Connect with us

Politics

Trump says he'll undertake the 'largest deportation' in U.S. history. Can he do that?

Published

on

Trump says he'll undertake the 'largest deportation' in U.S. history. Can he do that?

Former President Trump has promised that, if reelected, he will kick out millions of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.

Trump and his surrogates have offered sparse details for how he would carry out the “largest deportation operation in American history,” but have cemented the goal as a top priority. What is known: The strategy would rely on military troops, friendly state and local law enforcement, and wartime powers.

“No one’s off the table,” Tom Homan, Trump’s former head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in July. “If you’re in the country illegally, you better be looking over your shoulder.”

Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance said the administration would start by deporting immigrants who have committed crimes.

Advertisement

At a campaign rally earlier this month in Aurora, Colo., Trump said he would invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 “to target and dismantle every migrant criminal network operating on American soil.”

The ex-president went on to say that he would send “elite squads” of federal law enforcement officers to “hunt down, arrest and deport” every migrant gang member. Those who attempt to return to the U.S. would be served with 10-year prison sentences without parole, he said, adding that any migrant who kills a U.S. citizen or law enforcement officer would face the death penalty.

How many people would Trump go after?

It’s unclear.

In May, Trump told Time magazine he would target 15 million to 20 million people who he said are living illegally in the U.S. The nonpartisan Pew Research Center estimates the actual number to be about 11 million as of 2022. More than 2 million people have entered the country illegally since then.

“Let’s start with 1 million,” Vance told ABC News in August.

Advertisement

During his entire presidency, from January 2017 to January 2021, Trump deported about 1.5 million immigrants, according to a Migration Policy Institute analysis of federal figures — far fewer than the 2 million to 3 million he speculated about deporting in a 2016 interview as president-elect. The Biden administration is on pace to match Trump’s deportation numbers.

What powers would Trump invoke to justify deportations?

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 allows the president to arrest, imprison or deport immigrants from a country considered an enemy of the U.S. during wartime. Congress passed the law as part of the Alien and Sedition Acts — four laws that tightened restrictions on foreign-born Americans and limited criticism of the government, when the country was on the brink of war with France.

The law has been used three times in American history: during the War of 1812 and World War I and after the attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II.

During WWI, federal authorities placed 6,300 “enemy aliens” — many from Germany — into internment camps.

By the end of WWII, more than 31,000 people from Japan, Germany and Italy, as well as some Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, had been interned at camps and military facilities — in addition to the more than 100,000 Japanese Americans who were forcibly relocated to the same camps and detained under different legal grounds, said Gabriel “Jack” Chin, a UC Davis professor who studies criminal and immigration law.

Advertisement

Chin said he isn’t convinced that Trump would make the Alien Enemies Act the cornerstone of his immigration policy because the U.S. is not in a declared war with another nation.

“It would have to rest on an argument that random immigration — that is to say immigration based on individual decisions of individual people — is the equivalent of an invasion from a nation-state,” he said. “And that would have to be based on an idea that foreigners as a group are a nation.”

Trump has also said he would deploy National Guard troops under the orders of sympathetic governors.

“If I thought things were getting out of control, I would have no problem using the military,” he told Time.

Federal law limits the involvement of military troops in civilian law enforcement.

Advertisement

In 2018, Trump sent 5,800 active-duty troops to the southwestern border amid the arrival of a caravan of thousands of migrants from Central America. Initially the troops performed support work such as laying razor wire as a deterrent to crossing, but later the White House expanded their authority to allow them to use force and provide crowd control to protect border agents.

Last year, President Biden sent 1,500 Army and Marine Corps troops to fill critical “capability gaps” at the border as the administration lifted the Title 42 border expulsions policy that Trump had invoked to turn away asylum seekers and other would-be immigrants as the COVID-19 pandemic raged.

Trump has promised to go further during a second term by recalling thousands of troops from overseas to be stationed at the U.S.-Mexico border. He has also explored using troops to assist with deportations and confronting civil unrest.

Using the Alien Enemies Act, Trump could conduct rapid deportations without the typically required legal processes. He could also circumvent federal law to use military troops in a broader law enforcement capacity to carry out arrests and removals.

But speeding up the deportation process could come with catastrophic consequences, Chin said. Scores of U.S. citizens are already mistakenly deported.

Advertisement

“If the point of this was a roundup, U.S. citizens would be rounded up,” he said.

Katherine Yon Ebright, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice, argued in an analysis of the law that courts would likely avoid opining on the presence or absence of an invasion, or whether the perpetrator of the alleged invasion is a foreign nation or government.

“The courts’ hesitance to weigh in on these questions heightens the risk that Trump will invoke the Alien Enemies Act despite its clear inapplicability,” she wrote. But she added that “courts may strike down an invocation of the Alien Enemies Act under modern due process and equal protection law, justiciable grounds for checking abusive presidential action.”

Tom Jawetz, deputy general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security from 2021 to 2022, said courts tend to give deference to the president for executive determinations. But he said this one could be difficult to uphold.

“There could be opportunities for legal attack,” he said. “It sounds like they would be stretching it beyond its capacity, beyond what the text [of the law] would allow.”

Advertisement

Is it feasible?

Deporting millions of people would be expensive and logistically complex.

Former President Obama, who in 2013 oversaw the most deportations in a year when his administration kicked out 438,000 immigrants, relied on local police turning people over to federal immigration agents. Trump has said he would similarly rely on state and local law enforcement. But many state and local governments, including California, have since limited their cooperation with immigration agents.

Immigration courts are already overwhelmed, and more deportation cases would add to the backlog of 3.7 million cases. Lengthy delays in immigration court proceedings mean immigrants often wait years before their case is completed.

Among the rights afforded to immigrants is a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that prohibits them from being indefinitely detained if their country won’t accept them back. Countries including Venezuela and China have previously refused to cooperate with U.S. authorities on deportations.

How much would it cost?

It would cost at least $315 billion to deport the roughly 13 million people in the country illegally, according to an analysis by the American Immigration Council, a group that advocates for policies that welcome migrants. The deportation effort would require building hundreds of new detention facilities, as well as hiring hundreds of thousands of new immigration agents, judges and other staff.

Advertisement

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s budget last year was about $9 billion. Significantly increasing its funding would require the backing of Congress — an uphill battle given current political divisions.

Jawetz said Trump could redirect funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Defense, like he did for construction of the border wall, and could also reassign personnel from other agencies to perform immigration enforcement tasks.

An analysis by CBS News found that it cost an estimated average of $19,599 to deport one person over the last five fiscal years after apprehension, detention, immigration court processes and transport out of the U.S. were taken into account. The average cost of repatriation only increases as more migrants arrive from distant countries such as Cameroon and China.

How are people preparing?

Mass deportation could rip apart deeply rooted families that include citizens and noncitizens, worsen labor shortages and lead to economic upset. Discussion of mass deportation alone would also sow fear in immigrant communities, as happened during Trump’s first term.

Jawetz said advocates for migrants are beginning to consider potential legal action. During Trump’s presidency, informal Signal and WhatsApp networks emerged across the country in which advocates and community members communicated real-time responses to policy changes they were seeing on the ground.

Advertisement

“We would hope and expect to see much of the same this time around” if Trump wins, the former Homeland Security counsel said. “If you think about it, just the level of anxiety people [would be] living under on a day-to-day basis over a period of years is pretty extraordinary.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s Sprint to Remake Meta for the Trump Era

Published

on

Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s Sprint to Remake Meta for the Trump Era

Mark Zuckerberg kept the circle of people who knew his thinking small.

Last month, Mr. Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, tapped a handful of top policy and communications executives and others to discuss the company’s approach to online speech. He had decided to make sweeping changes after visiting President-elect Donald J. Trump at Mar-a-Lago over Thanksgiving. Now he needed his employees to turn those changes into policy.

Over the next few weeks, Mr. Zuckerberg and his handpicked team discussed how to do that in Zoom meetings, conference calls and late-night group chats. Some subordinates stole away from family dinners and holiday gatherings to work, while Mr. Zuckerberg weighed in between trips to his homes in the San Francisco Bay Area and the island of Kauai.

By New Year’s Day, Mr. Zuckerberg was ready to go public with the changes, according to four current and former Meta employees and advisers with knowledge of the events, who were not authorized to speak publicly about the confidential discussions.

The entire process was highly unusual. Meta typically alters policies that govern its apps — which include Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads — by inviting employees, civic leaders and others to weigh in. Any shifts generally take months. But Mr. Zuckerberg turned this latest effort into a closely held six-week sprint, blindsiding even employees on his policy and integrity teams.

Advertisement

On Tuesday, most of Meta’s 72,000 employees learned of Mr. Zuckerberg’s plans along with the rest of the world. The Silicon Valley giant said it was overhauling speech on its apps by loosening restrictions on how people can talk about contentious social issues such as immigration, gender and sexuality. It killed its fact-checking program that had been aimed at curbing misinformation and said it would instead rely on users to police falsehoods. And it said it would insert more political content into people’s feeds after previously de-emphasizing that very material.

In the days since, the moves — which have sweeping implications for what people will see online — have drawn applause from Mr. Trump and conservatives, derision from fact-checking groups and misinformation researchers, and concerns from L.G.B.T.Q. advocacy groups that fear the changes will lead to more people getting harassed online and offline.

Inside Meta, the reaction has been sharply divided. Some employees have celebrated the moves, while others were shocked and have openly castigated the changes on the company’s internal message boards. Several employees wrote that they were ashamed to work for Meta.

On Friday, Meta’s makeover continued when the company told employees that it would end its work on diversity, equity and inclusion. It eliminated its chief diversity officer role, ended its diversity hiring goals that called for the employment of a certain number of women and minorities, and said it would no longer prioritize minority-owned businesses when hiring vendors.

Meta planned to “focus on how to apply fair and consistent practices that mitigate bias for all, no matter your background,” Janelle Gale, vice president of human resources, said in an internal post that was relayed to The New York Times.

Advertisement

In interviews, more than a dozen current and former Meta employees, executives and advisers to Mr. Zuckerberg described his shift as serving a dual purpose. It positions Meta for the political landscape of the moment, with conservative power ascendant in Washington as Mr. Trump takes office on Jan. 20. More than that, the changes reflect Mr. Zuckerberg’s personal views of how his $1.5 trillion company should be run — and he no longer wants to keep those views quiet.

Mr. Zuckerberg, 40, has regularly spoken to friends and colleagues, including Marc Andreessen, the venture capitalist and Meta board member, about concerns that progressives are policing speech, the people said. He has also felt railroaded by what he views as the Biden administration’s anti-tech posturing, and stung by what he sees as progressives in the media and in Silicon Valley — including in Meta’s work force — pushing him to take a heavy hand in policing discourse, they said.

Meta declined to comment.

In an interview with the podcaster Joe Rogan on Friday, Mr. Zuckerberg said it was time to go “back to our original mission” by giving people “the power to share.” He said he had felt pressured by the Biden administration and the media to “censor” certain content, adding, “I have a much greater command now of what I think the policy should be, and this is how it’s going to be going forward.”

The latest changes were catalyzed by Mr. Trump’s victory in November. That month, Mr. Zuckerberg flew to Florida to meet with Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Meta later donated $1 million to the president-elect’s inaugural fund.

Advertisement

At Meta, Mr. Zuckerberg began preparing to change speech policies. Knowing that any moves would be contentious, he assembled a team of no more than a dozen close advisers and lieutenants, including Joel Kaplan, a longtime policy executive with strong ties to the Republican Party; Kevin Martin, the head of U.S. policy; and David Ginsberg, the head of communications. Mr. Zuckerberg insisted on no leaks, the people with knowledge of the effort said.

The group worked on revising Meta’s “Hate Speech” policy, with Mr. Zuckerberg leading the charge, they said. They changed the name of the policy, which lays out what to do with slurs, threats against protected groups and other harmful content on its apps, to “Hateful Conduct.”

That effectively shifted the emphasis of the rules away from speech, minimizing Meta’s role in policing online conversation. Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Martin were cheerleaders of the changes, these people said.

Mr. Zuckerberg decided to promote Mr. Kaplan to Meta’s head of global public policy to carry out the changes and deepen Meta’s ties to the incoming Trump administration, replacing Nick Clegg, a former deputy prime minister of Britain who had handled policy and regulatory issues globally for Meta since 2018. The night before Meta’s announcement, Mr. Kaplan held individual calls with top conservative social media influencers, two people said.

On Tuesday, Mr. Zuckerberg made the new speech policies public in his Instagram video. Mr. Kaplan appeared on “Fox & Friends,” a mainstay of Mr. Trump’s media diet, saying Meta’s fact-checking partners “had too much political bias.”

Advertisement

(Fact-checking groups that worked with Meta have said they had no role in deciding what the company did with the content that was fact-checked.)

Among its changes, Meta loosened rules so people could post statements saying they hated people of certain races, religions or sexual orientations, including permitting “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation.” The company cited political discourse about transgender rights for the change. It also removed a rule that forbade users to say people of certain races were responsible for spreading the coronavirus.

Some training materials that Meta created for the new policies were confusing and contradictory, two employees who reviewed the documents said. Some of the text said saying that “white people have mental illness” would be prohibited on Facebook, but saying that “gay people have mental illness” was allowed, they said.

Meta locked access to the policies and training materials internally late on Thursday, they said, hours after The Intercept published excerpts.

The company also removed the transgender and nonbinary “themes” on its Messenger chat app, which allows users to customize the app’s colors and wallpaper, two employees said. The change was reported earlier by 404 Media.

Advertisement

That same day at Meta’s offices in Silicon Valley, Texas and New York, facilities managers were instructed to remove tampons from men’s bathrooms, which the company had provided for nonbinary and transgender employees who use the men’s room and who may have required sanitary pads, two employees said.

Some employees were livid at what they saw as efforts by executives to hide changes to the “Hateful Conduct” policy before it was announced, two people said. While people across the policy division typically view and comment on significant revisions, most did not have the opportunity this time.

On Workplace, Meta’s Slack-like internal communications software, employees began arguing over the changes. In the @Pride employee resource group, where workers who support L.G.B.T.Q. issues convene, at least one person announced their resignation as others privately relayed to one another that they planned to look for jobs elsewhere, two people said.

In a post this week to the @Pride group, Alex Schultz, Meta’s chief marketing officer, defended Mr. Zuckerberg and said topics like transgender issues had become politicized. He said Meta’s policies should not get in the way of allowing societal debate and pointed to Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion case, as an example of “courts getting ahead of society” in the 1970s. Mr. Schultz said the courts had “politicized” the issue instead of allowing it to be debated civically.

“You find topics become politicized and stay in the political conversation for far longer than they would’ve if society just debated them out,” Mr. Schultz wrote. He said looser restrictions on speech in Meta’s apps would allow for this kind of debate.

Advertisement

Mr. Zuckerberg traveled to Palm Beach, Fla., this week, four people with knowledge of his activities said, and on Friday was said to have been at Mar-a-Lago.

In his interview with Mr. Rogan, Mr. Zuckerberg denied making sweeping changes to appease the incoming Trump administration, but said the election did influence his thinking.

“The good thing about doing it after the election is you get to take this cultural pulse,” he said. “We got to this point where there were these things that you couldn’t say that were just mainstream discourse.”

Theodore Schleifer, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

'Deeply disgusted': GOP senator shreds Biden admin in scathing letter on new immigrant deportation shield

Published

on

'Deeply disgusted': GOP senator shreds Biden admin in scathing letter on new immigrant deportation shield

FIRST ON FOX: Newly sworn-in Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, in his first letter as a member of the Senate, sent a blistering inquiry to the Department of Homeland Security demanding answers on the extension of deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals from a slew of countries.

“I write to express my sincere concerns regarding the extensions of the designations of El Salvador, Venezuela, Ukraine, and Sudan for Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”),” Moreno wrote in a letter to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Friday. “These 18-month extensions allow these noncitizens to remain in the United States through the Fall of 2026, when the designations were set to expire.”

“These decisions were shamefully made by an outgoing administration ten days before President Donald J. Trump takes the oath of office. One would think that after handedly losing the 2024 Presidential Election when voters overwhelmingly rejected the Biden-Harris Administration’s open-border policy, that you would finally understand American citizens’ mandate. And yet, you continue to completely disregard the will of the majority of voters, by unilaterally deciding to allow nearly 1 million noncitizens who entered our country without original authorization to remain in the United States.”

DHS announced on Friday it is extending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for El Salvador, Venezuela, Sudan and Ukraine for an additional 18 months beyond their current expirations.

RED STATE AGS WELCOME TRUMP CRACKDOWN ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AFTER FOUR YEARS BATTLING BIDEN

Advertisement

Senator Bernie Moreno, left, and President Joe Biden, right (Getty)

TPS grants protection from deportation and work permits for nationals living in the U.S. from countries deemed unsafe for them to be returned. DHS cited environmental disasters in El Salvador, including storms and heavy rainfall, that it said resulted in a “substantial, but temporary” disruption of living conditions. It also cited the political and economic crises in Venezuela, political instability in Sudan and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine with Russia.

In his letter to Secretary Mayorkas, Moreno criticized the government’s rationale for the move.

“I am also deeply disgusted by your attempts to justify these decisions,” Moreno wrote. “For example, according to your Department, the extension of the TPS status of 234,000 noncitizens is due to “geological and weather events” in El Salvador. However, a quick review of the current weather in San Salvador, El Salvador currently shows that it is “mostly sunny” and 81 degrees Fahrenheit.”

NEW REPORT REVEALS MASSIVE NUMBER OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BENEFITING FROM BIDEN-HARRIS ADMIN’S ‘QUIET AMNESTY’

Advertisement
Mayorkas Senate

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas speaks during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee hearing on the department’s budget request on Capitol Hill on April 18, 2024  (Getty Images)

The moves do not redesignate countries for the status, meaning only those currently protected by TPS are eligible for an extension and no new applications can be received. Venezuela’s extension will apply to approximately 600,000 nationals; El Salvador’s will apply to 232,000; Ukraine’s will apply to approximately 103,000; and Sudan will affect about 1,900 nationals. Venezuela’s extension will run until October 2026, and El Salvador’s will run until September 2026, with both having been scheduled to end in the spring of 2025.

The moves, particularly for El Salvador and Venezuela, could complicate efforts by the Trump administration to deport illegal immigrants from those countries. Venezuelan nationals have been a particular focus, given the rise of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, while El Salvador is where the MS-13 gang originated.

Moreno’s letter asked Mayorkas to provide answers to a series of questions, some of them related to the concerns about MS-13. 

“What is the current number of MS-13 members known to be in the United States?” Moreno asked. ” What is the current number of TdA members known to be in the United States? How many of the noncitizens suspected of being associated with MS-13 and/or TdA have remained in this country through a TPS designation?”

The letter also asks for sourcing and data related to the “geological and weather events” cited by the government as well as information about the vetting process for these individuals and answers about how the government is ensuring that these migrants will not commit crimes in the United States. 

Advertisement

Fox News Digital reached out to DHS and the White House but did not receive an immediate response.

The first Trump administration moved to cut down on the number of countries designated for TPS, but the Biden administration has used it broadly, designating or redesignating a number of countries, including Venezuela, Afghanistan and Haiti. There are currently 17 countries designated for TPS.

Both President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance have indicated they want to cut back on TPS once in office, specifically for Haiti.

Fox News Digital’s Adam Shaw contributed to this report

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court casts doubt on TikTok's free-speech defense as shutdown law is set to take effect

Published

on

Supreme Court casts doubt on TikTok's free-speech defense as shutdown law is set to take effect

The Supreme Court justices sounded highly skeptical Friday of TikTok’s free-speech defense, signaling they are not likely to strike down the law that could shut down the popular video site the day before President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office.

The justices, both conservative and liberal, said Congress was concerned with the Chinese ownership of TikTok and the threat to national security. They also said the law in question was not an effort to restrict the freedom of speech.

“Congress doesn’t care about what’s on TikTok,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “Congress is not fine with a foreign adversary gathering all this data on 170 million Americans. … Are we supposed to ignore the fact that its parent company is subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?”

He said he knew of no court precedent that would call for striking down such a law on 1st Amendment grounds.

In their comments and questions, all the justices appeared to agree.

Advertisement

“This law is targeted at a foreign corporation that doesn’t have 1st Amendment rights,” said Justice Elena Kagan.

“There is a long tradition of preventing foreign ownership or control of media in the United States,” added Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Lawyers for TikTok and many of its creators described the law as an unprecedented attack on the 1st Amendment.

“Shuttering the platform will silence the speech of 170 million monthly American users,” they said.

But Congress and the Biden administration said the Chinese-owned platform gives the government in Beijing access to “vast swaths of data about tens of millions of Americans,” which it “could use for espionage or blackmail.”

Advertisement

The justices agreed to decide TikTok’s 1st Amendment appeal on a fast-track schedule, and they are likely to issue a ruling within a few days.

None of them sounded ready to declare the law unconstitutional.

In recent years, the justices have often struck down federal regulations, usually on the grounds that Congress had not authorized such a far-reaching rule.
But they are wary of striking down an act of Congress, particularly one based on a claim of national security.

The shutdown law is due to take effect on Jan. 19.

“We go dark. The platform shuts down,” TikTok attorney Noel Francisco told the court, if it did not act.

Advertisement

Even if the justices were not ready to strike down the law as unconstitutional, he said they should issue an order that temporarily delays the law from taking effect.

“A short reprieve would make all the sense in the world,” he said, because it would give Trump time to try to work out a deal that could keep TikTok in operation.

In 2020, Trump, in his first term, issued an executive order requiring TikTok to separate itself from Chinese ownership, but it was blocked by courts.

President Biden and Congress took up the issue after receiving classified briefings about the potential threat from ByteDance, the Chinese-controlled company that operates TikTok.

The administration tried and failed to work out a deal that would separate TikTok from Chinese control.

Advertisement

The shutdown law had the support of large bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate, and Biden signed it in April. By its terms the law was due to take effect in 270 days, on Jan. 19.

If the law goes into effect, it would be illegal for service providers such as Google or Apple to “distribute or maintain … a foreign advisory controlled application” in the United States. Violations could result in huge civil fines.

TikTok’s last and best hope may now rest with Trump. He changed his view last year about TikTok, which he said helped him reach young voters.

Two weeks ago, he filed a brief urging the court to stand aside and allow him to make a deal with TikTok’s owners.

None of the justices asked about Trump’s intervention.

Advertisement

The law allows for a one-time extension of up to 90 days if the new president determined there has been “significant progress” toward arranging a “qualified divestiture.”

It is not clear whether Trump could invoke that provision to delay the law from taking effect.

On Wednesday, an investor group spearheaded by former Dodgers owner Frank McCourt submitted an offer to ByteDance for TikTok’s U.S. business. Terms of the deal were not disclosed, and a representative for the group, known as the People’s Bid for TikTok, declined to discuss the state of negotiations with the Chinese company on Friday.

“Our assumption is the Supreme Court will uphold the law, and at that point the only way to preserve TikTok under law will be a divestiture,” said Tomicah Tillemann, president of Project Liberty, a New York-based organization that assembled the bid.

Tillemann said the investment group would rebuild the platform in a way that prioritizes the privacy of TikTok users.

Advertisement

“What we are focused on is providing a clear path forward that will allow for the preservation of the dynamic, vibrant community that is TikTok under American ownership,” Tillemann said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending