Connect with us

Politics

Trump Signs Executive Order in Attempt to Delay TikTok Ban

Published

on

Trump Signs Executive Order in Attempt to Delay TikTok Ban

President Trump signed an executive order on Monday to delay enforcing a federal ban of TikTok for 75 days, even though the law took effect on Sunday and it is unclear that such a move could override it.

The order, one of Mr. Trump’s first acts after taking office, instructs the attorney general not to take any action to enforce the law so that his administration has “an opportunity to determine the appropriate course forward.” The order is retroactive to Sunday.

As he signed the order, Mr. Trump told reporters that “the U.S. should be entitled to get half of TikTok” if a deal for the app is reached, without going into detail. He said he thought TikTok could be worth a trillion dollars.

The order could immediately face legal challenges, including over whether a president has the power to halt enforcement of a federal law. Companies subject to the law, which forbids providing services to Chinese-owned TikTok, may determine that the order does not provide a shield from legal liability.

The federal law banning TikTok, which is owned by ByteDance, mandated that the app needed to be sold to a non-Chinese owner or it would be blocked. The only workaround provided by the law is a 90-day extension if a likely buyer is found. Even then, it is unclear if that option is viable, given that the law is already in effect. The law also restricts how much of a TikTok stake can remain under foreign ownership.

Advertisement

By seeking to override the federal law, Mr. Trump raised serious questions about the limits of presidential power and the rule of law in the United States. Some lawmakers and legal experts have expressed concerns about the legality of an executive order, particularly in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the law on Friday and the national security concerns that prompted legislators to draft it in the first place.

Former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had signed the law, which passed overwhelmingly in Congress last year, forcing ByteDance to sell TikTok or face a ban. TikTok had faced security concerns that the Chinese government could use it to spread propaganda or collect U.S. user data. The law levies financial penalties on app stores and cloud computing providers unless they stop working with the app.

TikTok briefly went dark for U.S. users over the weekend, but returned Sunday following Mr. Trump’s social media announcement that he was planning an executive order. While the app was working again for people who have already downloaded it, it vanished from Google’s and Apple’s app stores on Saturday and remained unavailable on Monday.

Mr. Trump’s efforts to keep TikTok online have major implications for its users. The app has reshaped the social media landscape, defined popular culture and created a living for millions of influencers and small businesses that rely on the platform.

In the executive order, Mr. Trump said that his constitutional responsibilities include national security. It says he wants to consult with advisers to review the concerns posed by TikTok and the mitigation measures the company has taken already.

Advertisement

The administration will “pursue a resolution that protects national security while saving a platform used by 170 million Americans,” according to the order, which called the law’s timing “unfortunate.”

The attorney general will send letters to companies covered by the law to tell them “that there has been no violation of the statute” and they won’t be held liable for providing services to TikTok during the 75 days, the order said.

That might not be enough reassurance, some legal experts said.

“I don’t think it’s consistent with faithful execution of the law to direct the attorney general not to enforce it for a determinate period,” said Zachary Price, a professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco. “And even if that’s OK, the president doesn’t have the authority to eliminate the law itself and remove liability for the people who violate it while it’s not being enforced.”

TikTok and Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Google declined to comment.

Advertisement

TikTok’s ties to China have long raised national security concerns, including with Mr. Trump. Near the end of his first term in 2020, Mr. Trump issued an executive order that would bar app stores from making TikTok available for download. He then pushed for an American company to buy the app, but those efforts fizzled when he lost re-election.

Last year, the effort was revived by Congress and Mr. Biden signed it into law in April. The law targeted app stores, like those run by Apple and Google, and cloud computing companies. It said those companies could not distribute or host TikTok unless the app was sold to a non-Chinese owner by Jan. 19.

Mr. Trump then reversed positions. He joined the app in June and said on television in March that there are young people who would go “crazy” without TikTok.

“I guess I have a warm spot for TikTok that I didn’t have originally,” Mr. Trump said as he signed executive orders Monday evening.

TikTok challenged the law in federal court, saying it impeded its users’ rights to freedom of speech as well as the company’s own First Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the law in December. TikTok appealed to the Supreme Court, which on Friday also upheld the law.

Advertisement

TikTok and some Democrats made a last-ditch effort to stop the law from taking effect. But on Saturday, TikTok stopped operating in the United States and disappeared from Apple’s and Google’s app stores a few hours before midnight. Users grieved its disappearance.

On Sunday morning, Mr. Trump announced on Truth Social that he would “issue an executive order on Monday to extend the period of time before the law’s prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security.” He said he would not punish companies that had violated the law to keep the app online.

Hours later TikTok restored its service to U.S. users and welcomed them back with a message: “As a result of President Trump’s efforts, TikTok is back in the U.S.!”

As he signed executive orders in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump was asked why he had changed his mind about the app.

“Because I got to use it,” he said.

Advertisement

Tripp Mickle and Nico Grant contributed reporting.

Sapna Maheshwari contributed reporting

Politics

Video: Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name

Published

on

Video: Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name

new video loaded: Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name

transcript

transcript

Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name

President Trump’s handpicked board of trustees announced that the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts would be renamed the Trump-Kennedy Center, a change that may need Congress’s approval.

Reporter: “She just posted on X, your press secretary, [Karoline Leavitt,] that the board members of the Kennedy Center voted unanimously to rename it the Trump-Kennedy Center. What is your reaction to that?” “Well, I was honored by it. The board is a very distinguished board, most distinguished people in the country, and I was surprised by it. I was honored by it.” “Thank you very much, everybody. And I’ll tell you what: the Trump-Kennedy Center, I mean —” [laughs] “Kennedy Center — I’m sorry. I’m sorry.” [cheers] “Wow, this is terribly embarrassing.” “They don’t have the power to do it. Only Congress can rename the Kennedy Center. How does that actually help the American people, who’ve already been convinced that Donald Trump is not focused on making their life better? The whole thing is extraordinary.”

Advertisement
President Trump’s handpicked board of trustees announced that the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts would be renamed the Trump-Kennedy Center, a change that may need Congress’s approval.

By Axel Boada

December 19, 2025

Continue Reading

Politics

Judge tosses Trump-linked lawsuit targeting Chief Justice Roberts, dealing setback to Trump allies

Published

on

Judge tosses Trump-linked lawsuit targeting Chief Justice Roberts, dealing setback to Trump allies

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a pro-Trump legal group seeking access to a trove of federal judiciary documents, including from a body overseen by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts – putting an end to a protracted legal fight brought by Trump allies seeking to access key judicial documents. 

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee assigned to the case earlier this year, dismissed the long-shot lawsuit brought by the America First Legal Foundation, the pro-Trump group founded by White House policy adviser Stephen Miller after Trump’s first term; Miller, now back in the White House, is no longer affiliated with AFL.

McFadden ultimately dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, saying Thursday that two groups responsible for certain regulatory and administrative functions for the federal judiciary are an extension of the judicial branch, and therefore protected by the same exemptions to federal laws granted to the judiciary.

“Nothing about either entity’s structure suggests the president must supervise their employees or otherwise keep them ‘accountable,’ as is the case for executive officers,” McFadden said.

Advertisement

TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON VOTING BLOCKED BY FEDERAL JUDGES AMID FLURRY OF LEGAL SETBACKS

Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor are seen at the 60th inaugural ceremony on Jan. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Ricky Carioti /The Washington Post via Getty Images)

The lawsuit by AFL was first reported by Fox News Digital earlier this year. It named both Chief Justice Roberts in his capacity as the official head of the U.S. Judicial Conference, and Robert J. Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and sought access to a trove of judicial documents from both bodies under the Freedom of Information Act.

AFL accused both groups of performing regulatory actions that the lawsuit argued exceeded the scope of the “core functions” of the judiciary, and which it argued should subject the groups to the FOIA requests as a result.

AFL cited recent actions the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office had taken in 2023 to “accommodate” requests from Congress to investigate allegations of ethical improprieties by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and subsequently to create or adopt an “ethics code” for justices on the high court.

Advertisement

“Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch,” AFL argued.

“The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies,” and must therefore be overseen by the president, not the courts, they said.

GORSUCH, ROBERTS SIDE WITH LEFT-LEANING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES IN IMMIGRATION RULING

White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

McFadden disagreed, rejecting the group’s argument that “courts” under FOIA refers only to judges. He concluded that both the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are components of the judicial branch and therefore exempt from FOIA.

Advertisement

“Indeed, if America First were right that only judges and ‘law clerks,’ who ‘directly report to the judge,’ count as part of ‘the courts,’ numerous questions arise, and senseless line drawing ensues,” he said in a memo opinion accompanying his order. “Rather, FOIA’s exclusion reflects that courts include a full range of ‘judicial adjuncts,’ from ‘clerks’ to ‘court reporters,’ who perform ‘tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.’” 

Plaintiffs for AFL, led by attorney Will Scolinos, had argued in their lawsuit earlier this year that the Judicial Conference’s duties are “executive functions” and functions they allege must be supervised by executive officers “who are appointed and accountable to other executive officers.” 

Courts “definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies or administratively supporting those functions,” the group had argued.

The U.S. Judicial Conference is the national policymaking body for the courts. Overseen by the chief justice, it issues policy recommendations and reports to Congress as needed.

TRUMP IS THREATENING TO ‘FEDERALIZE’ DC WITH NATIONAL GUARD AND MORE. HERE’S HOW THAT COULD PLAY OUT 

Advertisement

The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, D.C. ((Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty))

The Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, meanwhile, operates under the guidance and supervision of the Judicial Conference. Its role is to provide administrative support to the federal courts on certain administrative issues and for day-to-day logistics, including setting budgets and organizing data, among other things.

The news comes as President Donald Trump, in his first year back in the White House, has relied heavily on executive orders to advance his agenda — a strategy that has accelerated implementation of campaign promises but also prompted a surge of legal challenges.

 

Trump’s actions sparked hundreds of federal lawsuits this year alone, sending tensions skyrocketing between the executive branch and the courts, including federal judges who have blocked or paused some of Trump’s biggest priorities in his second term. 

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: Who can afford Trump’s economy? Americans are feeling Grinchy

Published

on

Contributor: Who can afford Trump’s economy? Americans are feeling Grinchy

The holidays have arrived once again. You know, that annual festival of goodwill, compulsory spending and the dawning realization that Santa and Satan are anagrams.

Even in the best of years, Americans stagger through this season feeling financially woozy. This year, however, the picture is bleaker. And a growing number of Americans are feeling Grinchy.

Unemployment is at a four-year high, with Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, declaring, “The U.S. economy is in a hiring recession.” And a new PBS News/NPR/Marist poll finds that 70% of Americans say “the cost of living in the area where they live is not very affordable or not affordable at all.”

Is help on the way? Not likely. Affordable Care Act subsidies are expiring, and — despite efforts to force a vote in the House — it’s highly likely that nothing will be done about this before the end of the year. This translates to ballooning health insurance bills for millions of Americans. I will be among those hit with a higher monthly premium, which gives me standing to complain.

President Trump, meanwhile, remains firmly committed to policies that will exacerbate the rising cost of getting by. Trump’s tariffs — unless blocked by the Supreme Court — will continue to raise prices. And when it comes to his immigration crackdown, Trump is apparently unmoved by the tiresome fact that when you “disappear” workers, prices tend to go up.

Advertisement

Taken together, the Trump agenda amounts to an ambitious effort to raise the cost of living without the benefit of improved living standards. But if your money comes from crypto or Wall Street investments, you’re doing better than ever!

For the rest of us, the only good news is this: Unlike every other Trump scandal, most voters actually seem to care about what’s happening to their pocketbooks.

Politico recently found that erstwhile Trump voters backed Democrats in the 2025 governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia for the simple reason that things cost too much.

And Axios reports on a North Carolina focus group in which “11 of the 14 participants, all of whom backed Trump last November, said they now disapprove of his job performance. And 12 of the 14 say they’re more worried about the economy now than they were in January.”

Apparently, inflation is the ultimate reality check — which is horrible news for Republicans.

Advertisement

Trump’s great talent has always been the audacity to employ a “fake it ‘till you make it” con act to project just enough certainty to persuade the rest of us.

His latest (attempted) Jedi mind trick involves claiming prices are “coming down tremendously,” which is not supported by data or the lived experience of anyone who shops.

He also says inflation is “essentially gone,” which is true only if you define “gone” as “slowed its increase.”

Trump may dismiss the affordability crisis as a “hoax” and a “con job,” but voters persist in believing the grocery scanner.

In response, Trump has taken to warning us that falling prices could cause “deflation,” which he now says is even worse than inflation. He’s not wrong about the economic theory, but it hardly seems worth worrying about given that prices are not falling.

Advertisement

Apparently, economic subtlety is something you acquire only after winning the White House.

Naturally, Trump wants to blame Joe Biden, the guy who staggered out of office 11 months ago. And yes, pandemic disruptions and massive stimulus spending helped fuel inflation. But voters elected Trump to fix the problem, which he promised to do “on Day One.”

Lacking tangible results, Trump is reverting to what has always worked for him: the assumption that — if he confidently repeats it enough times — his version of reality will triumph over math.

The difficulty now is that positive thinking doesn’t swipe at the register.

You can lie about the size of your inauguration crowd — no normal person can measure it and nobody cares. But you cannot tell people standing in line at the grocery store that prices are falling when they are actively handing over more money.

Advertisement

Pretending everything is fine goes over even worse when a billionaire president throws Gatsby-themed parties, renovates the Lincoln Bedroom and builds a huge new ballroom at the White House. The optics are horrible, and there’s no doubt they are helping fuel the political backlash.

But the main problem is the main problem.

At the end of the day, the one thing voters really care about is their pocketbooks. No amount of spin or “manifesting” an alternate reality will change that.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending