Trump says 'wealthy' group plans TikTok purchase, needs China approval
He said he will reveal details "in about two weeks."
30 Jun 2025 09:53am
US President Donald Trump. Photo by Andrew Caballero/AFP
ISTANBUL - US President Donald Trump said a "group of wealthy people" plans to purchase TikTok, requiring Chinese government approval for the transaction, Anadolu Ajansi (AA) reported.
"We have a buyer for TikTok, by the way," Trump said during a Fox News interview aired Sunday. "I think I will probably need China's approval. I think (Chinese) President Xi (Jinping) will probably do it." Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump. Photo by Evgenia Novozhenina and Saul Loeb/AFP
Trump described the potential buyers as "very, very wealthy people" forming a group, declining to specify whether a major technology company was involved.
He said he will reveal details "in about two weeks."
The United States (US) Congress passed bipartisan legislation in 2024 requiring ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese parent company, to divest US operations or face a nationwide ban due to national security concerns about potential data sharing with Beijing.
The Supreme Court upheld the law's constitutionality in January.
Trump extended the TikTok enforcement deadline by 90 days to Sept 17 through an executive order in June, marking his third delay of the potential ban.
The video-sharing platform, which serves around 170 million users in the US, briefly went offline prior to Trump's second inauguration but was restored after he promised to postpone enforcement. - BERNAMA-ANADOLU
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Trump's ‘emergency' playbook
TO hear Donald Trump tell it – America is under siege – from within, from without and from all directions in between. According to the president, the country is gripped by rebellion, facing invasion from a Venezuelan gang and under economic assault from foreign actors. Armed with this self-declared crisis narrative, Trump has invoked sweeping emergency powers embedded in US law, dating back centuries. He deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles over the objections of California's governor, deported migrants to El Salvador with little to no due process and triggered trade wars through tariffs he justified as national security measures. Legal scholars argue these moves aren't grounded in the statutes Trump cites, but are instead part of a broader effort to expand his power – and erode constitutional limits. 'He is declaring utterly bogus emergencies for the sake of trying to expand his power, undermine the Constitution and destroy civil liberties,' said Ilya Somin, a libertarian law professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School. Somin represents several businesses, including a wine importer, challenging Trump's tariffs in court. Crisis has always been Trump's calling card. His first inauguration speech painted a bleak picture of 'American carnage', while his latest presidential campaign promised to reverse 'staggering American decline'. The message is consistent: America is broken, and only he can fix it. Now back in office, Trump appears determined to codify that rhetoric into governance – transforming everyday political challenges into full-blown emergencies that grant him exceptional authority. Rewriting the rulebook Trump's justification often rests on laws created long ago to give presidents flexibility during genuine emergencies – such as wars or natural disasters – when Congress might be too slow to act. 'These statutes were passed with the expectation that future presidents would act in good faith,' said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri. 'Genuine emergencies do occur and Congress knows it's slow. It wants presidents acting in good faith to move with rapidity.' But Trump, Bowman warned, is testing that assumption to its breaking point. 'Declaring everything an emergency begins to move us in the direction of allowing the use of government force and violence against people you don't like.' The White House, for its part, blames Democrats for failing to protect Americans from national and economic threats. 'President Trump is rightfully using his executive authority – as evidenced by many victories in court – to deliver resolve and relief for the American people,' said spokesperson Taylor Rogers. In truth, the victories have been limited. Lower courts have mostly rejected Trump's emergency-based legal arguments – most notably, his recent attempt to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify deporting migrants linked to a violent Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua (TdA). The Act, which grants the president the power to deport citizens of nations engaged in war, invasion or 'predatory incursion', has been used only three times before – during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II. In March, Trump argued that the gang's presence on American soil constituted such an incursion. But judges weren't convinced. 'There is nothing in the 1798 law that justifies a finding that refugees migrating from Venezuela, or TdA gangsters who infiltrate the migrants, are engaged in an 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion,'' ruled Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the US District Court in New York City. Hellerstein, a Clinton appointee, dismissed Trump's framing of a criminal gang as a national invasion. 'TdA may well be engaged in narcotics trafficking, but that is a criminal matter, not an invasion,' he wrote. At least one judge – Stephanie Haines, a Trump appointee in Pennsylvania – agreed with the president, calling the gang's presence a 'predatory incursion'. But she's so far in the minority. Emergency, everywhere Beyond immigration, Trump has applied the language of crisis to a range of issues. In April, he imposed tariffs on several countries, claiming that 'foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency'. The move drew legal challenges and two courts have since ruled against him – although a federal appeals court has paused one of the rulings. Trump departing Morristown Municipal Airport in New Jersey.— Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times California, in particular, has resisted Trump's moves. Officials there sued after he federalised a state militia unit without meeting the criteria – which, under law, include an invasion by a foreign power, a domestic rebellion or an inability to enforce federal law. 'The situation in Los Angeles didn't meet the criteria for federalisation,' state officials said at the time. Meanwhile, Trump has amplified fears of a 'migrant invasion', citing it as the basis for stepped-up Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and as justification for bypassing local authorities to exert federal control over state matters. The supreme test So far, the US Supreme Court has not weighed in on Trump's recent emergency declarations. But the justices have shown a willingness to challenge presidents' use of extraordinary powers – including President Joe Biden's Covid-19-era efforts to cancel student debt and extend eviction moratoriums. Historically, the Constitution contains only two major references to 'invasion': one limiting states from declaring war unless 'actually invaded', and another allowing suspension of habeas corpus in the event of 'rebellion or invasion'. The court's most definitive ruling on presidential emergency powers came in 1952, when it rejected President Harry Truman's attempt to nationalise the steel industry during the Korean War. It's a warning that legal scholars say rings louder today, as Trump reframes a wide array of political and legal challenges as existential threats – and reshapes the presidency in the process. 'In Trump's world,' said Bowman, 'everything is an emergency. And that's the real danger.' — ©2025 The New York Times Company This article originally appeared in The New York Times
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
The bombing of Iran may teach an unwelcome lesson on nuclear weapons
IT has been nearly two decades since any country elbowed its way into the club of nuclear- armed nations. US President Donald Trump, with his bombing of three Iranian nuclear installations last weekend, has vowed to keep the door shut. Whether Trump's pre-emptive strike will succeed in doing that is hard to predict, so soon after the attack and the fragile ceasefire that has followed. But already it is stirring fears that Iran, and other countries, will draw a very different conclusion than the one the White House intended: that having a bomb is the only protection in a threatening world. The last country to get one, North Korea, has never faced such an attack. After years of defying demands to dismantle its nuclear programme, it is now viewed as largely impregnable. Trump exchanged friendly letters with its dictator, Kim Jong Un, and met him twice in a fruitless effort to negotiate a deal. In Iran's case, Trump deployed B-2 bombers just weeks after making a fresh diplomatic overture to its leaders. 'The risks of Iran acquiring a small nuclear arsenal are now higher than they were before the events of last week,' said Robert J. Einhorn, an arms control expert who negotiated with Iran during president Barack Obama's administration. 'We can assume there are a number of hardliners who are arguing that they should cross that nuclear threshold.' Iran would face formidable hurdles to producing a bomb even if it made a concerted dash for one, Einhorn said, not least the knowledge that if the United States and Israel detect such a move, they will strike again. It is far from clear that Iran's leaders, isolated, weakened, and in disarray, want to provoke them. Yet the logic of proliferation looms large in a world where the nuclear-armed great powers – the US, Russia and China – are viewed as increasingly unreliable and even predatory towards their neighbours. From the Persian Gulf and Central Europe to East Asia, analysts said, non-nuclear countries are watching Iran's plight and calculating lessons they should learn from it. 'Certainly, North Korea doesn't rue the day it acquired nuclear weapons,' said Christopher R. Hill, who led lengthy, ultimately unsuccessful, talks with Pyong-yang in 2007 and 2008 to try to persuade it to dismantle its nuclear programme. The lure of the bomb, Hill said, has become stronger for America's allies in the Middle East and Asia. Since World War II, they have sheltered under a US security umbrella. But they now confront a president, in Trump, who views alliances as incompatible with his vision of 'America first'. 'I'd be very careful with the assumption that there is a US nuclear umbrella,' said Hill, who served as ambassador to South Korea, Iraq, Poland, and Serbia under Democratic and Repub-lican presidents. 'Countries like Japan and South Korea are wondering whether they can rely on the US.' Support for developing nuclear weapons has risen in South Korea, though its newly elected president, Lee Jae-myung, has vowed to improve relations with North Korea. In 2023, US president Joe Biden signed a deal with Seoul to involve it more in nuclear planning with the US, in part to head off a push by South Korean politicians and scientists to develop their own nuclear weapons capability. In Japan, the public has long favoured disarmament, a legacy of the US atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But it has begun debating whether to store nuclear weapons from the US on its soil, as some members of Nato (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) do. Shinzo Abe, a former prime minister, said that if Ukraine had kept some of its Soviet-era bombs, it might have avoided a Russian invasion. Russian President Vladimir Putin's threats to use tactical nuclear weapons early in that conflict gave pause to the Biden administration about how aggressively to arm the Ukrainian military. It also deepened fears that other revisionist powers could use nuclear blackmail to intimidate their neighbours. The lesson of Ukraine could end up being, 'If you have nuclear weapons, keep them. If you don't have them yet, get them, especially if you lack a strong defender like the US as your ally and if you have a beef with a big country that could plausibly lead to war,' wrote Bruce Riedel and Michael E. O'Hanlon, analysts at the Brookings Institution, a research group in Washington, in 2022. Saudi Arabia, an ally of the US and arch rival of Iran, has watched Tehran's nuclear ambitions with alarm. Experts say it would feel huge pressure to develop its own weapon if Iran ever obtained one. The US has tried to reassure the Saudis by dangling assistance for a civil nuclear programme, but those negotiations were interrupted by Israel's war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. And yet, for all the predictions of a regional arms race, it has yet to occur. Experts say that is a testament to the success of non-proliferation policies, as well as to the chequered history of countries that pursued weapons. The Middle East is a messy landscape of dashed nuclear dreams. Iraq, Syria, and Libya all had their programmes dismantled by diplomacy, sanctions or military force. In the category of cautionary tales, Libya's is perhaps the most vivid: Moammar Gadhafi gave up his weapons of mass destruction in 2003. Eight years later, after a Nato-backed military operation toppled his government, he crawled out of a drainpipe to face a brutal death at the hands of his own people. Iran's strategy of aggressively enriching uranium, while stopping short of a bomb, did not ultimately protect it either. 'To the extent that people are looking at Iran as a test case, Trump has shown that its strategy is not a guarantee that you will prevent a military attack,' said Gary Samore, a professor at Brandeis University who worked on arms control negotiations in the Obama and Clinton administrations. Samore said it is too soon to say how the Israeli and American strikes on Iran would affect the calculus of other countries. 'How does this end?' he said. 'Does it end with a deal? Or is Iran left to pursue a nuclear weapon?' Experts on proliferation are, by nature, wary. But some are trying to find a silver lining in the events of the last week. Einhorn said that in delivering on his threat to bomb a nuclear- minded Iran, Trump had sent a reassuring message to US allies facing their own nuclear insecurities. 'In Moscow, Pyongyang, and Beijing,' Einhorn said, 'they've taken notice not just of the reach and capacity of the US military, but the willingness of this president to use that capability.' — 2025 The New York Times Company This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
A fiery fortnight
COULD one lunch in Washington cause so much dyspepsia in Delhi, or indigestion in Islamabad? On June 18, 2025, US President Donald Trump invited Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir for a private meal in the White House's Cabinet Room. He set five places: for himself, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and an aide. The field marshal sat with Lt-Gen Asim Malik, Inter-Services Intelligence head and Pakistan's national security adviser. There was no place for a representative of Pakistan's elected government. (Later, Rubio deadened Islamabad's pique by phoning Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.) Trump's working lunch, scheduled for an hour, extended to two. In July 2019, Trump received then Pakistan PM Imran Khan and spent almost four hours taking him on a tour of the White House. Trump had hoped that after the recent G7 meeting in Canada, Indian PM Narendra Modi would accompany him to Washington. Modi 'politely' declined, rejecting yet again Trump's contention that he brokered the Indo-Pakistan ceasefire in May. Returning to Washington, Trump tweeted that he had brokered peace deals between the DPR of Congo and Rwanda; Serbia and Kosovo; Egypt and Ethiopia; and the Abraham Accords (aimed at easing relations between Israel and Arab nations). But, he griped: 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between India and Pakistan. I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran.' Within days of Trump's lunch, Pakistan indulged his whim. Pakistan, in 'obsequious bondage', formally recommended Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, citing his 'strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship'. The Iranians would prefer to see Trump receive a different award – for duplicity. During the past fiery fortnight, while Iran and Israel lobbed missiles and drones at each other, Trump held out that he would decide Iran's fate 'within a fortnight'. He encouraged the UK, France, and Germany plus the EU to negotiate with Iran in Geneva. No sooner had they retired for the weekend than, overnight last Sunday, Trump gave the order for a sneak attack on Iran. Seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers flew over supine Syria and impotent Iraq. They dropped more than 190,000kg of explosives on Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. This mission – planned over months – was executed within hours, with multipronged precision. It involved 14 GBU-57 'bunker buster' bombs and two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a US submarine. The attack on Fordo was not entirely successful. It had to be repeated by a second sortie of B-2s. Trump exulted at his 'spectacular military success', warning of 'far greater' attacks if Iran did not 'make peace'. Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu heaped shovels of praise, congratulating the 'awesome and righteous might ... which will change history'. He continued: ''President Trump and I often say, 'Peace through strength'. First comes strength, then comes peace.' Netanyahu's strategy is to make Israel, with US backing, the preeminent power in the region and, at a personal level, to fortify his position within Israel. Trump's intervention has made his dream a reality. The tail has finally wagged the dog. It bit. Today, Iran – a Shia state headed by an 87-year-old cleric – stands alone, surrounded by a herd of Arabian sheep. Will Iran capitulate? Unlikely. For centuries since October 680 CE, Shias every year recall the martyrdom of Imam Hussain and his companions at Karbala. Iran's leadership may well believe: 'If you are prepared to die, nobody can kill you.' On Tuesday, after an attack by Iran on the American Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar (artfully choreographed with US connivance to minimise damage), Trump claimed he had arranged a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. They obeyed his intervention by violating the ceasefire. An irate Trump has been driven to spouting expletives. Israel's actions have obviously emboldened India. Its Home Minister Amit Shah declared again that India will never restore the Indus Waters Treaty: 'We will take water that was flowing to Pakistan to Rajasthan by constructing a canal. Pakistan will be starved of water that it has been getting unjustifiably.' Pakistan seeks negotiations, but has warned India continued suspension or abrogation of the IWT constitutes a casus belli. Would a war result in a dependable supply of water? Or is PM Modi's plan to convert Pakistan into a modern Karbala? When threats replace diplomacy, nations like Pakistan and Iran are vulnerable victims of the vaunting ambition of others. Trump's maverick decisions, Netanyahu's gory genocide, Modi's aversion to negotiations, and the Dr Strangelove advice of US hawks to Trump that he should 'reluctantly blow Iran to smithereens' remind one of Friedrich Schiller's maxim: 'Against stupidity, even the gods fight in vain.' — Dawn/ANN FS Aijazuddin is an author.
