WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday delaying by 75 days the enforcement of a ban of popular short-video app TikTok that was slated to be shuttered on Jan. 19.
But Trump suggested that the US should be a half owner of TikTok’s US business in return for keeping the app alive.
The short video service used by 170 million Americans was briefly taken offline for US users on Saturday, hours before a law that said it must be sold by its Chinese owner ByteDance on national security grounds took effect on Sunday. US officials had said that under ByteDance, there was a risk of Americans’ data being misused.
TikTok restored access on Sunday and thanked Trump for providing assurances to TikTok and its business partners that they would not face hefty fines to keep the app running. The app and website were operational on Monday, but TikTok was still not available for download in the Apple and Google app stores.
Trump’s order, signed hours after he was inaugurated on Monday, directs the attorney general to not enforce the law “to permit my administration an opportunity to determine the appropriate course of action with respect to TikTok.”
The executive order capped 48 hours of legal maneuvering and political intrigue that left millions of TikTokkers saddened and then elated over the rapidly changing fate of their app.
The debate over TikTok also comes at a tense moment in US-China relations. Trump has said he intends to place tariffs on China but has also indicated he hopes to have more direct contact with China’s leader.
While signing the executive order Monday evening, Trump said that he “could see” the US government taking a 50 percent stake in TikTok and as part of that stake, the US could police the site.
Trump added that if a deal isn’t approved by China, “there’s no value. So if we create that value, why aren’t we entitled to like half?” He said the company could be worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
Trump did not formally invoke the 90-day delay allowed under the statute, which can only be issued if ByteDance had binding agreements to divest the app within 90 days. He suggested a joint venture as a possibility instead.
It would be unprecedented for the US government to demand an equity stake in a major company in exchange for approving its continued use.
Trump’s comments did not address whether ByteDance or other Chinese entities would be allowed to hold a stake in TikTok or if the deal would address US national security concerns about US user data.
The order directs the Justice Department to issue letters to companies like Apple, Alphabet’s Google and Oracle that supply services to TikTok “stating that there has been no violation of the statute and that there is no liability for any conduct that occurred during the above-specified period.” It is still unclear if Trump’s order will be enough for the companies to restore the app to stores in the United States.
“Frankly, we have no choice. We have to save it,” Trump said at a rally on Sunday ahead of his inauguration.
That announcement came as China indicated for the first time it would be open to a transaction keeping TikTok operating in the US
When asked about the app’s restoration and Trump’s desire for a deal, China’s foreign ministry told a regular news briefing on Monday that it believed companies should “decide independently” about their operations and deals.
TikTok gets reprieve with Trump order but with twist
https://arab.news/9qa6p
TikTok gets reprieve with Trump order but with twist
- Trump suggested that the US should be a half owner of TikTok’s US business in return for keeping the app alive
- Short video service used by 170 million Americans was briefly taken offline for US users on Saturday
Prince Harry’s war against UK press reaches showdown with Daily Mail case
- Prince Harry to give evidence in London court for second time
- Media accused of phone hacking and other privacy intrusions
LONDON:Prince Harry’s war against the British press heads into a final showdown next week with the start of his
privacy lawsuit against the publisher of the powerful Daily Mail newspaper over alleged unlawful action he says contributed to his departure for the US
The 41-year-old Harry, a boy when his mother Princess Diana died in a 1997 car crash with paparazzi in pursuit, has long resented the often aggressive tactics of British media and pledged to bring them to account.
Harry, who is King Charles’ younger son, and six other claimants including singer Elton John are suing Associated Newspapers over years of alleged unlawful behavior, ranging from bugging phone lines to obtaining personal health records.
Associated has rejected any wrongdoing, calling the accusations “preposterous smears” and part of a conspiracy.
Over the course of nine weeks, Harry, John and the other claimants – John’s husband David Furnish, actors Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost, campaigner Doreen Lawrence, and former British lawmaker Simon Hughes – will give evidence to the High Court in London and be grilled by Associated’s lawyers.
The prince is due to appear next Thursday. It will be his second such court appearance in the witness box in three years, having become the first British royal to give evidence in 130 years in 2023 in another lawsuit.
Current and former senior Associated staff, including a number of editors of national newspapers, will likewise be quizzed by the claimants’ legal team. The stakes for both sides are high, with not just the reputation of media and claimants on the line, but because legal costs are set to run into tens of millions of pounds. Critics say Harry, the Duke of Sussex, is bitter over unfavorable coverage, from partying in his youth to quarrelling with his family and leaving the UK in later years.
But supporters say it is a noble cause against sometimes immoral media.
“He seems to be motivated by a lot more than money,” said Damian Tambini, an expert in media and communications regulation and policy at the London School of Economics.
“He’s actually trying to, along with many of the other complainants, affect change in the newspapers.”
Harry and his American wife Meghan have cited media harassment as one of the main factors that led them to stepping down from royal duties and moving to California in 2020. Elton John, 77, also has history in the courts with the British press, successfully suing newspapers including the Daily Mail for libel. He received 1 million pounds ($1.34 million) from the Sun in a 1988 settlement over a false allegation about sex sessions with male prostitutes.
Having successfully sued Mirror Group Newspapers, and also won damages, an apology and some admission of wrongdoing from Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers (NGN), the case against Associated could be Harry’s most significant. The 130-year-old Daily Mail, renowned for championing traditional, conservative values, for decades has been one of, if not the most powerful media force within Britain and unlike the Mirror and NGN has not been embroiled in the phone-hacking scandal.
It says it gives voice to millions in “Middle England,” holding the rich, powerful and famous to account.
In 1997, it famously ran a front page denouncing five men accused of the racist killing of Black teenager Stephen Lawrence as murderers and challenging anyone to sue if that was wrong.
The case was a defining moment in race relations in Britain.
Despite that, one of those now suing the Mail is Doreen Lawrence, the mother of murdered Stephen, who says journalists tapped her phones, monitored her bank accounts and phone bills, and paid police for confidential information.
The Associated case will mark one of the final airings in court of accusations of phone-hacking which have dogged the British press for more than 20 years.
The practice of unlawfully accessing voicemails fully burst onto the public agenda in 2011, leading to the closure of Murdoch’s News of the World tabloid, the jailing of its former editor who had later worked as a communications chief for ex-Prime Minister David Cameron, and a public inquiry.
Murdoch’s NGN and the Mirror Group have since both paid out hundreds of millions of pounds to victims of the unlawful activity.
If the claimants lose, Tambini said, “this could be the moment when phone hacking, finally, as a set of issues, went away.”










