President Trump has issued a third executive order extending ByteDance’s deadline to divest TikTok’s US operations, moving the date to 17 September 2025. This extension follows the law passed in 2024 that required ByteDance to sell or shutter its US talent by 19 January unless substantial progress was made. The White House maintains the move is legally sound, although some lawmakers dispute Trump’s authority to grant further reprieves.
This extension carries significant legal implications. First, it highlights the enduring tension between executive power and congressional intent. Critics argue that repeated use of executive orders to delay enforcement violates the spirit of the legislation, which was designed to mitigate national security threats swiftly. Supporters counter that it provides necessary time for complex negotiations and data protection agreements. The resulting legal ambiguity fuels uncertainty for TikTok’s future in the US market.
TikTok itself welcomed the reprieve, citing the need to complete divestment negotiations and regulatory approvals. US vice‑presidential staff, working closely with the company, have underscored the priority to maintain platform access for its millions of US users. The administration emphasised that data security and consumer protection remain top of mind during this extension period .
Legal risks now centre on potential challenges in several venues. Congress may push back with new legislation aimed at closing the loophole allowing extensions via executive order. Simultaneously, litigators are likely to test the constitutionality of the president’s authority, raising novel questions about the balance between statutory mandates and executive discretion. Any court rulings could redefine executive authority and shape future enforcement of similar laws.
For legal professionals advising tech companies, this is a critical moment. Contracts, data compliance frameworks and corporate governance need careful review. Firms should prepare for both expedited sale processes and litigation scenarios. Additionally, global businesses must assess how changing US policy might influence cross-border deal structures and investment strategies.
Project contingency plans should also cover the risk of a forced US departure post‑September. Legal advisors would do well to recommend transparent reporting lines, handy data safeguards and flexible deal terms to accommodate shifting requirements. In a landscape where policy meets technology, preparedness is the best legal defence.
