A federal lawmaker is criticizing the latest TikTok sale deadline extension. Photo Credit: Solen Feyissa
Is the latest extension to the TikTok forced-sale deadline “a clear violation of the law”? At least one member of Congress believes so, and he’s expressing “deep reservations” as a result.
Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) just recently voiced that pushback in an open letter to President Trump, who last week extended the cutoff for ByteDance to divest from TikTok in the U.S.
Prior to this extension (which is the second overall), evidence pointed to an imminent deal for TikTok in the States, we covered in detail. But just before the transaction’s anticipated announcement – and following the White House’s tariffs rollout – China pulled back from the agreement.
Now, against the backdrop of intensifying trade and tariff negotiations, it remains to be seen how the marathon TikTok episode will conclude. Ahead of the grand finale, however, Senator Warner is taking aim at the deadline extension and the reported sale terms for TikTok U.S.
On the former front, the senator reiterated “that the law passed by Congress” – it’s been almost one year since then-President Biden signed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act – “only allowed for a single extension of no more than 90 days.”
“This second delay, announced April 4, 2025,” Senator Warner proceeded, “is a clear violation of the law while also continuing to leave Americans vulnerable to malign influence operations conducted by an adversary country.”
Building on the position, the senator called out the divestiture’s reported particulars – including a non-controlling stake in TikTok U.S. for ByteDance when all is said and done.
(The “reported” descriptor is important; concrete specifics haven’t been directly confirmed in this area. The senator in his letter cited terms highlighted in “news reports.”)
“A successful and comprehensive divestiture will require any successor to scrupulously prevent influence or access by ByteDance or other entities under the jurisdiction of the People’s Republic of China,” the lawmaker wrote. “The deal being discussed undermines confidence that the divested app can be trusted to protect national security and ensure compliance with the law.”
Time will tell exactly what the criticism (coming only from the senator, with no co-signers on the letter) means for TikTok’s possible U.S. sale.
Most immediately here, from the perspective of support among younger voters, logic and evidence suggest that aggressively advocating for TikTok’s stateside shutdown is ill-advised.
Thus, it’s unclear whether the pushback will pick up steam and fuel a broader campaign against the extension. But if so inclined, the senator and others could perhaps increase the pressure on Google and Apple, which are still carrying TikTok in their respective app stores and could technically face massive fines under the language of the forced-sale law.
Regardless, amid reportedly devolving U.S.-China trade talks, it’s also possible that the well-defined TikTok deal (which would require Beijing’s approval) won’t wrap at all. On the other hand, should the long-discussed divestiture come to fruition, it’s safe to say the platform’s executive team will look different under the new owners.
