China using TikTok as a pawn to squeeze Trump in trade talks: sources
TikTok is being used as a pawn in the US-Chinese trade negotiations by Beijing, which knows that Trump wants the app to remain operating in the US, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
There will be no sale of TikTok to American investors — a move that is needed to conform to a US law that bans the app from operating domestically — until Chinese President Xi Jinping is confident he has extracted as much as he can in terms of a favorable trade deal with the White House, these people add.
Chinese President Xi Jinping will extract as much as he can in terms of a favorable trade deal with the White House, sources told On The Money..
Jack Forbes/NY Post Design
'Trump still doesn't have a seller,' is how one person involved in the talks described the situation.
The problem, the source said, is that 'Xi is a no-show' in putting TikTok front and center in the broader trade talks, at least up to this point.
Which is why bankers and investors involved in the TikTok dealmaking who keep tabs on the trade machinations were more than a little perplexed when Trump, appearing on Fox News on Sunday, said: 'We have a buyer for TikTok. … I'll tell you in two weeks.'
He added that China will 'probably' allow the sale to 'very, very wealthy people. It's a group of wealthy people.'
Having 'very wealthy people' willing to step up and buy TikTok is nothing new.
In April, a group of wealthy investors and tech honchos were poised to place a bid with the Chinese to buy the US based operations until Trump launched a trade war against Beijing, hitting China with 145% tariffs on imported goods.
Trump has been seeking a solution since returning to the White House, issuing a series of executive orders to keep the TikTok ban from going into effect.
AP
That number has since been lowered as both sides negotiate other trade issues as part of a broader deal.
As for buyers, this person said either tech giant Oracle, co-founded by Trump pal Larry Ellison, the previous investor group, or a combination of both would be interested in taking a controlling stake in TikTok's US operations and stop it from going dark.
In 2024, a bipartisan group of US lawmakers, fearful that the Chinese use TikTok to spy on US citizens, passed legislation, signed by former President Biden, that the company would cease operating on US app stores unless the Chinese gave up control of the platform.
The ban was to go into effect Jan. 19, the day before Trump's inauguration.
Trump once wanted TikTok banned but became a fan after the 2024 election, where he believed pro-Trump spots on the app helped him win over younger voters, which represent the majority of TikTok's users.
He has been seeking a solution since returning to the White House, issuing a series of executive orders to keep the ban from going into effect despite prominent Republicans arguing that the law is still being flouted by Trump's delaying tactics and even the latest deal iteration.
Under the terms of the last negotiated deal, the Chinese wanted a minority stake in the new US-investor controlled company and continued ownership of TikTok's crown jewel – its technology, the algorithm that funnels videos based on preferences to users, which lawmakers claim is used to spy on US citizens.
The Chinese have long denied the spying issue, but US lawmakers remain concerned that majority US control still doesn't provide enough protection from alleged spycraft.
That's one reason it took so long to come up with a structure that satisfied all the competing constituencies, and why even after finding a buyer that appeals to the seller, TikTok might still be banned in the coming months unless Trump issues yet another extension after the current one expires in mid-September.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
25 minutes ago
Trump tariffs goods from Brazil at 50%, citing 'witch hunt' trial against Bolsonaro
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump singled out Brazil for import taxes of 50% on Wednesday for its treatment of its former president, Jair Bolsonaro, showing that personal grudges rather than simple economics are a driving force in the U.S. leader's use of tariffs. Trump avoided his standard form letter with Brazil, specifically tying his tariffs to the trial of Bolsonaro, who is charged with trying to overturn his 2022 election loss. Trump has described Bolsonaro as a friend and hosted the former Brazilian president at his Mar-a-Lago resort when both were in power in 2020. 'This Trial should not be taking place,' Trump wrote in the letter posted on Truth Social. 'It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!' There is a sense kinship as Trump was indicted in 2023 for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The U.S. president addressed his tariff letter to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who bested Bolsonaro in 2022. Bolsonaro testified before the country's Supreme Court in June over the alleged plot to remain in power after his 2022 election loss. Judges will hear from 26 other defendants in coming months. A decision could come as early as September, legal analysts say. Bolsonaro has already been ruled ineligible until 2030 by the country's electoral authorities. The Brazilian government did not immediately respond to Trump's posting of the letter. Trump also objected to Brazil's Supreme Court fining of social media companies such as X, saying the temporary blocking last year amounted to 'SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders.' Trump said he is launching an investigation as a result under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which applies to companies with trade practices that are deemed unfair to U.S. companies. Unmentioned in the letter was that X is owned by Elon Musk, Trump's multibillionaire backer in the 2024 election whose time leading Trump's Department of Government Efficiency recently ended and led to a public feud over the U.S. president's deficit-increasing budget plan. Trump also owns a social media company, Truth Social. The Brazil letter was a reminder that politics and personal relations with Trump matter just as much as any economic fundamentals. And while Trump has said the high tariff rates he's setting are based on trade imbalances, it was unclear by his Wednesday actions how the countries being targeted would help to reindustrialize America. The tariffs starting Aug. 1 would be a dramatic increase from the 10% rate that Trump levied on Brazil as part of his April 2 'Liberation Day' announcement. In addition to oil, Brazil sells orange juice, coffee, iron and steel to the U.S., among other products. The U.S. ran a $6.8 billion trade surplus with Brazil last year, according to the Census Bureau. Trump also sent letters Wednesday to the leaders of seven other nations. None of them — the Philippines, Brunei, Moldova, Algeria, Libya, Iraq and Sri Lanka — is a major industrial rival to the United States. Most economic analyses say the tariffs will worsen inflationary pressures and subtract from economic growth, but Trump has used the taxes as a way to assert the diplomatic and financial power of the U.S. on both rivals and allies. His administration is promising that the taxes on imports will lower trade imbalances, offset some of the cost of the tax cuts he signed into law on Friday and cause factory jobs to return to the United States. Trump, during a White House meeting with African leaders, talked up trade as a diplomatic tool. Trade, he said, 'seems to be a foundation' for him to settle disputes between India and Pakistan, as well as Kosovo and Serbia. 'You guys are going to fight, we're not going to trade,' Trump said. 'And we seem to be quite successful in doing that.' On Monday, Trump placed a 35% tariff on Serbia, one of the countries he was using as an example of how fostering trade can lead to peace. Trump said the tariff rates in his letters were based on 'common sense' and trade imbalances, even though the Brazil letter indicated otherwise. Trump suggested he had not thought of penalizing the countries whose leaders were meeting with him in the Oval Office — Liberia, Senegal, Gabon, Mauritania and Guinea-Bissau — as 'these are friends of mine now.' Countries are not complaining about the rates outlined in his letters, he said, even though those tariffs have been generally close to the ones announced April 2 that rattled financial markets. The S&P 500 stock index rose Wednesday. 'We really haven't had too many complaints because I'm keeping them at a very low number, very conservative as you would say,' Trump said. Officials for the European Union, a major trade partner and source of Trump's ire on trade, said Tuesday that they are not expecting to receive a letter from Trump listing tariff rates. The Republican president started the process of announcing tariff rates on Monday by hitting two major U.S. trading partners, Japan and South Korea, with import taxes of 25%. According to Trump's Wednesday letters, imports from Libya, Iraq, Algeria and Sri Lanka would be taxed at 30%, those from Moldova and Brunei at 25% and those from the Philippines at 20%. The tariffs would start Aug. 1. The Census Bureau reported that last year that the U.S. ran a trade imbalance on goods of $1.4 billion with Algeria, $5.9 billion with Iraq, $900 million with Libya, $4.9 billion with the Philippines, $2.6 billion with Sri Lanka, $111 million with Brunei and $85 million with Moldova. The imbalance represents the difference between what the U.S. exported to those countries and what it imported. Taken together, the trade imbalances with those seven countries are essentially a rounding error in a U.S. economy with a gross domestic product of $30 trillion. The letters were posted on Truth Social after the expiration of a 90-day negotiating period with a baseline levy of 10%. Trump is giving countries more time to negotiate with his Aug. 1 deadline, but he has insisted there will be no extensions for the countries that receive letters. Maros Sefcovic, the EU's chief trade negotiator, told EU lawmakers in Strasbourg, France, on Wednesday that the EU had been spared the increased tariffs contained in the letters sent by Trump and that an extension of talks until Aug. 1 would provide 'additional space to reach a satisfactory conclusion.' Trump on April 2 proposed a 20% tariff for EU goods and then threatened to raise that to 50% after negotiations did not move as quickly as he would have liked, only to return to the 10% baseline. The EU has 27 member states, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The tariff letters are worded aggressively in Trump's style of writing. He frames the tariffs as an invitation to "participate in the extraordinary Economy of the United States," adding that the trade imbalances are a 'major threat' to America's economy and national security. The president threatened additional tariffs on any country that attempts to retaliate. He said he chose to send the letters because it was too complicated for U.S. officials to negotiate with their counterparts in the countries with new tariffs. It can take years to broker trade accords. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba interpreted the Aug. 1 deadline as a delay to allow more time for negotiations, although he cautioned in remarks that the tariffs would hurt his nation's domestic industries and employment. Malaysia's trade minister, Zafrul Aziz, said Wednesday that his country would not meet all of the U.S. requests after a Trump letter placed a 25% tariff on its goods. Aziz said U.S. officials are seeking changes in government procurement, halal certification, medical standards and digital taxes. Aziz he indicated those were red lines. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is set to arrive Thursday in Malaysia's capital of Kuala Lumpur.
Boston Globe
31 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court won't revive aggressive Florida immigration law
The Supreme Court has given the Trump administration great leeway in pursuing its immigration agenda. In a series of orders ruling on emergency applications from the administration, the justices have allowed it to lift protections for hundreds of thousands of people who had been granted temporary protected status or humanitarian parole, allowing them to be deported. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The court also allowed the administration to pursue so-called third-country deportations, sending migrants to places other than their home nations without an opportunity to argue that they would face the risk of torture. Advertisement Wednesday's order suggested that the court may take a different view of states' power over immigration. The law, adopted by Florida lawmakers this year, created two new crimes. The first, entering the state after eluding federal authorities, called for a mandatory nine-month misdemeanor sentence for a first offense and escalating felony sentences for later ones. The second crime, reentering the state after having been deported, is a felony. The law requires people arrested on suspicion of violating either provision to be jailed without bond while their cases proceed. Advertisement Two migrants' and immigration rights groups quickly challenged the law, saying it interfered with the federal government's power to set immigration policy and to conduct foreign affairs. Judge Kathleen M. Williams of US District Court in Miami temporarily blocked enforcement of the law. A three-judge panel of the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals refused to pause Williams' ruling, saying it was likely that federal immigration laws preempted the state law. The panel put the appeal on a fast track, and the Trump administration filed a brief supporting the state. At least six other states have similar laws, all enacted in the past two years, as Republican lawmakers have sought to harness the energy President Trump has brought to the immigration issue and to stiffen penalties for migrants without legal residency status. Every court that has considered the laws has ruled against them, according to a Supreme Court brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the challengers. Those courts relied on Arizona v. United States, a 2012 decision in which the Supreme Court endorsed broad federal power over immigration by a 5-3 vote. 'Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration,' while the federal government tries to address them, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, 'but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.' The court's composition has changed since then, and officials in Florida had been hopeful that the current justices would alter the balance of power between the federal government and the states in the realm of immigration. Advertisement In Florida's emergency application, James Uthmeier, the state's attorney general, said there was no conflict between federal law and the relevant parts of the state statute. 'Florida carefully crafted both provisions to precisely track, mimic and depend upon federal immigration law,' he wrote, adding that a contrary view 'strikes at the heart of states' ability to protect their citizens from the devastating effects of illegal immigration.' On July 3, after that brief was filed, a divided three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit ruled against a similar Texas law. 'For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the power to control immigration — the entry, admission and removal of aliens — is exclusively a federal power,' Judge Priscilla Richman, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote for the majority. Florida officials have been aggressive in trying to enforce the new law, despite Williams's ruling. In an April letter to state law enforcement agencies, Uthmeier wrote that it was his view that 'no lawful, legitimate order currently impedes your agencies from continuing to enforce Florida's new illegal entry and reentry laws.' Last month, Williams, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, held Uthmeier in civil contempt for the letter, which she found defied her April ruling. 'Litigants cannot change the plain meaning of words as it suits them, especially when conveying a court's clear and unambiguous order,' Williams wrote. 'Fidelity to the rule of law can have no other meaning.' Responding on social media, Uthmeier wrote that 'if being held in contempt is what it costs to defend the rule of law and stand firmly behind President Trump's agenda on illegal immigration, so be it.' Advertisement The contempt finding was not directly before the justices, but Florida's seeming defiance of Williams' ruling may have colored their view of the state's emergency application. This article originally appeared in
Wall Street Journal
33 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
The Economic Drain of Mass Deportation
President Trump is voiding work authorizations for hundreds of thousands of migrants from Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti and other troubled places, and on Monday he ended temporary protected status, or TPS, for thousands of Hondurans and Nicaraguans. A day later Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins pledged no compromise on mass deportation and 'a 100% American workforce.' Does the White House really mean that, or is it another fusillade of rhetorical deterrence? Sometimes Mr. Trump talks about giving farms and hotels a deportation pass, given how much they rely on immigrant labor. By the way, these Hondurans and Nicaraguans were originally granted TPS after Hurricane Mitch tore through Central America in 1998. It's reasonable to ask what's so 'temporary' about this protection. On the other hand, if people have lived and worked in the U.S. under TPS for 30 years, what's to be gained by kicking them out?
