jili alibaba NonePresident-elect Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to pause the potential TikTok ban from going into effect until his administration can pursue a “political resolution” to the issue. The request came as TikTok and the Biden administration filed opposing briefs to the court, in which the company argued the court should strike down a law that could ban the platform by Jan. 19 while the government emphasized its position that the statute is needed to eliminate a national security risk. “President Trump takes no position on the underlying merits of this dispute. Instead, he respectfully requests that the Court consider staying the Act’s deadline for divestment of January 19, 2025, while it considers the merits of this case,” said Trump’s amicus brief, which supported neither party in the case and was written by D. John Sauer, Trump’s choice for solicitor general. The argument submitted to the court is the latest example of Trump inserting himself in national issues before he takes office. The Republican president-elect has already begun negotiating with other countries over his plans to impose tariffs, and he intervened earlier this month in a plan to fund the federal government, calling for a bipartisan plan to be rejected and sending Republicans back to the negotiating table. He has been holding meetings with foreign leaders and business officials at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida while he assembles his administration, including a meeting last week with TikTok CEO Shou Chew. Trump has reversed his position on the popular app, having tried to ban it during his first term in office over national security concerns. He joined the TikTok during his 2024 presidential campaign and his team used it to connect with younger voters, especially male voters, by pushing content that was often macho and aimed at going viral. He said earlier this year that he still believed there were national security risks with TikTok, but that he opposed banning it. The filings Friday come ahead of oral arguments scheduled for Jan. 10 on whether the law, which requires TikTok to divest from its China-based parent company or face a ban, unlawfully restricts speech in violation of the First Amendment. The law was was signed by President Joe Biden in April after it passed Congress with broad bipartisan support. TikTok and ByteDance filed a legal challenge afterwards. Earlier this month, a panel of three federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the statute , leading TikTok to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. The brief from Trump said he opposes banning TikTok at this junction and “seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office.” In their brief to the Supreme Court on Friday, attorneys for TikTok and its parent company ByteDance argued the federal appeals court erred in its ruling and based its decision on “alleged ‘risks’ that China could exercise control” over TikTok’s U.S. platform by pressuring its foreign affiliates. The Biden administration has argued in court that TikTok poses a national security risk due to its connections to China. Officials say Chinese authorities can compel ByteDance to hand over information on TikTok’s U.S. patrons or use the platform to spread or suppress information. But the government “concedes that it has no evidence China has ever attempted to do so,” TikTok’s legal filing said, adding that the U.S. fears are predicated on future risks. In its filing Friday, the Biden administration said because TikTok “is integrated with ByteDance and relies on its propriety engine developed and maintained in China,” its corporate structure carries with it risk.

Sandstorm Gold Ltd. (NYSE:SAND) Receives Average Recommendation of “Moderate Buy” from Analysts

Let’s be honest for a second: Sure, President-elect Donald Trump ’s decision to nominate his daughter Ivanka’s father-in-law, Charles Kushner, to be ambassador to France has raised eyebrows . But that decision almost certainly won’t have any notable impact on your life. Welcome to the presidential inauguration waiting game: Gaming out what Trump will actually do when he takes office, how his choices for top White House and Cabinet jobs will translate into policy and how much and how quickly all of this will affect you, if at all. Most of this is educated guesswork, based on things like Trump’s recent public utterances and his first-term record. It hinges on dynamics like the prospects of Senate confirmations and, if a given candidate is rebuffed, how far the incoming president will go to install them (hint: Get used to the title “acting.”) We take the position that there are no unimportant presidential decisions or nominations. But Trump nominating Rep. Elise Stefanik as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, while setting the stage for a confrontational relationship with that organization, is unlikely to mean much to your daily life. Not only are these two policy areas that Trump obviously cares about, they also don’t require congressional action. The president has wide latitude to raise tariffs and launch the vastest deportation plan in American history – both of which he has labeled Day One priorities . So when he says, as he did recently, that he plans to impose a 25% tariff on all goods from Canada and Mexico, people sit up and take notice. (His stated aim was to coerce greater cooperation from them on blocking immigration and fentanyl flows into the United States.) Economists broadly agree that consumers bear the brunt of the financial burden tied to tariffs. The duties are not paid by the country being targeted but by the importer, which regularly passes along those costs. You’d feel the pinch at the gas pump and the grocery store . But will he do it? Trump had a phone call with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and hosted Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at Mar-a-Lago. After the former, Trump declared victory on immigration across the southern border, but Sheinbaum pointedly noted that the president had extracted no new concessions . Trump and Trudeau both described their talks as “productive” but did not provide details. Does this signal Trumpian resolve to use tariffs? Or did this serve as a steam-valve of sorts that makes them less likely? We had previously noted that the incoming president would claim credit for existing policies, and that appears to be what has happened. Trump’s mass deportation plan (the details are sketchy) would also almost certainly have immediate economic and social impacts – and could put blue localities and the red federal government on an unprecedented collision course. Many American economic sectors depend on immigrants in the country legally and illegally – think agriculture , building maintenance and groundskeeping, construction and food prep. The five states with the largest populations are California, Texas, Florida, New York and New Jersey. Even if Trump prioritizes deporting gang members and criminals at first, the prospects for a mass roundup are sure to have an effect on the millions of non-violent immigrants here illegally – not to mention those here legally who are afraid of being caught up in such an unprecedented dragnet. And what about “mixed” households that include both people here illegally and people here legally (including children with U.S. citizenship)? Trump’s pick to lead the FBI, Kash Patel, is a MAGA diehard who has promised to target domestic political critics of the president-elect and go after journalists. This has enormous ramifications for rule of law and democracy in America. ( There’s scant evidence for Trump’s claim that President Joe Biden used the Justice Department to pursue him.) The president-elect’s vow to fire “woke generals” ( something he can absolutely do , by the way) could have repercussions for military recruitment. Trump’s policies towards Ukraine and Russia, towards Israel and the Middle East as a whole, towards climate, towards public health ? Very important for the future of the country and the planet. Improbable plans to slash federal spending (his advisers have endorsed $2 trillion cuts that are larger than annual discretionary spending )? I would bet that pushing out federal workers and rolling back (or simply refusing to enforce) regulations are more likely, and that could affect millions of Americans (and U.S. businesses) in the near term. But in each case, questions abound: How many Americans will tune these in? Will they see an impact on their daily lives? How will that shape their response? This is not to minimize any aspect of this. It’s to highlight the relationship between policy and politics.

Lionel F. Conacher Buys 8,418 Shares of Better Choice Company Inc. (NASDAQ:BTTR) Stock

Groups break down barriers on Colorado’s slopes to diversify winter sports that are “just so hard to get into”