Trump says he has group of ‘very wealthy people' to buy TikTok, predicts China will approve deal
WASHINGTON — President Trump said in a Fox News interview broadcast on Sunday that he had found a buyer for the TikTok short-video app, which he described as a group of 'very wealthy people' whose identities he will reveal in about two weeks.
Trump made the remarks in an interview on Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo' program.
He said the deal he is developing would probably need China's approval to move forward and he predicted Chinese President Xi Jinping would likely approve it.
Advertisement
President Trump said in an interview that he has found a buyer for TikTok.
ZUMAPRESS.com / MEGA
The president earlier this month had extended to September 17 a deadline for China-based ByteDance to divest the US assets of TikTok despite a law that mandated a sale or shutdown without significant progress.
A deal had been in the works this spring that would have spun off TikTok's US operations into a new US-based firm, majority-owned and operated by US investors, but it was put on hold after China indicated it would not approve it following Trump's announcements of steep tariffs on Chinese goods.
Advertisement
'We have a buyer for TikTok, by the way,' Trump said. 'I think I'll need probably China's approval. I think President Xi will probably do it.'
A 2024 US law required TikTok to stop operating by January 19 unless ByteDance had completed divesting the app's U.S. assets or demonstrated significant progress toward a sale.
Trump described the potential TikTok buyer as a group of group of 'very wealthy people.'
REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
Trump, who credits the app with boosting his support among young voters in last November's presidential election, has extended the deadline three times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
37 minutes ago
- USA Today
Thom Tillis, key Republican holdout on Trump's tax bill, won't seek reelection
Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a key holdout on President Donald Trump's sweeping legislation on taxes, Medicaid, border resources and more, will not seek reelection. Tillis, first elected to the Senate in 2014, said it was "not a hard choice" and that leaders who want bipartisan solutions have become an "endangered species" in Washington. "As many of my colleagues have noticed over the last year, and at times even joked about, I haven't exactly been excited about running for another term. That is true since the choice is between spending another six years navigating the political theatre and partisan gridlock in Washington or spending that time with the love of my life Susan, our two children, three beautiful grandchildren, and the rest of our extended family back home." "It's not a hard choice and I will not be seeking re-election," he said in the statement. Tillis hinted that he may break from Republicans and Trump again in the coming year and a half. "I look forward to having the pure freedom to call the balls and strikes as I see fit," he said in the statement. The Republican's seat in battleground North Carolina was already a top target for Senate Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections. He faced a potentially brutal fight to keep the seat as the left pushed to reclaim control of the chamber. After Tillis voted against advancing the GOP's massive domestic policy bill June 28, Trump threatened to embrace potential primary challengers in a series of social media posts. 'Thom Tillis is making a BIG MISTAKE for America, and the Wonderful People of North Carolina!' Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social. Tillis said June 28 that he could not support the bill because of it's expected impacts on Medicaid and rural hospitals. 'I did my homework on behalf of North Carolinians, and I cannot support this bill in its current form. It would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities,' Tillis' statement read. 'This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population, and even reducing critical services for those in the traditional Medicaid population,' he added The House approved significant changes to Medicaid that were expected to save at least $625 billion − potentially causing 7.6 million Americans over the next decade to lose health insurance. The Senate sought even deeper cuts, and lawmakers are expected to vote on the push early June 30.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Third Age Health Services Full Year 2025 Earnings: EPS: NZ$0.23 (vs NZ$0.14 in FY 2024)
Revenue: NZ$19.1m (up 26% from FY 2024). Net income: NZ$2.34m (up 67% from FY 2024). Profit margin: 12% (up from 9.2% in FY 2024). The increase in margin was driven by higher revenue. EPS: NZ$0.23 (up from NZ$0.14 in FY 2024). Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. All figures shown in the chart above are for the trailing 12 month (TTM) period Third Age Health Services' share price is broadly unchanged from a week ago. You should always think about risks. Case in point, we've spotted 2 warning signs for Third Age Health Services you should be aware of. — Investing narratives with Fair Values A case for TSXV:USA to reach USD $5.00 - $9.00 (CAD $7.30–$12.29) by 2029. By Agricola – Community Contributor Fair Value Estimated: CA$12.29 · 0.9% Overvalued DLocal's Future Growth Fueled by 35% Revenue and Profit Margin Boosts By WynnLevi – Community Contributor Fair Value Estimated: $195.39 · 0.9% Overvalued Historically Cheap, but the Margin of Safety Is Still Thin By Mandelman – Community Contributor Fair Value Estimated: SEK232.58 · 0.1% Overvalued View more featured narratives — Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Sign in to access your portfolio
Boston Globe
37 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Appeals court to consider Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act
On Monday, a federal appeals court in New Orleans will consider those questions, as well, in what is likely to be the decisive legal battle over Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The hearing, before the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, will almost certainly reprise legal arguments that the Trump administration and lawyers for the Venezuelan men have made repeatedly in lower courts. But the 5th Circuit's case is likely to be the first to reach the Supreme Court, where it will get a full hearing on the substantive question of whether Trump has used the act unlawfully. Advertisement Passed in 1798 as the nascent United States was threatened by war with France, the Alien Enemies Act gives the president expansive powers to detain and expel members of a hostile foreign nation. But the act grants those powers only in times of declared war or during what it describes as an invasion or a 'predatory incursion.' Advertisement From the start, the administration has sought to use the law in an unusual way, turning it against scores of Venezuelan men accused of belonging to the street gang Tren de Aragua, which Trump has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The president and his aides have repeatedly maintained that the men were not mere criminals but were working hand in glove with the Venezuelan government. Moreover, they have argued that their presence on US soil was tantamount to an invasion by a hostile foreign country. The American Civil Liberties Union, which has been representing the men, has scoffed at those claims in case after case, saying that they have no connection to reality. Lawyers for the ACLU have pointed out that mass migration, regardless of its scale, is not the same as an invasion. They have also argued that there is no conclusive evidence that their clients, many of whom have no criminal record, are working for anyone, let alone for the Venezuelan government. So far, a majority of federal courts have agreed with the ACLU, deciding that Trump invoked the act unlawfully and that his vision of the Venezuelans posing a military threat to the United States did not line up with the facts. Two courts, however, have sided with the administration, essentially arguing that the White House should be granted wide latitude in conducting foreign affairs, especially when they concern a gang that has been deemed a terrorist organization. The ACLU could face an uphill battle in its effort to win over the 5th Circuit, which has a reputation as one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country. But no matter who prevails in the oral arguments set for Monday, the case is likely to move on to the Supreme Court. Advertisement The case took an unusual path in reaching the 5th Circuit. In mid-April, the ACLU filed an emergency lawsuit in US District Court in Abilene, Texas, after suddenly getting news that the Trump administration was preparing to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport a group of Venezuelans being held at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in nearby Anson. The move to expel the men, the ACLU maintained, appeared to be an opportunistic effort to bypass orders barring similar removals from courts in New York, Colorado, and another part of Texas, which covered only those local jurisdictions. After the district court judge in Abilene failed to act quickly, the ACLU filed a flurry of follow-up petitions, asking the 5th Circuit and then the Supreme Court to help the men at Bluebonnet. The lawyers argued that the men were in imminent danger of being shipped off to El Salvador, where an earlier group of Venezuelan immigrants were sent in March and remain today. In an unusual ruling issued well after midnight, the Supreme Court ultimately put the deportations from Bluebonnet temporarily on hold. The justices declined to weigh in on the larger question of whether Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was lawful, saying only that the government had skirted due process by failing to give the Venezuelan men enough time and opportunity to contest their removal. Last month, the Supreme Court issued another decision in the case, maintaining the freeze on the deportations and sending the matter back to the 5th Circuit, with marching orders on how to proceed in the upcoming hearing. Advertisement The appellate judges were instructed to consider two issues: the substantive question of whether Trump's use of the act was legal in the first place and a narrower one about how much — and what sort — of warning immigrants should be given before being expelled under the law. This article originally appeared in
