Connect with us

News

TikTok says it will ‘go dark’ without US government action

Published

on

TikTok says it will ‘go dark’ without US government action

TikTok on Friday warned of an imminent blackout for its 170mn US users after the Supreme Court upheld a divest-or-ban law targeting the video app.

The law compels TikTok’s Chinese parent ByteDance to sell the platform by January 19 — the day before Donald Trump returns as US president — or face a nationwide ban.

“There is no doubt that, for more than 170mn Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community,” the Supreme Court wrote in a unanimous opinion published on Friday.

“But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary,” it added.

Following the ruling, Joe Biden’s administration said the outgoing president would not enforce the ban during his remaining days in office.

Advertisement

“Given the sheer fact of timing, this administration recognises that actions to implement the law simply must fall to the next administration, which takes office on Monday,” the White House said.

But TikTok late on Friday said statements from the White House as well as from the Department of Justice had “failed to provide the necessary clarity and assurance to the service providers that are integral to maintaining TikTok’s availability” in the US.

It added: “Unless the Biden administration immediately provides a definitive statement to satisfy the most critical service providers assuring non-enforcement, unfortunately TikTok will be forced to go dark on January 19.”

Under the terms of the law, without a sale, it will be unlawful for companies to provide services to distribute or host the video app, or they will face fines of $5,000 per user.

It remains unclear whether tech groups such as Apple, Google and Oracle, which offer such services to TikTok in the US, would take the risk of continuing to partner with the company over the weekend. It is also unclear whether the app could also take itself offline deliberately, to protect its partners.

Advertisement

Apple, Google and Oracle did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump said in a post on Truth Social after the ruling that his “decision on TikTok will be made in the not too distant future, but I must have time to review the situation”, adding that the court’s decision was “expected, and everyone must respect it”.

In a video posted on TikTok following the court’s decision, the group’s chief executive Shou Zi Chew gave no reassurances on whether the app would continue to function in the US on Sunday, but lavished Trump with praise.

“I want to thank president Trump for his commitment to work with us to find a solution that keeps TikTok available in the United States. This is a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship,” he said, adding the president-elect “truly understands” the platform.

US attorney-general Merrick Garland said the court’s decision “enables the justice department to prevent the Chinese government from weaponising TikTok to undermine America’s national security”.

Advertisement

Deputy US attorney-general Lisa Monaco said the “next phase of this effort — implementing and ensuring compliance with the law after it goes into effect on January 19 — will be a process that plays out over time”.

TikTok has said any spin-off would be technologically unfeasible, while Beijing has indicated it would oppose any sale.

The court’s ruling was handed down shortly after Trump on Friday said he had discussed TikTok on a call with China’s President Xi Jinping. It was the first call between the leaders in four years.

The Supreme Court’s ruling upholds one of the boldest legislative moves of Biden’s term just days before the Democratic president leaves the White House.

On Thursday, Trump’s incoming national security adviser Mike Waltz said the legislation “allows for an extension as long as a viable deal is on the table. Essentially that buys president Trump time to keep TikTok going”.

Advertisement

Chinese officials have held preliminary discussions about whether billionaire Elon Musk — now a close ally of Trump — could broker a deal for the app’s sale, the Financial Times reported this week.

Some potential buyers and partners have been circling and lobbying Trump. These include Frank McCourt, an American media and sports businessman, who has established a consortium of investors that would bid for TikTok through his non-profit entity, Project Liberty.

TikTok chief Chew has mounted a charm offensive to cement Trump’s backing, including plans to attend a “victory rally” for the president-elect in Washington on Sunday and his inauguration on Monday, said two people familiar with the matter.

Concerns Beijing could use the app for espionage or to spread propaganda spurred the law, which was passed with strong bipartisan support last year.

Even though China “has not yet leveraged its relationship with ByteDance Ltd to access US TikTok users’ data”, the top court said, there was “no basis for concluding that the government’s determination that China might do so is not at least a ‘reasonable inferenc[e] based on substantial evidence’.”

Advertisement

TikTok asked the Supreme Court to hear its case after a US appeals court rejected its challenge to the law, as well as its subsequent request to halt the measure pending further court proceedings.

The company sought to throw out the law by arguing it was unconstitutional and it violated First Amendment protections for free speech.

Additional reporting by Aime Williams in Washington and Stephen Morris and Michael Acton in San Francisco

News

Video: F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

Published

on

Video: F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

new video loaded: F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

transcript

transcript

F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

The National Transportation Safety Board said that a “multitude of errors” led to the collision between a military helicopter and a commercial jet, killing 67 people last January.

“I imagine there will be some difficult moments today for all of us as we try to provide answers to how a multitude of errors led to this tragedy.” “We have an entire tower who took it upon themselves to try to raise concerns over and over and over and over again, only to get squashed by management and everybody above them within F.A.A. Were they set up for failure?” “They were not adequately prepared to do the jobs they were assigned to do.”

Advertisement
The National Transportation Safety Board said that a “multitude of errors” led to the collision between a military helicopter and a commercial jet, killing 67 people last January.

By Meg Felling

January 27, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Families of killed men file first U.S. federal lawsuit over drug boat strikes

Published

on

Families of killed men file first U.S. federal lawsuit over drug boat strikes

President Trump speaks as U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth looks on during a meeting of his Cabinet at the White House in December 2025.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Relatives of two Trinidadian men killed in an airstrike last October are suing the U.S. government for wrongful death and for carrying out extrajudicial killings.

The case, filed in Massachusetts, is the first lawsuit over the strikes to land in a U.S. federal court since the Trump administration launched a campaign to target vessels off the coast of Venezuela. The American government has carried out three dozen such strikes since September, killing more than 100 people.

Among them are Chad Joseph, 26, and Rishi Samaroo, 41, who relatives say died in what President Trump described as “a lethal kinetic strike” on Oct. 14, 2025. The president posted a short video that day on social media that shows a missile targeting a ship, which erupts in flame.

Advertisement

“This is killing for sport, it’s killing for theater and it’s utterly lawless,” said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “We need a court of law to rein in this administration and provide some accountability to the families.”

The White House and Pentagon justify the strikes as part of a broader push to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S. The Pentagon declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying it doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation.

But the new lawsuit described Joseph and Samaroo as fishermen doing farm work in Venezuela, with no ties to the drug trade. Court papers said they were headed home to family members when the strike occurred and now are presumed dead.

Neither man “presented a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the United States or anyone at all, and means other than lethal force could have reasonably been employed to neutralize any lesser threat,” according to the lawsuit.

Advertisement

Lenore Burnley, the mother of Chad Joseph, and Sallycar Korasingh, the sister of Rishi Samaroo, are the plaintiffs in the case.

Their court papers allege violations of the Death on the High Seas Act, a 1920 law that makes the U.S. government liable if its agents engage in negligence that results in wrongful death more than 3 miles off American shores. A second claim alleges violations of the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreign citizens to sue over human rights violations such as deaths that occurred outside an armed conflict, with no judicial process.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Jonathan Hafetz at Seton Hall University School of Law are representing the plaintiffs.

“In seeking justice for the senseless killing of their loved ones, our clients are bravely demanding accountability for their devastating losses and standing up against the administration’s assault on the rule of law,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel at the ACLU.

U.S. lawmakers have raised questions about the legal basis for the strikes for months but the administration has persisted.

Advertisement

—NPR’s Quil Lawrence contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

News

Video: New Video Analysis Reveals Flawed and Fatal Decisions in Shooting of Pretti

Published

on

Video: New Video Analysis Reveals Flawed and Fatal Decisions in Shooting of Pretti

new video loaded: New Video Analysis Reveals Flawed and Fatal Decisions in Shooting of Pretti

A frame-by-frame assessment of actions by Alex Pretti and the two officers who fired 10 times shows how lethal force came to be used against a target who didn’t pose a threat.

By Devon Lum, Haley Willis, Alexander Cardia, Dmitriy Khavin and Ainara Tiefenthäler

January 26, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending