President Donald Trump is extending the negotiation period for the sale of TikTok from the Chinese Communist Party. The move comes after all parties involved in trying to get a deal before the April 5 deadline failed to come up with an agreement. The parent company of TikTok, ByteDance, is refusing to decouple from the CCP as part of any deal.
"My Administration has been working very hard on a Deal to SAVE TIKTOK, and we have made tremendous progress. The Deal requires more work to ensure all necessary approvals are signed, which is why I am signing an Executive Order to 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 posted on Truth Social Friday. "This proves that Tariffs are the most powerful Economic tool, and very important to our National Security! 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!"
During an interview with Fox News Thursday night AppLovin CEO Adam Foroughi, one leader of many companies bidding for ownership of the application, broke down the negotiations and national security concerns ahead of the deadline.
.@AppLovin CEO Adam Foroughi: Our TikTok Bid Is Uniquehttps://t.co/9Gb6At4EEw pic.twitter.com/t2kNHCgcxR
— Mr Producer (@RichSementa) April 4, 2025
Last year Congress passed bipartisan legislation to ban the application in the United States. That law was held up unanomously by the Supreme Court in January, rejecting the argument a ban violates the First Amendment rights of Americans.
"There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community. 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. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights," the ruling states. "The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is affirmed."
