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
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stocks struggle, oil up for 3rd week as Trump weighs US action on Iran
By Stella Qiu SYDNEY (Reuters) -Share markets in Asia struggled for direction on Friday as fears of a potential U.S. attack on Iran hung over markets, while oil prices were poised to rise for a third straight week on the escalating Israel-Iran conflict. Overnight, Israel bombed nuclear targets in Iran, and Iran fired missiles and drones at Israel as a week-old air war intensified with no sign yet of an exit strategy from either side. The White House said President Donald Trump will decide in the next two weeks whether the U.S. will get involved in the Israel-Iran war. The U.S. President is facing uproar from some of his MAGA base over a possible strike on Iran. Brent fell 2% on Friday to $77.22 per barrel, but is still headed for a strong weekly gain of 4%, following a 12% surge the previous week. "The 'two-week deadline' is a tactic Trump has used in other key decisions, including those involving Russia and Ukraine, and tariffs," said Tony Sycamore, analyst at IG. "Often, these deadlines expire without concrete action, (similar to TACO), and there is certainly a risk of this happening again, given the complexities of the situation." Still, a cautious mood prevailed in markets with Nasdaq futures and S&P 500 futures both 0.3% lower in Asia. U.S. markets were closed for the Juneteenth holiday, offering little direction for Asia. The MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan edged up 0.1% but was set for a weekly drop of 1%. Japan's Nikkei slipped 0.2%. China's blue chips rose 0.3%, while Hong Kong's Hang Seng gained 0.5%, after the central bank held the benchmark lending rates steady as widely expected. In the currency markets, the dollar was on the back foot again, slipping 0.2% to 145.17 yen after data showed Japan's core inflation hit a two-year high in May, which kept pressure on the Bank of Japan to resume interest rate hikes. Investors, however, see little prospects of a rate hike from the BOJ until December this year, which is a little over 50% priced in. The U.S. bond market, which was also closed on Thursday, started trading in Asian hours on a subdued note. Ten-year Treasury bond yield was flat at 4.389%, while two-year yields slipped 2 basis points to 3.925%. Overnight, the Swiss National Bank cut rates to zero and did not rule out going negative, while the Bank of England held policy steady but saw the need for further easing and Norway's central bank surprised everyone and cut rates for the first time since 2020. Gold prices eased 0.2% to $3,363 an ounce, but were set for a weekly loss of 2%. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Post
26 minutes ago
- New York Post
Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good
MAGA celebrity Charlie Kirk, attempting to balance support for the administration and appeal to online isolationists, maintains that the 'regime change war machine in DC' is pushing President Donald Trump into 'an all-out blitz on Iran.' He's not alone. The question is, what does 'regime change war' mean in simple language? Does it mean, as 'non-interventionists' suggest, invading Iran and imposing American democracy on its people? Because, if so, there's virtually no one pushing for that. And I only add 'virtually' in case I somehow missed a person of consequence, though it is highly unlikely. Trump, from all indications, is using the threat of the US joining the war to push Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into surrender. Though taking out Iran's nuclear program would end the war quicker. Or does opposing 'regime change' mean actively thwarting the Iranian opposition from overthrowing the fundamentalists who took power via a violent revolution in 1979? Does it mean ensuring that Khamenei survives, because a resulting messy post-war fight for power is worse? It seems the latter. Kirk says, 'There is a vast difference between a popular revolution and foreign-imposed, abrupt, violent regime change.' Surely, he doesn't believe the mullahs will gradually propose liberal reforms for the people and become peaceful neighbors on their own? If Iranians revolt, it's because of the violence now being imposed on the regime. The ideological overcorrection due to the failures of Iraq's rebuild now has non-interventionists accusing anyone who proposes that it's better if anti-American dictatorships fall of being 'neocons,' perhaps the most useless phrase in our political lexicon. Forget for a moment that Iran has been an enemy of the United States for 45 years. Not an existential threat, no, but a deadly one, nonetheless. The non-interventionist is not bothered by the Islamic Republic's murder of American citizens, or its crusade for nuclear weapons — until Khamenei drops Revolutionary Guard paratroopers into San Diego, they don't think it's any of our business. Because of this overcorrection, non-interventionists, both left and right, simply can't fathom that exertion of American power could ever be a good thing. They now create revisionist histories blaming the United States for virtually all the world's ills. 'It was Britain, and (funded by) the United States that overthrew a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossedegh in 1953 by using hired mobs in a coup that lead [sic] to the installation of the Shah Pahlavi's 27 year reign of authoritarianism and human rights abuses,' wrote Trump-supporting comedian Rob Schneider in a viral post. 'All in the name of Iranian Oil.' 'Remember,' Kirk told his followers, 'Iran is partially controlled by mullahs today because we designed regime change to put the shah back in power.' Boy, I wish people would stay off Wikipedia for a while, because this fantasy, spread by blame-America leftists for decades, is now being picked up by the right. The notion that Iran would have been a thriving democracy in 1954 had the US not gotten involved — and our involvement is way overstated — is more ridiculous than blaming us for the 1979 revolution nearly 30 years later. It is far more likely Iran would have emerged as a Soviet client state, destined to fall anyway when fundamentalists swept the Islamic world in the 1970s. Realpolitik is ugly. Non-interventionists love to harp on the deadly byproducts of our intrusions into world affairs — and there have been many — without ever grappling with the counterfactual outcome. For instance, the contention that 'regime change' never works is incredibly simplistic. Regime change was a success in Germany and Japan. And I bet the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovenians, Estonians and many others were all on board for regime change, as well. None of that happens without US intervention in conflicts, cold and hot, around the world. People will rightly point out that Europe is not the Middle East. In that regard, Iran is not Iraq or Syria. Schneider contends that '90 million people will fight for their survival again,' as they did in Iraq. Sure, some Iranians might fight to preserve the brutal Islamic regime. Many would not. The real fear should be that a civil war would break out if Iran's regime collapses. There are numerous minorities in Iran, but Persian national consciousness goes back to antiquity. If the mullahs fall, a majority of Iranians may turn out to fight for a better life free of needless conflicts with the West. It may go south. It may not. I have no idea how that turns out, and neither do you. Except for one thing: Whoever wins won't have nuclear weapons. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dollar set to finish week on upbeat note buoyed by safe-haven appeal
By Johann M Cherian (Reuters) -The dollar was set to log its biggest weekly rise in over a month on Friday, as uncertainties about a raging war in the Middle East and the repercussions it could have on the global economy fuelled an appetite for traditional safe havens. The dollar index comparing the U.S. currency against six others is poised for a 0.5% climb this week. The conflict between Israel and Iran shows no signs of subsiding and market participants are nervous about potential U.S. intervention in the region. The two countries have been in a week-long air battle as Tel Aviv seeks to thwart Tehran's nuclear ambitions and cripple the domestic government. The White House said U.S. President Donald Trump will make a decision within the next two weeks about whether to join Israel in the war. The resultant recent spike in oil prices added a new layer of inflation uncertainty for central banks across regions which have been grappling with the potential repercussions of U.S. tariffs on their economies. "Rising oil prices introduce inflation uncertainty at a time when growth is weakening," said Charu Chanana, chief investment strategist at Saxo. "That makes central banks' jobs much harder — do they ease to support growth or hold back to avoid fueling inflation? Most seem to be prioritizing growth concerns for now, assuming that crude gains may not be sustained." In early Asia trading, the euro inched up 0.16% to $1.151, while the dollar weakened against the yen by 0.17% to 145.23 per dollar. Also underpinning the yen's gains was hotter-than-expected inflation data that kept expectations for upcoming interest rate hikes alive. Furthermore, minutes from the Bank of Japan's policy meet this week showed policymakers agreed on the need to keep raising rates that are still at very low levels. The Swiss franc was flat at 0.816 per dollar on Friday but was set for its largest weekly drop since mid-April after the country's central bank lowered borrowing costs. Swiss rates now stand at 0%. Currencies positively correlated to risk sentiment such as the Australian and New Zealand dollars were steady, while sterling was little changed at $1.34. Although the Federal Reserve earlier this week stuck with its forecast of two interest rate cuts this year, Chair Jerome Powell cautioned against giving that view too much weight. Analysts saw the central bank's delivery as a 'hawkish tilt' further underpinning the greenback's gains this week. Investors were, however, taken aback by an unexpected 25 basis point interest rate cut by Norges bank and the krone is down by more than 1% against the dollar this week. Though geopolitical tensions were the main market focus this week, concerns about tariffs and the impact they may have on costs, corporate margins and overall growth are ever-present. These concerns have weighed on the dollar, which is down about 9% this year. Trump's early July tariff deadline looms and sources said that European officials are increasingly resigned to a 10% rate on "reciprocal" tariffs being the baseline in any trade deal between the U.S. and the EU. Elsewhere, the offshore yuan was little changed at 7.185 after China kept benchmark lending rates unchanged as expected. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
