill President Donald Trump signed into law in July and target private university endowments — the cushions of cash that colleges rely on to spin off funding for everything from student scholarships to infrastructure projects. Stanford, it turns out, is one of just 19 private universities and the only one in California with a large enough endowment relative to its enrollment to trigger the higher tax hit next year, according to an analysis by the conservative American Enterprise Institute. By 2030, the number could rise to 25. College endowments were exempt from federal tax before 2017. But during the first Trump administration, private colleges with 500 or more students began paying a 1.4% endowment tax. The new tax structure that kicks in next year not only includes higher rates, but also taxes more things, such as royalty income from research that ever benefited from a federal grant. Under the new law, colleges enrolling fewer than 3,000 tuition-paying students are exempt. That means 26 private universities nationwide will no longer pay any federal tax on their endowment, including Cal Tech, Pomona and Claremont-McKenna in California, according to a study by the business magazine Forbes. As for the rest, schools with per-student endowments of $500,000 to $750,000 will remain taxed at 1.4%. Schools with a per-student endowment of $750,001 to $2 million will be taxed at 4% a year, while the wealthiest schools like Stanford will be propelled into the highest bracket, 8%. Extracting more taxes from some of the nation's most exceptional research universities, including Harvard, Yale and Princeton, raises questions about whether doing so provides a public service, or whether the universities themselves provide the public good and should therefore keep their minimal tax rate. 'It is preposterous,' said UC Davis Law professor Darien Shanske, a tax expert. 'I am not sure why Stanford should pay a tax like this on its wealth, and not wealthy people (who tend to benefit under Trump's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill). If the idea is to use bad tax policy to punish enemies, then the whole thing is beyond terrible.' It is no secret that Trump has been waging war against the nation's top universities, freezing billions of dollars in federal research funds from Harvard, Columbia, UCLA and other schools to extract concessions in hiring and academic policies. The administration has also canceled grants at many other campuses, including UC Berkeley and Stanford, saying that the funding supports research that doesn't align with Trump's political agenda. Public records show, for example, that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services terminated a $49 million grant to develop a synthetic antiviral treatment at Stanford in April, more than a year early. Stanford's endowment is $37.6 billion, and its enrollment is 17,469. That translates to $2.2 million per student. Anticipating the hit, Stanford announced in June that it would cut $140 million from its budget and blamed 'reductions in federal research support and an increase in the endowment tax.' Stanford said it will lay off 363 staff members in October. The university declined an interview request but said Stanford 'remains committed to maintaining its robust financial aid to students, nearly 90% of whom graduate debt free.' Not all university advocates say it's wrong for Stanford and other super-rich private schools to pay far more taxes on their substantial nest eggs. Of 1,700 or so private colleges in the U.S., 87 have endowments that top $1 billion, according to the National Association of College and University Business Officers. 'Many people are comfortable with some way of discouraging the mass accumulation of wealth by already wealthy institutions,' said Christopher Kutz, a UC Berkeley Law professor and the author of a forthcoming book, 'Publics in Action,' about societal responses to political and economic pressures. Kutz's wife is a Stanford professor. Yet, he favors imposing higher taxes on Stanford's endowment — just differently from how the Trump administration structured it. Key features of the new rules include: Taxing net investment income, which is an endowment's gross earnings minus the expense of managing that income. Barring universities from deducting expenses, such as most salaries, as corporations do. Taxing, for the first time, royalties earned by the school from any research ever funded by federal grant money, as well as income from any student loans issued by a university. Stanford currently pays about $35 million a year in endowment taxes. Next year, that will shoot up to more than $200 million a year. 'I can imagine ways in which taxing endowments could be done wisely and well,' such as allowing the higher taxes to take effect gradually so universities could more easily absorb the cuts, Kutz said. 'What the Republican Congress is doing was designed simply to be maximally punitive.' It could also discourage them from seeking federally funded grants that advance research because of the new tax on royalties, said David Shapiro, head of taxes at Saul Ewing, a Philadelphia law firm that represents research universities around the country. 'It's terrible policy.' But to Mark Schneider, a former commissioner for the National Center for Education Statistics and an architect of the original 1.4% endowment tax, the new approach is more than fair. 'I was surprised by how few schools hit the trigger' for the new tax tiers, said Schneider, who co-authored the new analysis with research associate Christopher Robinson for the American Enterprise Institute, where he is a senior fellow. Schneider said he became interested in endowments about a decade ago and concluded that their tax-free status was, in effect, a publicly funded subsidy benefiting students. He co-authored a study in 2015 comparing the size of such benefits at public and private schools across several states, including California. The benefit at Fullerton Community College in Orange County, for example, turned out to be $8,100 for every student, according to the study, ' Rich Schools, Poor Students,' by Schneider and Jorge Klor de Alv, president of the nonpartisan Nexus Research and Policy Center. While Cal State Fullerton saw a $4,000-per student benefit, and UC Berkeley's was $10,500, the study calculated Stanford's to be six times higher, at $63,100 per student. 'In many cases, average taxpayers are subsidizing the education of students in the well-endowed and more selective schools to a far greater extent than they are supporting the education of their own children, most of whom attend broad-access public institutions,' the study said, and argued that large college endowments should therefore be taxed. In an interview, Schneider called untaxed endowments a 'totally hidden subsidy' for universities. Another hidden subsidy, he argued, is the state property tax exemption for private schools, which would add up to 'a whole bunch of money' from Stanford, the largest property owner in Santa Clara County. Universities are 'much more worried about that property tax exemption than the endowment tax,' he said.
