Trump Extends TikTok Deadline For the Second Time (cnbc.com) 74
For the second time, President Trump has extended the deadline for ByteDance to divest TikTok's U.S. operations by 75 days. The TikTok deal "requires more work to ensure all necessary approvals are signed," said Trump in a post on his Truth Social platform. The extension will "keep TikTok up and running for an additional 75 days."
"We hope to continue working in Good Faith with China, who I understand are not very happy about our Reciprocal Tariffs (Necessary for Fair and Balanced Trade between China and the U.S.A.!)," Trump added. CNBC reports: ByteDance has been in discussion with the U.S. government, the company told CNBC, adding that any agreement will be subject to approval under Chinese law. "An agreement has not been executed," a spokesperson for ByteDance said in a statement. "There are key matters to be resolved." Before Trump's decision, ByteDance faced an April 5 deadline to carry out a "qualified divestiture" of TikTok's U.S. business as required by a national security law signed by former President Joe Biden in April 2024.
ByteDance's original deadline to sell TikTok was on Jan. 19, but Trump signed an executive order when he took office the next day that gave the company 75 more days to make a deal. Although the law would penalize internet service providers and app store owners like Apple and Google for hosting and providing services to TikTok in the U.S., Trump's executive order instructed the attorney general to not enforce it. "This proves that Tariffs are the most powerful Economic tool, and very important to our National Security!," Trump said in the Truth Social post. "We do not want TikTok to 'go dark.' We look forward to working with TikTok and China to close the Deal. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
"We hope to continue working in Good Faith with China, who I understand are not very happy about our Reciprocal Tariffs (Necessary for Fair and Balanced Trade between China and the U.S.A.!)," Trump added. CNBC reports: ByteDance has been in discussion with the U.S. government, the company told CNBC, adding that any agreement will be subject to approval under Chinese law. "An agreement has not been executed," a spokesperson for ByteDance said in a statement. "There are key matters to be resolved." Before Trump's decision, ByteDance faced an April 5 deadline to carry out a "qualified divestiture" of TikTok's U.S. business as required by a national security law signed by former President Joe Biden in April 2024.
ByteDance's original deadline to sell TikTok was on Jan. 19, but Trump signed an executive order when he took office the next day that gave the company 75 more days to make a deal. Although the law would penalize internet service providers and app store owners like Apple and Google for hosting and providing services to TikTok in the U.S., Trump's executive order instructed the attorney general to not enforce it. "This proves that Tariffs are the most powerful Economic tool, and very important to our National Security!," Trump said in the Truth Social post. "We do not want TikTok to 'go dark.' We look forward to working with TikTok and China to close the Deal. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
Protection Racket (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently they're still negotiating the size of the bribe.
News Flash: That slob has no integrity, no ethics, and no compunction against fscking you over once the money lands in his pocket.... excuse me, campaign fund. But don't believe the long-haired hippie freak -- just ask anyone who's done business with him.
Re:Protection Racket (Score:5, Interesting)
However, before the tariffs it was a done deal to hand it over to Ellison. After the tariffs the Chinese government won't sign off on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Kamala lost. It's time for you to get over it, my friend. Donald Trump is your president now.
That Kamala lost is unrelated. Or are you suggesting that one should not criticize those in power?
Re: (Score:2)
Broken (Score:5, Informative)
It is not okay for the executive branch to just unilaterally decide that it is not going to enforce the law. This destroys the constitutional order and it's always bad, whether we're talking about refusal to spend money as Congress authorized, refusal to enforce the Congressional order about TikTok or refusal to enforce the federal laws banning medical or recreational marijuana use.
If we want to do these things, fine, but they require congressional action, not executive fiat. If Congress is too broken to do what needs to be done, then we must fix that problem, not just allow the executive branch to tear up the Constitution.
Re: (Score:1)
If Congress is too broken to do what needs to be done, then we must fix that problem, not just allow the executive branch to tear up the Constitution.
I'm not sure that Congress is broken... it certainly HAS the power and authority to put the brakes on the Executive (as it was designed to do), but that requires the individuals in Congress to actually utilize that power and authority. Currently, they are refusing to do so, for whatever reasons. Perhaps this could be called an abdication of responsibility, or corruption... though they might actually believe (and it might actually be the case...) that they are only acting in a way that is consistent with the
Re:Broken (Score:5, Insightful)
It's 100% an abdication of professional duty.
They were all sworn in and took an oath to defend the constitution. The facts laid bare over the past few months clearly and unequivocally show that they're failing to do just that.
The executive branch has broken many, many laws, and yet congress has failed to act. And just yesterday the Speaker of the House showed this administration's true colors when he adjourned the House for over a week, simply because 4 Republicans dared to vote against the party, and instead voted for what's right.
Re: (Score:3)
Congress is broken.
It's 100% an abdication of professional duty.
Agreed, but would argue that one political party has done this more than the other.
They were all sworn in and took an oath to defend the constitution. The facts laid bare over the past few months clearly and unequivocally show that they're failing to do just that.
Yes, and the those in the Executive branch are guilty of this too.
Allegiance is (suppose to be) to the Country and Constitution first and foremost -- not any one particular person, regardless of how popular he may be (among 49.8% of voters anyway) or political party. For the people, by the people -- all the people.
Re: (Score:3)
Allegiance is (suppose to be) to the Country and Constitution first and foremost -- not any one particular person, regardless of how popular he may be (among 49.8% of voters anyway) or political party. For the people, by the people -- all the people.
Well, Trump has made it very clear that it's only personal loyalty he cares about. For example, when asked about the firings of several National Security Council members, he stated "we're letting go of [p]eople that we don’t like or people that we don’t think can do the job or people that may have loyalties to somebody else."
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed, but would argue that one political party has done this more than the other. - and that's the Republicans. Those Putin-Dicksucking Traitors to Country and Constitution all need to rot in hell, the filthy treasonous fucking scumbags.
Re: (Score:2)
> Congress is broken.
It would be less broken if Republicans were not in the majority. Dems with all their faults have never lined up behind one mad king like the Republicans here have.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm kind of curious if the recent election results from earlier this week might get some of these shitbags that are in swing districts to rediscover their spines - we're seeing somewhere between a 10 to 15 point swing towards Democrats where elections were held on Tuesday, even in ruby-red Florida districts. Anyone that won with less than a 5% margin is in a real hot seat at this point.
It would be nice if self-preservation would start working in favor of The People again.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you try to sue him for things that he decides to do while on a golf course. The supremes probably will get confused about that and you might win. \o/
Re:Broken (Score:5, Insightful)
The ideals of our government is that the President is supposed to execute the laws of the Congress, and the Congress is supposed to legislate the will of the people.
I'm pretty sure that nobody voted to fuck around with Canada and saber-rattle against Denmark while giving Russia every damn thing they want in return for nothing at all.
Congress is vested with the power to spend money, or revoke money from being spent; and it does so through statutory law. Not spending money that Congress says should be spent is violating that law.
Congress is vested with oversight responsibility, and the ability to impeach officers of the United States for crimes. They are abdicating that responsibility by turning a blind eye to the clear lawlessness of this administration, as proven time-and-again in federal court.
Congress is broken.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that nobody voted to fuck around with Canada and saber-rattle against Denmark while giving Russia every damn thing they want in return for nothing at all.
Canada aside literally everything else you list was known well before election day. Hell Trump has been sabre-rattling against Denmark for most of decade now. It was literally a carry over from his first term, as was the fact he was cosy with Putin.
You're making excuses for people who don't deserve your support.
Re: Broken (Score:5, Interesting)
Tomorrow is a day of protests:
http://handsoff2025.com/ [handsoff2025.com]
There are over 1k events scheduled, so it's possible that no single event will look that impressive, but it will be interesting to see how many people push for congress to do its job instead of ceding power to the president
Police/prosecutorial discretion exists Re:Broken (Score:1)
It is not okay for the executive branch to just unilaterally decide that it is not going to enforce the law.
Every time I pass a police car going SPEEDLIMIT+POSITIVEVALUE and don't get pulled over, I'm thankful for executive-branch discretion.
That said, when it comes things more trivial than "speed limit + 4 mph traffic ticket" some serious thought about "what's really best for the country/state/city" needs to be behind the decision. Most recent "executive branches deciding not to enforce the law" decisions out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue have clearly lacked this kind of thought.
Re: (Score:2)
I liked your post. One comment though:
Every time I pass a police car going SPEEDLIMIT+POSITIVEVALUE and don't get pulled over, I'm thankful for executive-branch discretion.
Well, I think the police are more a part of the judicial (not executive) branch. And they do have some discretion over traffic violations.
Re: (Score:1)
I think the police are more a part of the judicial (not executive) branch
Perhaps where you live and drive, but not where I live and drive. Where I live, courts (judicial) exist in part to keep overzealous police in check.
Re: (Score:2)
Courts exist to keep us all in check. Even other judges.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you're right. Police (law enforcement in general) are part of the executive branch. The Feds are an example.
Re: (Score:3)
I liked your post. One comment though:
Every time I pass a police car going SPEEDLIMIT+POSITIVEVALUE and don't get pulled over, I'm thankful for executive-branch discretion.
Well, I think the police are more a part of the judicial (not executive) branch. And they do have some discretion over traffic violations.
Nope, police are part of the executive branch. Federal police report up to the president (through the attorney general), state police report up to the governor (also typically through an attorney general), county and municipal police report up through relevant executive authorities. Police are part of the executive branch, responsible for executing the law, including enforcing it. The district attorneys and other prosecutors are also part of the executive branch, as are the jailors and other government a
Re: (Score:2)
It is not okay for the executive branch to just unilaterally decide that it is not going to enforce the law.
Every time I pass a police car going SPEEDLIMIT+POSITIVEVALUE and don't get pulled over, I'm thankful for executive-branch discretion.
Are you? Or if you knew that you'd get pulled over for speeding would you just choose not to speed? I would. If the speed limits are too low, we should agitate for changes, rather than just breaking the law. (I also habitually drive at a few miles above the speed limit, but I don't think this is a good thing.)
That said, I agree that prosecutorial discretion is a good thing, when used sparingly and in the interest of justice. But it should be rare, and it should be applied on a case by case basis. The
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Incumbency is definitely helped out by the politicians picking their voters through drawing insanely helpful district maps for themselves. Even when those maps are found to be unconstitutional or illegal, they just use them anyway in violation of court orders (see: Ohio).
The "party of law and order" seems to like ignoring law and order when it suits them. Somehow sufficient quantities of voters are bilked into thinking that's ok, because someone who breaks laws clearly will stop at ${RED_LINE} and never s
Re: (Score:2)
It is not okay for the executive branch to just unilaterally decide that it is not going to enforce the law.
Biden set the precedent with the border.
I'm sorry, I'm not following your train of thought here. Could you elaborate, and possibly be more specific?
Re:Broken (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Biden: I am going to prioritize enforcement this way.
Trump: I am going to destroy entire parts of the government unless they bribe me.
You: both sides!
Re: (Score:2)
Please elaborate. What law(s) were broken by Biden that had anything to do with the border?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you mean when he supported a Republican-authored bill to update the law to allow common-sense tools to deal with it, and Republicans shot it down because Trump wanted the issue for the campaign, and still hasn't done shit?
I guess you fell for it though, so +1 for their agitprop campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not okay for the executive branch to just unilaterally decide that it is not going to enforce the law.
Biden set the precedent with the border.
No, he didn't. He actually did enforce the immigration laws as written, unlike Trump who went beyond what the law allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue with this law that's often been criticized is that it's explicitly written to allow for this, as well as actually names a company by name. The law explicitly applies to A) ByteDance and TitTok, B) Whatever other company the executive branch thinks it should apply to provided it be from <list of countries>.
That is actually how the law is written which is ridiculous. It would be quite another thing if the law simply stated what was illegal, at which point it would lie with the courts to decide
Re: (Score:2)
The issue with this law that's often been criticized is that it's explicitly written to allow for this
No, it isn't. The law set a deadline (which passed a while ago) and did not give the president any authority to delay it.
as well as actually names a company by name
That does potentially run afoul of the constitutional restriction on bills of attainder. But it must not because if it did ByteDance would surely have taken that argument to a judge.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't. The law set a deadline (which passed a while ago) and did not give the president any authority to delay it.
ByteDance is the only exception, that company is named in the law and cannot be removed from it by the executive, but for any other potential party, it can decide at its own pleasure whether it wants to include it or not.
That does potentially run afoul of the constitutional restriction on bills of attainder. But it must not because if it did ByteDance would surely have taken that argument to a judge.
Whether something is unconstitutional or not, especially with a constitution as utterly vague and as often ignored when convenient as the U.S.A. constitution is not a fact but an entirely subjective opinion. It is when a certain nine persons are of the opinion that it does. However, their o
Re: (Score:2)
Whether something is unconstitutional or not, especially with a constitution as utterly vague and as often ignored when convenient as the U.S.A. constitution is not a fact but an entirely subjective opinion.
There is an amount of subjectivity, but you significantly overstate the case. In this case, there is no question about whether the constitution bars bills of attainder, it unambiguously does. The only possible question is about whether the TikTok ban is a bill of attainder. The strong consensus of the legal community is that it does not, and this consensus is apparently strong enough that ByteDance's attorneys never even attempted to raise the issue.
However, their opinion aside, my opinion is that it's ridiculous for a law to name entities by name that as a matter of law violate it
"Your honor, this is ridiculous" is unlikely to get you
Re: (Score:2)
There is an amount of subjectivity, but you significantly overstate the case. In this case, there is no question about whether the constitution bars bills of attainder, it unambiguously does. The only possible question is about whether the TikTok ban is a bill of attainder. The strong consensus of the legal community is that it does not, and this consensus is apparently strong enough that ByteDance's attorneys never even attempted to raise the issue.
It unambiguously banned many things that court ruled it didn't ban based on arguments like “Don't be so literal minded” or “This is a living document.” I'm pretty sure locking up a people in internment camps because they had Japanese parents wasn't “due process” either, but it was “constitutional” because “reasons”.
"Your honor, this is ridiculous" is unlikely to get you far in any court of law. Specific arguments and rationale are required.
Actually it does, when the judge already agree with you, your legal arguments don't really matter much, they can be as excellent or as
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than picking apart your detailed arguments, again, let me go meta and ask: So, what do you propose?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm personally opposed to “constitutional rights” and other such things and consider them an absolute sham that purely exists to make the countries that offer them look good, not to protect anyone. I don't believe they've ever really done that and at best they've served as a basis for judicial activism. Constitutions should purely describe how the state actually functions and how leaders are elected and how the political system works.
“rights”, whether it be constitutional, things lik
Re: Broken (Score:2)
"It is not okay for the executive branch to just unilaterally decide that it is not going to enforce the law"
Sure it is. But there should be sound reasoning.
For example, let say Congress passes a piece of legislation that contradicts itself. The executive must have the authority to judge how to enforce it.
"We do not want TikTok to 'go dark.'" (Score:2)
Why does he even care?
Re: (Score:2)
He is the guy that killed it. Now he wants to be the guy that saved it. I guess we are all supposed to have a short memory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never altered is about right.
https://trumpwhitehouse.archiv... [archives.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because TikTok is a great source of information peddled by parties that are favourable to Trump. You'd be amazed at all the pro-trump bullshit peddled on TikTok on the leadup to the election. It's the doomscroller demographic.
Re: (Score:2)
He also got a shedload of money from one of their largest private investors for his campaign. But I'm sure that has nothing to do with it...
Re: (Score:2)
Why does he even care?
He feels TikTok has been an effective platform for dissemination of his propaganda.
Re: "We do not want TikTok to 'go dark.'" (Score:3)
Take away the circuses and the people start asking why their bread is so expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Take away the circuses and the people start asking why their bread is so expensive.
Oh, I think they will ask soon, on any one of the "circuses" that are still around.
Re: (Score:2)
The way things are going, it may not belong before we're living in Panem
Re: (Score:2)
I do think it's odd that the stock market losing billions of dollars a day is considered "acceptable losses" and we're expected to just tough it out, but TikTok potentially going dark is worthy of Presidential action to avoid.
Really? Especially for someone as money-driven as Trump, that's just bizarre behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the billionaires that backed his campaign has a shedload of cash tied up in TikTok. It's a quid pro quo.
Re: (Score:2)
Tanking the market is very likely a golden buying opportunity for those with deep pockets and some patience.
The market will(??) recover - eventually - and then those oligarchs will make millions to billions
Re: "We do not want TikTok to 'go dark.'" (Score:2)
He's lying as usual (Score:5, Interesting)
The convicted felon as usual wants to deflect blame from his incompetence. The reason he "extended" the time is because China imposed their 34% tariffs on U.S. goods, stopped buying pork products from us, and labeled 11 big companies as unreliable partners which means they can't do business in China. It was his incompetence which caused all this. Read for yourself [newsweek.com] what really happened.
This is how the mob "does business" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
3.8 more years and counting.
Re: This is how the mob "does business" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What make you think he's going anywhere ? Not being president means 32 felonies catch up to him.
He was sentenced to absolutely nothing for those felonies, so that's all done with. He faces no punishment for those felonies when he leaves office.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take your word for it. but. He's already broken dozens of laws, decreeing this and that, I'm sure in the unlikely event that he leaves office alive, he'll be chased down for ... whatever... something... they'll find something.
You don't have to take my word for it. The information is easy to find.
As for any crimes he's committing now, SCOTUS has ruled that the president has immunity from prosecution for all actions performed as part of his official duties. So, if he murders someone on the golf course, you can probably prosecute him after he leaves office. If he orders a thousand protesters to be crucified in the Rose Garden, or even nails them up on the crosses himself, he's untouchable.
A year ago there was a good argument t